A bit of background, now. When this new C.C. makeup talked about their goals, establishing a new set of Rules of Procedure and Code of Conduct was Number One on their list.
NOT! That is NOT TRUE. Heck, it didn't even make it into the top ten, according to one very knowledgeable resident. It is the council's TWELFTH highest goal.
But no matter, A NEW WEDNESDAY MARCH 21, 2012 is now listed on our city's web site and THE ONLY new business is the 'new' draft documents that city staff could not get published for public consumption by 5:00 PM today.
The Brown Act requires a minimum of 72 hours between the time an agenda can be set, staff reports are published and the public informed and the meeting time in which the item will be discussed and possibly voted on.
Okay, again it's my blog so I can make conjecture, provide opinion and I ABSOLUTELY encourage any and all to also make conjecture, provide opinion, offer facts, and provide your own comments, which I will publish.
What is so darn important about this issues that it requires a WEDNESDAY meeting, outside the regular 1st and 3rd Tuesdays meetings?
I've already read the apology and excuse from our City Manager and I'm not buying it as far as I can throw that boulder that traveled to LACMA. Perhaps a certain C.C. member worked with our City Manager and staff to try, all day, to get the documents ready before 5 P.M. but that is just possibly my imagination.
Tuesday's meeting as YET ANOTHER item about setting goals and priorities. Gee, haven't they had since December to finish that, finally?
I WILL read the entire new document and note some changes that may be different than the March 14 DRAFT document that at least one city offical might want you to ignore.
To say the fit has hit the shan with at least one Council member doesn't give enough credit to the fit or the shan.
I thank everyone who has viewed this blog in the last day or so and I offer no reasonable excuse as to why I haven't been more involved with what has been happening in, I mean TO our city, and its residents, lately.
I do marvel at the number and diversity of thought among so many of our residents and I can only be very proud when far lefties like me can join with those all the way through the center and well into the far conservative regions, all seeming having some common problems with what the council's Sub-committee is trying to put into law.
I hope to be able to report that at least one member has received crystal clear messages from lots and lots of our residents and business owners. I hope to be able to report that there is no longer any type of 'pledge' any volunteer in our city is required to sign or adhere to.
I hope you all have the chance to read the 'new' DRAFT document. It is at:
http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/citycouncil/agendas/2012_Agendas/MeetingDate-2012-03-21/RPVCCA_SR_2012_03_21_01_Council_Rules_of_Proc.pdf
It is my opinion that it is ridiculous for ANOTHER meeting being held on WEDNESDAY, just to have this one item in the 'Regular New Business' part of the agenda.
It appears to me that it is a 'rush to judgement' by certain council members who just might want these things to pass without proper review, just minimal review.
Some of what I have written about in two previous posts seem to have found more confirmation, sadly. I won't say I didn't expect this and as many of you know I am not a big fan of Ms. Brooks.
There is great hope and I have some positive feelings about what might happen come between now and Wednesday night. There are much leveler heads than I have in our city and I think they will come forth and help me either get this whole matter put off to the next regularly scheduled C.C. meeting or someone or some two just might find it in their best interests to seek to have this whole 'boondoggle' table to a future date AND at least one more revision.
We'll see. It's going to be yet another bumpy Saturday, I feel.
I'll write a comment to this post after I have digested the 'new' DRAFT and if it still smells the way many folks in our city thinks the last one does, I'll let you know my opinion.
I wrote too many words as comments to the comparisons between the two documents, so I had to create another post, below
ReplyDelete