Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Feedback


From the in box:

Gotta love the transparency that was demonstrated on Monday. They didn't want Maggie's video to get the full meeting treatment. Nobody was sure what was going to be on it, so they played it safe, including no TV.

So how to have a meeting to play the video and not really do anything? Make the meeting about creating a subcommittee. Bond's email telegraphed it. Stocks' comment from the dais indicates he knows what the plan is. The newspaper reports show they already know the costs and did their homework. And Bond admitted he talked to Kristin. Meanwhile the city manager lets the game of charades go on, and Teresa went right along with them.

Burning questions: Was it in the public's best interest for the staff to not present the findings of their homework at Monday's meeting? Can a single council person tell the city manager what to keep from a public discussion and staff report? Can a majority do that, behind closed doors?  Probably not. The staff report is the STAFF's report, not the Mayor's report.

2 comments:

  1. Excuse me! Barth has only one vote. Would you rather have Kristin and Jerome on the sub committee?

    A very simple minded post, you can do so much better.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I won't speak for the author of the email, but I would rather have had Jerome and Jim on the subcommittee for sure.

    Unless, the subcommittee is where the plan gets approved (Brown Act violation), what is the advantage of being on the subcommittee?

    Unless, all the deliberation is going to happen behind closed doors (open government?) why does it matter if Barth is on this subcommittee? The deliberation will happen at the next council meeting, hopefully, this time with a fact filled staff report to work with.

    Voting against a backroom subcommittee would have highlighted the majority's bizarre behavior and how this "process" is being manipulated from day 1. Instead, Teresa's one "vote" validates the behavior.

    Maybe we don't understand. Why was a delay and a subcommittee a good thing? Why exactly would it be bad for Jim and Jerome to be on the subcommittee?

    Were Jerome and Jim disadvantaging themselves on this HUGE decision, because they want to do the right thing, which was to have a subcommittee without them on it?

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for posting on our blog.
Anonymous comments are allowed after moderator review.
The moderator works at his leisure.