April 16 Council meeting

[Steven Greenwell]

I hope it is not a problem that I started a new thread on this. I'm still learning the etiquette of posting here. Ivor already has a comment about this meeting on the "Coup d' etat" thread -- but that one is so long now I thought we could start another one on this last Council meeting.

I am not offering a report on the whole meeting (Stan already does a great job on that). I simply wanted to offer a couple reflections on some comments and events. Also to put my comments in perspective, I was not at the Friday meeting so I can't say how statements made last night are connected with those events.

However, these are some thoughts I had after leaving last nights meeting...

One of the Councilman stated that anyone who has not served on Council can truly understand the process that they go through in their deliberations. While I agree with that statement I do not agree that it is a valid premise for his conclusion that therefore citizens should understand when a decision is made to disallow public comment at a city council meeting. He went on to remind the audience that they had opportunities to present their views to council through personal contact, e-mail, or calling the council phone number and leaving a message 24 hours a day.

Perhaps our right to voice our opinions on issues can be exercised through the various means suggested but I am just as concerned about the role of public discourse. As some council members have learned the concerns of leadership on council does have consequences for the general citizenry and therefore the citizens should have the opportunity to hear and partake in the debate. I know the act of listening to arguments for and against a topic (or reading it hear on the Observer) can offer views I did not consider or even change my opinion. We need to have the opportunity in the proper forum (and I believe a city council meeting is such a forum) to offer opinions and listen to others about matters that affect our lives as citizens.

One councilmember last night stated that the council will be making decisions over the next several months that will be the most important faced by the city in the past fifty years. My understanding is that some council members believe that

better

internal leadership is needed at this time as these issues are addressed. Since Mr. Seelie has been elected council president several times I would suggest that any council member who has voted for him more than once has little justification to suggest a change is needed now.

I hope that the jostling for position by candidates for position during this election season will not detract from the council and administration responsibilities to work together to address the important issues facing our city. I am concerned that so much time and energy seems to be going into the process of their deliberations rather than the meat of the issues.

And on a final note... I've been impressed with his photos and now I see he is also an excellent public speaker! In response to a question from the audience about the schools preparedness for an emergency Ivor signed up for public comment and gave a fine extemporaneous presentation on his belief that the schools are doing a good job of addressing this issue.

[dl meckes]

I strongly agree that public comments and/or questions belong in public meetings called by public officials.

I heard no arguments that convinced me otherwise and it makes no difference to me who sits in the seat of the President of Council if that person denies the public the right to speak.

[Danielle Masters]

It was nice to see such a large crowd last night, I hope this means more people will regularly be attending council meetings. Last night while reading various things I can across and interesting and relevant post by Stan, it states:

Usually, when council considers proposals the debate and negotiation is public in the committee meetings or on the floor of council.

This is not the case with the election of council leadership. Discussions between the seven members are generally private and only occasionally can some of the deliberations and reasoning be reported either first hand or by attribution.

I just have to wonder why the decision was made to make the special meeting a public meeting, perhaps all parties would have been better served by closing the doors as Mr. Fitzgerald said has happened in the past. I just have to question what we as a community will gain by publicly airing our dirty laundry.

That being said though it does appear that the next meeting regarding this subject will be public and maybe this will get more of the public involved on a regular basis, at least then some good could come out of this.

[Charyn Compeau]

So I am clear (my daughter is in an athletic camp 2 hours a night every night this week so I am desperately behind in my reading)

There was concern about the legality of the meeting on Friday. Is that being addressed? If so, by who?

There was a vote to name Butler as chair of the Committee of the Whole - does that currently stand (noting that the announcement Monday still indicated Seelie as the chair). If so, when is he expected to take over his duties.

Thank you for your time & patient responses.
Charyn

[Stan Austin]

Charyn--- There definitely is a question about the legality of the Friday meeting. Specifically, whether it was done in accordance with the charter and state laws regarding open meetings and notification among other things.
Violations of these various provisions include many remedies including removal from office.
The Law Director is responsible for investigations and rulings in this area.
I would think that the chair of the committe of the whole and finance remain as it was prior to that meeting because there certainly wasn't any report from council at its regular meeting last night to the contrary.
But, as Mary Louise Madigan has pointed out, the law director is the lawyer for the whole city including city council. Therefore, she along with the rest of us will look to that direction for clarifications on these matters.
Stan

[Charyn Compeau]

Thanks Stan!