Justification or Just BS?
For those who haven't seen it yet, the mayor has a new message on her website. In this week's epistle, the mayor attempts to justify her pending legal woes and subsequent bills that she will be forcing upon the city. She readily admits that she could not do the right thing on her own, but must wait until "the court gave an order on this matter."
She backs up her actions by quoting section 110.150 of the city's ordinances (aka meetings held in city hall) and that she took an oath to "abide by this ordinance." Note the clever use of the word this.
She ignores the existense, and thus enforcement, of ordinance 140.090 that has language that mirrors Missouri's Sunshine Law in regards to size of meeting location to be sufficient to hold the expected audience.
It seems that when you have conflicting laws you would err on the side of citizen participation and rights. In addition, when your laws conflict with state statute, state laws trumps city ordinance.
Again, she excuses her actions by saying she didn't have the power to move the meetings. She states that if she had moved the meetings that she would have "deprived the Council of its legislative duties and overstepped my authority." Explain that when the council passed resolutions to change the venue (7/10 meeting), you vetoed such a measure (8/14 meeting). How does that enable the Council to perform its legislative duties? How does that enable the city to stay out of court? And since when have you been afraid to overstep your authority?
She backs up her actions by quoting section 110.150 of the city's ordinances (aka meetings held in city hall) and that she took an oath to "abide by this ordinance." Note the clever use of the word this.
She ignores the existense, and thus enforcement, of ordinance 140.090 that has language that mirrors Missouri's Sunshine Law in regards to size of meeting location to be sufficient to hold the expected audience.
It seems that when you have conflicting laws you would err on the side of citizen participation and rights. In addition, when your laws conflict with state statute, state laws trumps city ordinance.
Again, she excuses her actions by saying she didn't have the power to move the meetings. She states that if she had moved the meetings that she would have "deprived the Council of its legislative duties and overstepped my authority." Explain that when the council passed resolutions to change the venue (7/10 meeting), you vetoed such a measure (8/14 meeting). How does that enable the Council to perform its legislative duties? How does that enable the city to stay out of court? And since when have you been afraid to overstep your authority?
posted by suzyjax at 12:13 PM
4 Comments:
She did not have the BRAIN power to move the meetings.
She CERTAINLY possessed the AUTHORITY to move the meetings.
Ann Poisoner,
Ken OPoisonby,
Richard Commode and
Tom Skilless, - ALL must go.
It's THEM or US.
Word is that Residents Comments is not on the agenda for tomorrow (Monday's) meeting!
I'd love to see a visit by all the major media, and have privately organized program. I'd like to see 15 speakers, each getting one minute of microphone time. The applause eats up time, though.
I don't see how they can legally limit residents comments. Is this their new work around the law? Just completely eliminate comments? Oy!
When it comes to residents comments there is no legal requirement to have them that I am aware of. However, it was my understanding (at least in regard to regularly scheduled council meetings) that you need to have a vote of the council to change the agenda, so at least it will not be easy for them to remove residents comments from the regularly scheduled meetings (assuming that information is correct of course).
the new views on her website are more attemps to justify doing the wrong thing, MOST all the time.
She just does not get it, and never will. Maybe she will after she's out of office though she may still be in court then.
Post a Comment
<< Home