Let 'em Eat Cake!
I checked on the rumor about resident comments. It appears to be true. Unfortunately, there doesn’t appear to be anything in the Sunshine Law statutes that states that residents should be allowed to address their elected representation. Our solution will be to call our council members (contact information available on the city’s website ) and encourage them to override this decision. It should only take a majority of the council to allow residents’ comments. Or course, that debate will probably take 30 minutes—time that should have been appropriated to resident comments.
In addition, urge them to not place a limit on how many people can speak. While the 3-minute rule is acceptable, it is completely unacceptable to deny some their right to address the council while allowing others. This falls under the same reasoning as moving the meeting. In that case, it was reasonable to state that the right to attend the meeting shouldn’t be granted to the first 160 folks that show up. The same should hold true with addressing the council.
The subject of residents’ comments had me thinking. Just last year, the cc had debated this subject. Who was the loudest? Why it was Purzner and Knode! Where is their outrage now?
Here is a synopsis:
At the March 14, 2005 meeting Purzner was very vocal in regards to resident comments. She put forth a resolution (that lost) to begin to air the resident comments again during the cc broadcasts on Thursday nights.
From a March 17, 2005 article in the North Post:
At the May 9, 2005 meeting the issue was brought up again and this time, with a new council, it passed.In addition, urge them to not place a limit on how many people can speak. While the 3-minute rule is acceptable, it is completely unacceptable to deny some their right to address the council while allowing others. This falls under the same reasoning as moving the meeting. In that case, it was reasonable to state that the right to attend the meeting shouldn’t be granted to the first 160 folks that show up. The same should hold true with addressing the council.
The subject of residents’ comments had me thinking. Just last year, the cc had debated this subject. Who was the loudest? Why it was Purzner and Knode! Where is their outrage now?
Here is a synopsis:
At the March 14, 2005 meeting Purzner was very vocal in regards to resident comments. She put forth a resolution (that lost) to begin to air the resident comments again during the cc broadcasts on Thursday nights.
From a March 17, 2005 article in the North Post:
In response, Purzner said, "I don't think televising public comments would be detrimental. I think the people should be heard. When people have comments, they should be (shown on TV)." Purzner also said that if public comments were aired on cable, more residents would likely attend and comment during meetings.
Here are excerpts from a May 12, 2005 article in the North Post:
A newly elected councilman, Richard Knode, 1st Ward, made the motion to expand the televised portion of the meetings to include resident comments. "It's time to start giving back," he said. "One of the main issues during my campaign brought to my attention over and over again was why the resident comments were not televised. I really didn't have a good answer for them. People should have the right to say what they want to say. It's called freedom of speech."
It’s amazing the difference a year makes. Or is that pro-ORT speech has more freedom than that of those opposed to the ORT?
posted by suzyjax at 2:23 PM
6 Comments:
Exactly what is the purpose of this meeting? Has the budget committee met since the 8/14 meeting to discuss a new budget?
I only ask since this was not a regularly scheduled meeting.
One reason I am aware of is that we need to hold a public hearing on setting the tax rates. I believe this is in regard to the municipal portion of property taxes.
As for the Council meeting to follow, I am sure there will be an effort to appoint someone to the Ward 3 seat. Also, they will likely hold another vote on the budget. Unless there have been some meetings that were not publicly announced (and Budget Committee Meetings ARE public meetings) then I seriously doubt the measure will pass.
I am not aware of any other issues on the table at this time. However, it is not like our local government has been very forthcoming with information since April.
suzyjax,
I'm glad you brought that up.
I had forgotten all about that.
You are definetly right though,
their is a big difference in how they feel now.
Great post!
I went by city hall last night to take a peek at the agenda. It is mostly dealing with the tax levy issue. There will be a hearing and then some bills dealing with the tax levy.
You would think it would run smooth.
There is an agenda item for a 3rd ward appointment. From what I understand, the council members have NOT been provided with a name or qualifications. Insert your theory on these actions here.
Here is a work around for residents comments. At the beginning of the meeting is a hearing on the tax levy. The sole purpose of the hearing is for residents comments. So, if we word our comments around the tax issue then we should be able to speak.
For example: "I am completely against using the property taxes to pay for free trash."
"I am completely against using the property taxes to restore Legion Pool."
"I am completely for using the property taxes to fully fund police pension funds."
You get the point...
Let's use the property tax to establish a fund for neighborhood preservation matters.
The city has too many dilapidated homes, while some seniors haven't the funds to keep their porches painted. Some homes need to be condemned and leveled!
Heck, after all, it isn't called a PROPERTY tax without reason. The more we reinvest in Overland's housing stock, the more property tax Overland will generate!
The police pension fund is over $20 million now anyway, isn't it?
Post a Comment
<< Home