The Problem(s) with Residents’ Comments
It is a sad day in American democracy when the elected leaders have little regard for the opinions and feelings of those that they serve. The Queen and her lot are an egregious example of this—they say they are “for the people” and claim such when they speak about “free trash”, yet seem to have little regard for the residents themselves.
To bastardized a line from one of my favorite movies “How can you say you love Overland when you so clearly hate Overlanders?”
Overlandites? Overlandians? Whatever—you get the point.
By putting residents’ comments at the end, the mayor is creating a situation that may bring about disturbances during the meeting. If residents do not have time to comment on the business of the day, until after such business is conducted, they may be wont to scream out their distaste during the meetings. Don’t we already have enough of this?
By putting residents’ comments at the end, the Queen and her ORTians are likely to leave. Really, you could show less distaste for the residents by putting them at the beginning—before the meeting is called to order--and just showing up late. It’s a win-win. You can avoid feedback AND save face.
Some might say we are making too big a deal of this. But, if we won’t stand up for our rights to address government on a local level, we are likely to lose them at all levels. And, the good folks of Overland are not alone. This weekend, Channel 2’s You Paid For It! segment focused on a similar plight of the residents of St. Peters. You can see it here. Close your eyes and substitue the word Overland for each mention of St. Peters and it works!
Perhaps, we should let Elliot know that St. Peters' residents are not alone. This might be one overlooked component of the many issues facing Overland. And, it is a trend that we do not want to see carry forward (either for Overland or other cities).
The Queen said she was willing to change the agenda. Let's urge her and our council members to put residents comments at the front, to not limit the NUMBER of people who can speak, but limit the time in which each resident can comment. (The latter two points being a compromise between the two factions.)
I think May, O'Connell, Schnieder, and Corcoran would be amenable to this compromsie. The real question is if The Queen and her ORTians are willing to undig their heels.
To bastardized a line from one of my favorite movies “How can you say you love Overland when you so clearly hate Overlanders?”
Overlandites? Overlandians? Whatever—you get the point.
By putting residents’ comments at the end, the mayor is creating a situation that may bring about disturbances during the meeting. If residents do not have time to comment on the business of the day, until after such business is conducted, they may be wont to scream out their distaste during the meetings. Don’t we already have enough of this?
By putting residents’ comments at the end, the Queen and her ORTians are likely to leave. Really, you could show less distaste for the residents by putting them at the beginning—before the meeting is called to order--and just showing up late. It’s a win-win. You can avoid feedback AND save face.
Some might say we are making too big a deal of this. But, if we won’t stand up for our rights to address government on a local level, we are likely to lose them at all levels. And, the good folks of Overland are not alone. This weekend, Channel 2’s You Paid For It! segment focused on a similar plight of the residents of St. Peters. You can see it here. Close your eyes and substitue the word Overland for each mention of St. Peters and it works!
Perhaps, we should let Elliot know that St. Peters' residents are not alone. This might be one overlooked component of the many issues facing Overland. And, it is a trend that we do not want to see carry forward (either for Overland or other cities).
The Queen said she was willing to change the agenda. Let's urge her and our council members to put residents comments at the front, to not limit the NUMBER of people who can speak, but limit the time in which each resident can comment. (The latter two points being a compromise between the two factions.)
I think May, O'Connell, Schnieder, and Corcoran would be amenable to this compromsie. The real question is if The Queen and her ORTians are willing to undig their heels.
posted by suzyjax at 10:54 AM
24 Comments:
The problem is, Purzner did not put resident comments at the END of the meeting (before adjournment), she put them AFTER adjournment of the meeting. There is a difference. This way if the meeting is adjourned, they are not bound to stay and listen.
On October 13th Purzner and her 3 yes men walked out on the resident comment portion of the agenda (after adjournment). See the motive?
I see your reasoning. I think it goes beyond binding them to stay. I also think that they should be at the beginning of the meeting so that residents can voice concern/favor/ unfavor with particular business going before the council.
But, the smoking gun of your comment is that The Queen ordered the City Clerk to put the comments after the adjournment in hopes that folks wouldn't stay that long. (I think that's her same reasoning to mini-adjourn to executive session.)
Suzy,
You are absolutely correct :-)
Illogical Blue Eyes. To say to folks that were locked out of the meeting that it is "up to them to get there ahead of time" defines illogical (and defies logic). There is only a finite amount of seats in the chambers. If one group gets there earlier, another group is disenfranchised and shut out. Someone is going to be locked out, period. One person getting their earlier only benefits them, not the problem as a whole.
Sigh, is that turkey defrosted yet.
Suzy and Fido summed up Musical Blue Goats comments accurately. There was neither rhyme nor reason to her comment, except its ok to break the law. Fido, even the Hells Angels have better sense to abide by THEIR By-Laws (ordinances so to speak), more than I can say for the Mayor.
Blue Eyes,
You need to take a dip in the pond at Wild Acres or better yet Legion Pool.
But forget you there are more importants things.
As of Tuesday the mayor had the citizen's comments again after the meeting ended.
But as of today the comments have been moved to the front of the adgenda.
Anyone want to know why. Rumor has it that the election board has called and guess what
YAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! for the darkside. Sorry SWEATY
Despite Kmode saying COG was asking for signature at Schnucks (lie, he would of had photos, knowing him and Wanda baby & let's not forget Courtney & her visiting every poll to take snap shots). Sorry Charlie as of right now you lose.
Kmode also walked out of a meeting the other night regarding the insurance for the employee's. He's on the committee but has only showed-up to one meeting. Seller
s soon followed. Their insurance is up in January and must be decided on before then.
Let's see what Kmode can come up with between now & Jan.
Correction:
It was Owensby that walked out of the insurance meeting the other night not Knode and Knode that is not showing up. When they are discussing spending over $600 thousand for employee benefits
Fannymae,
First, the last time I checked, my name is not Jeffrey.
Second, who are you?
Third, AGAIN, (this is getting old) go back and reread my post, I never mentioned the word brothel. I think I have used the words, hotel, motel, bed-n-breakfast & bedroom community.
And as far as knowing things, good lord where have you been. Do you even live in Overland? Because if you have lived in Overland for any length of time you would not be asking me that question.
And as far as my wife, considering you don't even know my name I doubt you know my wife. But my wife did get a good laugh over it.
Article in the post this morning has the Board of Elections confirming the number of signatures COGG turned in. They validated 3,650 out of 3,843 according to them.
I would like to thank all of the workers for doing such a GREAT job.
Group is hoping it will be on the ballot in April & the paper said municipal matters could also go before the voters in Feb.
Mayor has also put out the adgenda for Monday's meeting.
As of Tues. citizen's comments were at the end of the meeting but when they posted the adgenda on Wed. they had been moved to the beginning. Guess she had a change of heart.
Regarding citizens comments, the mayor has put them both at the beginning and the end. Or basically, allotted 15 minutes up front and then the rest AFTER adjournment. For those who can't swing by city hall, the agenda is posted here.
This goes with the same reasoning (or lack thereof) of Blue Goat's post about getting their early. Basically there will be two class of citizens comments. Those in the first 15 minutes who can address their concerns and those after adjournment. This is not right. This is not American. Your rights are not distributed on a first-come, first serve basis.
Edgar Casey,
I was so excited when I read the paper this morning I couldn't wait. Thank you for putting the article on so everyone can read it, I do not know how to do that.
It is a credit to all those involved that only 193 signatures were thrown out. Someone told me they figured around 10% but this was only 5.
I'm pretty sure there's more then 10 people giving thanks this morning for this good news.
Hope everyone has a safe & wonderful Thanksgiving!!!!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
In the interest of space (and scrolling through comments), PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE post links to outside articles instead of posting them verbatim here.
Well, it might avoid any legal or copyright issues, too. (i.e. The comment makes it appear that the Post-Dispatch has the phrase "Hey Tom eat shit!" within the body of their article. )
Otherwise, love the postings Edgar!
Norm,
Maybe we should just go ahead and allow the ordinance to go the voters. Its so vague and loosely written that I am not sure it actually accomplishes anything. Maybe the best strategy would be for the majority to refer it back to the legislative committee with instructions to tighten it up and work with the City attorney to draft an ordinance that will withstand legal scrutiny. That type of position is politcally defensible. You can explain to the voters that you have no objection in putting issues to them; however, there is not sense passing any oridance that may be challenged. That is what a City Attorney does for a city..... he's the guy sitting down there on the end with no microphone.
Suzyjax, I am no fan of Purzner but I am not so sure that splitting public comment is the worst thing that has ever happened in government. The residents' comments are not, nor have they ever been, part of the meeting. Like other cities, the comments are taken before the commencement of and during the meeting. This is because the meeting is convened for the members of the legislative body and the public is not a member of that body. Resident comments differ from public hearings required by ordinance because a public hearing is the legislative body acting in its quasi-judicial capacity in making certain factual findings.
Also, the residents' comments are not restricted in topic like the other agenda items. For that reason, it is impossible for the City to include the topics on the public notice. No public notice equals Sunshine Law problems (something that Con knows all about).
So, whether the comments are before, after or both is really of no significance, constitutional or otherwise. America is full of examples of rights being administered on a first-come, first-served basis. Ever wait in line to vote? Most cities place the comments at the beginning out of consideration to the public so they do not have to sit around and listen to the business boredom. Its a matter of style. Our Mayor has neither consideration or style.
Even I must admit that the residents' comments are getting old. How many times do we need to hear someone screaming at the Mayor and her monkeys. I say go ahead and move them to the end. If you have something to say, stick around to say it. If she decides to leave and doesn't want to hear it, that's her right. The solution is to vote her out which is what we are doing.
Damn Edgar! Thanks for the laugh. I almost fell out of my chair. (The thud heard around Overland?!)
Lucky, you are right in that the city doesn't even have to allow citizen comments. And, I too, tire of the same ol', same ol' variations of "Ann is evil". The problem is that blocking those folks also blocks those who want to speak about the actual business before the council (e.g. Ordinance allowing 55 mph speed limit on Lackland) would not have a say until after the fact. Unless, one was one of the chosen "15 minute" few.
The ORT leadership team wishes one and all a joyous Thanksgiving.
The ORT leadership team wishes one and all a joyous Thanksgiving.
I believe the land in mention is the parcel owned by R. Schrader et al, at 2806 Woodson.
It's less than a half-acre - 100x200. Certainly it's enough for ONE single-family home.
I suppose villas make sense to keep a single family home from being lonely and sticking out against the background.
I believe the current owner is to hold title to the property until such time as a home is sold. The sign says Overland Development Corporation, correct?
I think the principals are a restaurant owner teaming up with a builder.They should be listed in the State's office. To me it's an irrational worry to fret that they're linked with MB and CK, until there's reason to surmise as much.
With the Villas so close to being on line, too bad we don't have a boutique hotel nearby.
Whitefolks, I agree that you need to have adequate facilities for a meeting. I am not sure I agree that everyone must be heard. The Sunshine Law prohits a city's business from taking place behind closed doors. If you have input and time has run out, write a letter. Like voting, everyone can write a letter.
Letters are nice, but voting is forceful. Votes by a majority cannot be ignored. Letters are meaningless to a leader who fails to show evidence of an open mind.
I'm of the opinion that this mayor does not handle her own correspondence. After sending many letters, all I got was a letter indicating nothing but procrastination.
Letters by the hundreds may count, especially to a listening official. I wouldn't consider letters to this administration a very meaningful effort. However, contacting the outside authorities may be effective: the ACLU, the county PA, and J. Nixon, to name a few.
Lucky,
I thought more about the "first come first serve" statement and the analogy to voting. I guess it would have been better if I said "quantities limited--first come, first served".
Or, while I may wait in line to vote, voting is not guaranteed to only the first 250 people who show up at the polls.
The same with resident comments. If you allow one citizen the right to address their government, the same right should be bestowed on all. Same--not seperate but not-equal.
The Queen would be better off eliminating them altogether (something she has threatened to do and can do with proper council approval). I am not for that move and would promote it as the ORTians refusal to hear outside views.
True. But then better to eliminate them in whole, than to only deliver to a chosen few.
Post a Comment
<< Home