Apparently, for the last 39 years or so, our former Mayors and Council members did not know anything about Rules of Procedures and Codes of Conduct, I write sarcastically.
Of course you and I know they did, but that didn't stop two elected members and the City Manager-led staff to create a new DRAFT set of items, just like trying to reinvent the wheel, I feel.
In the larger document, a mention of "Spirited Debate" among residents of our city appeared to be something negative to those who wrote the documents.
Our city needs and must have spirited debates to best offer our residents and businesses the greatest freedom to make decisions that affect so many people.
There are several areas I have some trouble with and what I have been hearing and reading lately, I'm not the only one who has some real questions for at least three individuals.
"Values-based ethics policy" Whose values must folks conform to?
"Pledge" This is a thorny issue because why must talented, intelligent, creative, helpful and great volunteers sign or conform to a pledge when they ALL probably have the best interests of our residents and businesses in mind from the get-go?
It also might be a violation of what is left of our First Amendment right of free speech and assembly.
There is one procedure involving the taking of votes that I have an issue with.
In the DRAFT Rules of Procedure, if a vote is taken and someone remains silent, that silence might constitute an affirmative vote.
I think this is very bad because it allows the silent one to 'skate' or 'skirt' the issue being voted on.
The best way to conduct a legal vote is to require the voter to say 'Yea', or something like that, "Nay", or something like that, or "Abstain" or "I Abstain".
We are currently in "Sunshine Week" where openness, honesty, and clear representation is called for, not 'back room politics' or something like that.
The vote on the DRAFT was originally scheduled for "March 14" NOT a regularly scheduled meeting of our C.C. and NOT being held at either City Hall, Hesse Park, or P.V. I.C., but rather at an non televised meeting area at the Officers College of the Salvation Army.
Thankfully, some folks finally were made to realize that it would look quite bad if the Rules and the Code was passed with fewer than five C.C. members at a non-regular location and not televised.
But wait! There's more.
Folks from the far right are joining with middle of the roaders and folks like me on the far left to let everyone know that something is quite amiss by this whole thing.
While I have no facts to back up the following, since this is my blog, I get to include conjecture, guess, and opinions, not necessarily based on facts, BUT based on what I have seen, heard, read, or know from history.
My conjecture is this: I think the "Sub-committee" which included Mayor Misetich and Council member Brooks had most of their work done by Council member Brooks. Our Mayor travels quite a bit and he has been out of the country and traveling around inside our country, which is his right and his professional responsibility.
I think Council member Brooks, after the 'One Hour Rule' was rescinded may have taken more than full advantage of meeting with staff members, including spending lots of time with our City Manager.
I feel we should demand from the Sub-committee members a full explanation as to how, when and why these DRAFT documents were created and who, besides Sub-committee members provided input into the creation of the documents.
WE elected our C.C. members to represent us with opinions, oversight, guidance, advice and consent and when it now appears that much of their authority and the rights and authority of Commissions and Committees and especially our Planning Commission might be curtailed in deference to work by one city employee, there must be some real examination done.
It does appear in writing that, while there are four options that may allow C.C. members to mandate the placement of issues on their own agenda, most of what is conveyed is that the City Manager, now and forever, might have the authority to dictate, completely what the C.C. sees and does and also what the Planning Commission sees and does.
The Planning Commission is also a body that can make legal decisions and they must also be provided with certain authorities and rights also provided now to the C.C.
It is also my opinion that Ms. Brooks stuck her foot into too much of a power grab for the City Manager, for reasons I still don't know...but I can ponder about.
As for "values", I feel Ms. Brooks and our City Manager have not used their very best to represent our city, during this process and many folks think that the 'values' offered and demonstrated by those two individuals are not 'values' they share.
No comments:
Post a Comment