I'm going to comment on this meeting change once. If you think my statements are crazy, fine. This is based on what I know, not what I think.
Some members of the City council brought up changing the meetings again. Regardless of the public statements they are making, they do not have the public's best interest in mind. I seen with my own eyes proof that these people want to restrict, or deny not only public input, but other council members, and also attendence at these meetings.
So here's the deal- I'm not going to release any information now, but if this passes I will post what I have right around election time. While it wouldn't affect the people not running, it would hamper the campaign of all who are behind this lie. This is a promise, not a threat. I know what's being said, and who said it, and if this isn't a lawsuit magnet, I will follow up on my promise. This little gang of four had better wise up and realize that some of the public have proof of what they're trying to pull, and how they really feel about the public input part of the meetings. Some of us know you refer to it as 'the worse part of the meeting.' Or my favorite 'When and how often should the Council meet, and how much, if any at all should it dialogue with the Public?' Ring a bell gentlemen? Some of us know you guys want total control with no opposition. Just remember some of us aren't afraid to let the rest of the public know what you're trying to pull. So take care of the real issues and quit trying to muzzle the people who elected you. That's what I know. Your comments are welcome.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Print it now Cruiser. Why wait and put us through hell for the next 9 months trying to influence a closed door council?
My source does not want to be revealed and if I put it all on the table now it would be very rough for them. We'll have to see how things go.
The thing is, much of the city agrees that public input currently not working corrently. I've been told many times how people watch Channel 18 for entertainment. Its like a running joke, and that's not a good thing when its serious business. I just don't see a way to stop the crazy comments without stopping the good. Dale Gilmour, for example, usually has pretty decent comments.
Intentions or not, I don't see how the current proposal will hurt anything. If they view it as the first step down the road to no public input, then maybe. Also, Cruiser, you're putting a lot of trust in your source to make those kind of accusations. Sometimes people have axes to grind.
If people are watching the televised meetings for entertainiment, they're still watching the meetings. There's a growing number of people in Davenport, our house included, who have satatlite and cannot get the channel. The council doesn't seem worried about that. With the information I recieved I trust this source 100%. And I don't want anymore of my rights taken away, regardless of the reasons.
Lawsuits?? Rights taken away??? Four chances to speak on any item on the agenda - public with business and the item - at COW and the regular meeting. Seven days between meetings to lobby, call, e-mail, blog the aldermen and the mayor- and to get info back from staff. Running meetings the same way every other city in Iowa does - as well as twice as many meetings as most cities in other parts of the country.
I think you are either crazy or taking this way too personally.
I don't take anything except crime too seriously. As for the call, e-mail, or blog the Aldermen and Mayor comment, I've been waiting 2 months on a question I asked and don't expect to get a reply. I think you might be the crazy one if you're buying what they're selling.
I'm standing behind you 100% on this Cruiser. What ever you do, DO NOT GIVE UP YOUR SOURCES! This informant is valuable and trusts you.
I do hope that we are on the same page of which four because there are five I can not stand. Very sneakly and very unperfessional.
You guys are dopes!
Ugh. I hate when people argue the side I'm on in a stupid way, IE the guy above me.
I pretty much agree with 9:21 though. If the folks don't listen to you after 4 times in front of the council, would more really help? If some Aldermen are ignoring you now, are they going to ignore you even more with only 1 meeting a week?
I think having the meetings at 5:30 is one of the best parts of the change, because it might open up the option of running for Alderman to more folks.
Thanks joe. QCI, I have no problem with the time change, just with how the public comments will be handled. I am not a camera hound, but when something I feel strongly about is up for discussion I can at least bring it to the attention of the 3 or 4 aldermen who do listen. I also don't like that it muzzles aldermen as well at the discretion of the meeting chair. As to being ignored, I just ask another alderman until I get an answer, or run out of aldermen.
If these alderman are ignoring us without a valid reason then they need to be hitting the road. I too feel that as many time I have had conversations with alderman, I get the notion that they are looking through me and not at me. So I go to the source I know and force a response from them though the media/public access. At least I have it on tape and these folks can't say they wern't informed.
I believe some of them think public comments are a nuisance. We can comment, but not to any one alderman, and if they have a question, they can't ask us to clarify. Taking away people's rights to talk at these meetings isn't the answer.
The history of that rule is linked directly with the open meetings laws. The reason the council (or any borad) should refrain in having a dialog with a speaker at a public meeting is due to the possibility that a particular course of action or the issue itself is not on the posted agenda. If the Council or a council member were to recommend action that wasn't properly posted, the council could be liable for a claim of violation of the open meetings laws.
I would note that the open meetings laws are in place to protect your rights. You may not like its effect and see it as taking away your rights, but that is why it is the way it is.
2:18 just made my case on why I'm opposed to eliminating the committe meetings. The public at COW will have little effect on setting the agenda for the council meeting because it's already set going into COW. Period.
I know about the open meetings laws, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with all of them. And I also know the agenda is set before the meeting. But this change will also affect an unpopular Alderperson from bringing something up if left to the discretion of the chair. At most of these they know how the vote's going to go before the meeting, but I'm more concerned with the erasure of public comments.
Post a Comment