Mooresville commissioners on Monday passed a resolution defining the mayor's authority to sign documents on the town's behalf.
The measure passed 4-2, with Commissioners Frank Rader and Mitch Abraham opposed. Voting in favor: Commissioner Miles Atkins, who proposed the resolution, along with Commissioners Thurman Houston, Mac Herring and Chris Carney.
The resolution came on the heels of recent Report questions about whether Mooresville Mayor Bill Thunberg operated outside of state law earlier this year when he signed release deeds, without authorization from the town board, on two pieces of property that the South Iredell Community Development Corporation (SICDC) sold in the Mooresville Business Park. (See "Did Mayor operate outside state law?" April 28.)
The resolution defines "the power of the Mayor related to the execution of documents on behalf of the Town that bind the Town contractually, that affect the indebtedness of the Town, or that releases property interests of both real and personal property held by the Town." The resolution does not, however, limit the mayor's authority to "perform those acts that are considered ministerial in nature."
Carney, who made the motion to approve the resolution at last night’s town board meeting, said his reasoning was simple: “State statutes do not give or take away the (authority) of the mayor … there is nowhere in state statutes for us to get direction,” he said. “Passing the resolution lets us address something that the current law did not address. It’s important for us to guarantee the fact that we have processes in place, and this was meant to do that.”
Carney said he believes it’s important that future town boards “look at a situation and think about it from every step of the process, from the purchase to the financing to the eventual release of deeds. And that’s the important part of why this resolution happened.”
He said that Town Attorney Steve Gambill assured commissioners last night that the resolution would not impact the town’s future economic development. Instead, said Carney, “It just puts in place something that can help us ensure that (taxpayer) money in the future will be accounted for.”
Herring said that he doesn’t believe the resolution was necessary per se, but that he voted for it in an effort to be responsive to the public. "I'm not sure that (the resolution) has a significant impact on current day-to-day operations, but I feel it likely does not, as there are no current issues we know of that this affects. Nor do I believe our current mayor had done anything illegal or underhanded. It was simply a 'loophole' that had never been plugged.
"To fix it is sort of a 'retro' thing, like plugging a hole in your old canoe now that you are using a motorboat," Herring added. "It was a vestige of a bygone day that had just run its course.
"However," he said, "I do believe this goes a long way to restoring public trust and providing assurances that we have a 'transparent and responsive' municipal government. That is why I ended up supporting it after much thoughtful discussion."
Likewise, Houston said he supported the resolution "after thoughtful discussion with others" and after realizing that the resolution would not prevent the mayor "from doing his duties."
"I decided to support this resolution because this goes a long way to restore public trust and (show) that the board of commissioners hears the citizens," he said.
Atkins said he proposed the resolution simply because he felt it was “the right thing to do.”
"Proposing a resolution that demonstrated the board's desire to promote transparency and foster public trust seemed to me the right thing to do," Atkins said. "That was the intent and what I hoped to accomplish by making this policy change."
But other commissioners apparently perceived the issue as one about personalities and power.
Abraham said he voted against the resolution not because of its content, but because of “the manner in which it came about.”
“As one of the commissioners said last night, this was a knee-jerk reaction to a unique situation that more than probably will never occur again," Abraham said in an e-mail to the Report this morning. "My 'no' vote was in principle to state my position against this type of reaction and not against the content!! I would hope that my 'no' vote is only construed in this manner, as that was its intent!!!
"We as board members have to trust each other and show diplomacy to each other as we are asked to work together for the best of Mooresville. This does not say that we do not disagree and get into debate on various issues, sometimes heated, but we must be very up front and open with each other as this process occurs.
"Personal agendas and showmanship aside," Abraham continued, "we must come together for the best of Mooresville, through total agreement or through compromise.
"Defining the mayor's roles in the resolution was okay and should show to the public that their electeds are in touch with them on being communicative and open,” Abraham stated, adding, however, “I personally still interpret that the statutes of the state already had us covered on the mayoral duties (authority) of that position and we would have been okay leaving the situation alone, as is."
Rader did not respond to Report e-mails today.
***
A little commentary:
In recent years, a growing number of people in the Mooresville community have been fighting to make our government more open and accountable to the people. Last night’s spirited debate – and eventual adoption of the resolution – is a huge step in the right direction.
The commissioners who voted for the resolution made a bold statement that their job is to protect the taxpayers of this town and not the office of the mayor. And while I disagree with Abraham’s reasoning in voting against the resolution, he promptly and openly explained the rationale behind his vote.
Having an open government does not mean that we must or will agree with every decision a commissioner, or our town board as a whole, makes. But when elected officials remember who they work for and keep us at the forefront of each and every decision they make – when they discuss and debate our business in front of us instead of over the phone, through their Black Berry devices (paid for by our tax dollars) or behind closed doors – when they are open and responsive to the public, regardless of whether we agree or disagree – that is open government.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
44 comments:
Isn't it sad that this is even necessary at all? Why would any elected official assume he has authority to act in such a manner. A repsonsible official would always assume that he DOES NOT have such authority until it is explicitly granted to him.
I have read elsewhere in this blog references about the uncovering of an alliance between mayor Bill Thunberg and Commissioners Mitch Abraham and Frank Rader. I believe the alliance is being called the "Rat Pack". I have to say this latest development certainly lends credence to the notion that such an alliance does indeed exist and that it may not be a healthy one. Mr. Abraham's comments are worrisome, to say the least, but so is Mr. Rader's silence. At this point, the citizenry must become watchful and vigilant that this minority on the board does not begin usurping the will of the board and therefore the will of the people the board represents.
Too late for that 9:08... this has been going on for years! Very little is decided in public... most items have been decided long before they hit the public arena behind closed doors. And do not praise the town attorney too much, where has he been all this time - he is suppose to keep the Board from doing stupid stuff like this and many other things they have done. He just sits in the meetings like a bump on a log looking at notes. Talk about not doing your job - he even admitted to knowing the Mayor violated state law by signing the forms. He lets the Board make mistakes then tries to clean up later - sounds too much like a janitor! And we're paying him in excess of $100K!! Any legal issues is contracted out... still can not figure what he does all day, besides holding hands with the Mayor and interim manager Smith (aka Just-Give-it-Away Smith).
Thank you Jamie for your vigilance and persistence, but thank you to the commissioners who supported the resolution. I have to wonder, if this resolution was so inconsequential, then why oppose it? I don't think some people are too happy about being introduced to accountability and limitations. I look at this as a move in the right direction for the ToM..transparency for the public..and don't forget Erskine Smith's "Town Voice " article.."But like in all societies there are counter forces within and without that seek to erode what we stand for."(Open Government) Unfortunatly, it seems they are within our own local government.. I thought like Erskine said "a community is supposed to inspire and instill values such as character, personal responsability, tolerance and integrity, not negativism,
intolerance, and doubt..well I don't think that the taxpayers doubt the prudence of knowing where,who,and how tax dollars are being spent. Unfortunatly on this issue, we only saw character, responsability, and integrity in the "Big Four" who stood up for the taxpayers. Hey Big Four--don't sacrafice your principles for people who want to shield the activities of our government--our government--see how good it feels to do the right thing--minus the "Rat Pack" guilt trip---We're proud of you--keep up the "Open Work!"
Down with the RAT PACK! Go BIG FOUR! We love you and we've got your back!
Give everyone a break. There is no RAT pack, no BIG FOUR. What you have are 6 commissioners and the mayor who are committed to doing what is right for Mooresville. If you actually go to meetings(all meetings, committees, etc.) and hear the debate and discussions you would be able to see that. The accountability is there. Everyone is due their opinion, and rightly so. That is what this blog is for. Have a nice day.
I completely agree with May 6, 2008 4:08 PM. It is indeed "sad" for this community that our mayor would act so presumptuously as he did when he signed those two release deeds without first securing the assets of the town. It is also disturbing that he apparently has at least two blind loyalists in his corner in the form of Rader and Abraham. Thank you, Ms. Gatton, for the amazing work you have done to uncover this situation and for insuring that it is resolved as much as is possible. I, for one, would never have been the wiser if it were not for your investigation.
Well said May 7, 2008 8:59 AM
If the purpose is to be feed an emotionally enhanced journalistic opinion of "one" and then jump on the "hate wagon" this is the place to do so.
There is not many meeting i miss and
strangely enough the number of people talking in the public comments is low as usually the crowd is unless theres one big topic, then they leave afterwards.
Unless everyone just wants to ride the skirt tail and praise Jamie for what she does and , come on out to a meeting and speak up and be heard!! Last i knew it was your meeting and you have 3 minutes to voice your opinions, theres plenty of room in the board room. If a person is alone in the woods and they talk is there any noise?
Before the fans attack me, Jamie your investigative skills are good but there seems to at times too much emotion in your writings. Your writings tend to not allow some readers to fully create their own opinions instead they are fueled by what i call "slight of hand assumptions"
And by the way the Mayor has more than the "tie breaking vote" as you mentioned in an earlier posting. He has a vote in board appointed commissions appointments ( Just an FYI )
yours truly
DocW
to the May 7, 2008 8:59 AM poster: "There is no RAT pack". All I've got to say is "if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck..." Sorry.
I don't know if there is a "RAT" pack but there is definetly a sense of arrogance on the part of the mayor and Mr. Rader.
I've had a number of dealings with both of them where I walked away shaking my head...embarassed that my taxes help to pay their salaries. I don't expect a politician to agree with everything I say but a little respect would be nice.
To the person who stated we need to get people to come out to the meetings and comment, you're absolutely right. We need to hold them accountable. I'm sorry I missed this week.....sounds like it was an interesting debate. See you next month!
6:26
That a girl Jaime! Keep ruffling those nasty feathers. As my mama used to say "we need a nice housecleaning around here". This is just leftover gunk from the old overthrown regime. By the way, we'll hide behind your skirts anyday!
Boy,when the hate wagon gets rollin, it's too much emotion on Jamies's part--I think it's the truth that pisses readers off! I have been to the meetings, the same meetings where we find out that Rader had lunch with the VP of CH2MHill, and the meeting where Chris Carney heard the Mayor admit to instructing Jamie Justice to omit the slide where the 5 million dollar price tag for an overhaul on the current plant was supposed to be--"in the interest of saving time" as the Mayor put it. I think the best one lately was last Aug.,when Chris Carney grilled Justice,Wimberly,etc., regarding an amount asked for to continue the "project" and no one had an idea of a figure--not even the VP of CH2MHill, then next month we find out there was a letter sent to ToM on July 19 advising an amount. The agenda meeting prior had Justice ask for $300,00.00 dollars to continue the "design," then on Monday PM, Rader motioned for a 2 million dollar "bump"(same meeting of his confession "in interest of dislosure" of lunch with CH2MHill VP to "clarify" questions) I think you're right to encourage people to attend the meetings, if they did maybe alot of what we read about could be prevented. Hey Jamie, for all of the "haters" out here, do you have an E-address for the ToM meeting minutes, that way those of us who are busy "hating" somewhere else can look back and check up on the meetings? Oh Yes--lets ask Jamie if she can elaborate on what "ministerial" powers the mayor of M-ville has--the "fathers" of Mooresville may have "backdoored" the citizens, and we don't even know it. If the citizens of Mooresville don't know about it, is it still ethical?
Idealistic Citizen
Most important is the blog is a place where people feel free to give their viewpoint. And, judging from the results so far, it has more impact than getting up and speaking to the board for three minutes or in a public hearing. That is probably because it really sinks in when you see it in black and white written word the consequences of negligent or arrogant actions. But my hat is off to those of all viewpoints who contribute to this discussion. That is where the potential of the internet to truly improve democracy can be attained.
To show the information is out there a quick search of Town website lead me to http://ci.mooresville.nc.us/agenda.html
The info is there including all of 2007 Minutes
Yours Truly
DocW
Wow, Doc! Why would Jamie’s fans attack you? If I read your comment right, you paid her a huge compliment by praising her investigative skills and setting her blog apart from the kind of humdrum reports we find in the mainstream media.
You say that Jamie’s blog is an “emotionally enhanced journalistic opinion of one”, but I say that most newspaper reporters are glorified secretaries that are good for nothing but taking notes and publishing them. The mainstream media fails their readers day in and day out when they write the obligatory “he said, she said” articles…..“Johnny said the grass is red. Suzy said the grass is blue”…..and that’s the end of the article.
From as far back as I can remember (and I have been following Jamie’s articles since she was at the Tribune), Jamie will tell us what Johnny and Suzy said, then she walks outside, looks down at the ground, and reports back to us that the grass is actually green. Maybe you call that an “emotional opinion”. To us regular folk, it’s just plain good journalism, and I think the mainstream media should be doing what they do best…..taking notes.
If you’re looking for a dry rehashing of a government meeting, you can bet this aint the place to find it, and I think Jamie has made that pretty clar in different places on this blog. If you want meeting minutes, stick with your local newspapers. If you don’t like what they’re reporting, at least you’ll have the classifieds.
To "DocW": If you ain't a townie, you sure sound awfully like one. and if you ARE a townie, then it's no wonder you "don't miss many meetings"! And if you ARE a townie, it is really rich for you to expect all of us out here to let you know who we are while you yourself use a catchy little pen name. Give ME a break!
I have been a Mooresville citizen all of my life and I watched the growth of the town and the change of the Town Board. I have also had the unplesant experience of paying higher property taxes and water bills. I have a right, as a tax payer, to know how my hard earned tax dollars are being spent. The current board at least gives me an insight as to how the money is being spent. Former board members were either too arrogant or too ignorant to have open public discussion.
Frank Rader must think all of Mooresville's citizens are wealthy because his solution to any problem is to raise taxes. How much more can be asked of the citizens with our already outrageous water bills and the lack of fiscal responsibilty shown by some of the town commissioners (CH2M Hill)disaster. Jamie keep up the good work and lets remind the commissioners who they work for US
Hey Doc W. Thanks for giving us the link to the town board
"minutes" but I think I'll pass.
Everybody knows the mayor & his sidekick the town clerk (Janet Pope) decide what goes in the minutes (as little as possible) & what gets kept out (the real news). Put your confidence where your mouth is and start taping the meetings. Then we'll talk.
ATTENTION
Please someone videotape the meetings! They can't stop you from doing that. Then give the tape to Jamie, I'm sure she would like to have them.
YES!! Actually the town should start doing htat on its own. Take some of that money they spend at places like Grove Park Inn (yep, you heard right) and put it into a camcorder and a few DVD tapes for God's sake. Otherwise, the next to the last poster is exactly right. What is keeping them from twisting the record and rewriting history? A videotape will leave no doubts in anyone's mind and it would be fair and accurate.
But it has to be done by someone else, not town staff. I can hear it now "oopps", I hit the stop button by accident--and Erskine Smith is their boss!
BUT WAIT!!! The town owns a cable company. The cable company is looking for local programming to enhance their array of bulletin board channels. Why doesn't MI-Connection tape the board meetings and put them on?
6:26
But Wait! The cable Company has Frank Rader/DocW as their boss.
I was reading some of the blog comments and I felt like sharing one of my public comment experiences with the readers.
I arrived before the monthly meeting this past Monday and signed up on the sign in sheet to give public comments. I wrote my name and topic(Mayoral Resolution) on the sheet about five persons back and went inside, sat down and waited for the meeting to start. The Mayor brought the meeting to order and allowed Mac Herring to speak regarding the flamingos on the Town Hall lawn. The first speaker came forward, a nice young man from a local church, who told the Board that a $25.00 donation would be necessary to remove the flamingos. The second person was a lady who was informing the Board of a hospice group that had just started caring for patients in the Mooresville area. The third was a black gentleman who came forward to ask the Board why he and his group had to purchase $400.00 worth of liability insurance for 1-day to use Liberty Park when other groups did not. The fourth was a lady representing homeowners on West Center Street, all dressed in red T-shirts, requesting a speed taper/bump be installed to slow down speeders. Then my name was read.
I rose from my seat, proceeded to the lectern, when about half way there, Mayor Thunberg asked me "Mr. Dusenbury, are your comments in reference to the resolution on the agenda?" I responded "Yes they are." To which he stated "You will not be able to make your comments now, you will have to wait until "new" business."
I was surprised since I thought that public comments were just that, regardless of whether it was old or new business, and it was your 3-minutes to voice your comments, even if they are irrelevant to the agenda items. I returned to my seat without saying a word.
I have made many public comments in the past, and I have seen a commenter asked, "Do your comments concern the public hearing?" If yes, then you will have to wait until the public hearing is commenced and you will be sworn in, but never to my recollection because of a new or old business issue. (I looked around the hall and many in attendance looked surprised because I wasn't allowed to comment on a pertinent agenda item.)
I had a 7:00 appointment, so I left Town Hall and came back about 8:30 and waited through the other agenda items and even an intermission until I was recognized at about 10:00 when the resolution item came up in new business. I read my statement as follows:
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Tonight is a historic moment for the citizens of Mooresville. The Town Board will bring up in new business the issue of voting on a resolution, which will require the office of the Mayor to act on certain contractural obligations only after the Town Board has discussed the topic and directed by vote for the Mayor to proceed as the representative of the town. I am very excited because this is the first time the Mayor's office has had any directive requirement regarding contracts, financial obligations, etc. which would obligate the taxpayers of Mooresville for future expenditures. The resolution would also require a board vote to release any financial interest, which the town may hold in real or personal property. I feel that this is a necessity because up until now, the taxpayers haven't had any "oversight" or "checks and balances" over the Town Board and Mayor.
I just learned of this situation through the Gatton Report-an investigative journalistic blog by Jamie Gatton, which exposed an inconsistency in how our Mayor has represented the citizens of Mooresville. In one instance, he was directed to act by the Board, and in two others acted without a directive from the Board, which released the town's interest in two pieces of property. I feel that in the later two instances the Board probably would have protected the citizen's interest by requiring payments before release, but that wasn't the case.
Therefore, in order to protect the citizens of Mooresville from future inconsistencies, I hope the Board will adopt the resolution requiring a Board vote, and any other safeguards to protect the taxpayer interest before the Mayor can sign any document obligating or releasing the citizens of Mooresville. I don't know if this scenario will ever arise in the future regarding the Mayor's office, but the government exists to serve and protect the interest of the citizens of Mooresville, not to be one office holder's exercise of his/her discretion.
The citizens deserve this protection from a potential abuse of power, and it will also give time for proper discussion, debate, and any other public input which might be necessary.
Sincerely, Rhett P. Dusenbury
I was very surprised that I was asked to withold my comments, but I don't think my Constitutional Rights were violated, since I was allowed to make my comments, but I do not know why I was deferred to a later time. I thought the comments policy was changed to prevent a time issue by having citizens make comments every time a new item came up. The idea to my understanding was to let citizens comment before the meeting started to streamline the meeting.
I have been critical in the past of the Commissioners and the Mayor, which is my right, but I do have a question about this deferment:
Does the Town Policy regarding the Public Comments period in our monthly meeting allow the Mayor to defer a commenter at his discretion, or should I have been afforded equal treatment?
I am waiting for Ms. Janet Pope and Mr. Steve Gambrill of the town staff to give me an answer to this question by supplying me with the policy and I would be more than happy to share it with all of you for future reference.
I have my own idea however, that due to my past critical comments of the Board and Mayor, Mr. Thunberg would be more than happy to have my comments made at 10:00PM when there were less than 10 audience members, instead of 6:15 PM when there were an estimated 100+ audience members, especially considering the content of limiting the Mayor's powers of office to protect the public.
I don't feel that there was malice in this misunderstanding, maybe just a mistake.
Regardless, my comments were made a part of the minutes, and the resolution was passed and for Mr. Carney's information, I do sleep a little better at night and the Board scored a point in my book.
Thank you,
Rhett P. Dusenbury
Ok to clear a few things up.. I am a concerned citizen that is/was interested in the following projects. Cornelius Rd Park, WWTP and Langtree abd a few others. It also seems that the reference to me as a "townie" is somehow meant to be a "derogatory remark" toward myself. Shame on you! Thou i am a little confused because my first post did not really raise any opinions, the concern was while it may look good in black and white, I have always been one to believe its better to be heard than read. Yet i get labeled. One assumption would be that since my opinions may, keyword is MAY, be different than yours I should be labeled. Is that the true meaning behind this blog? I would love to hear Jamie's thoughts on myself being labeled as such. If my opinion was different than yours does that make me bad or wrong?
BTW i am on TW Cable and love my new extra channels. Myself running MI is truly a crazy comment.
Yours Truly
DocW
tr.hugger(at)gmail.com
Hey Rhett, Don't ya know? The Mayor just loves to 'gavel down' the citizens. Does it all the time. He has no problem whatsoever following those rules cause they suit him. It's just the rules that get in the way of him flexing his self assumed authority that he can's seem to abide by.
Hiya, DocW.
You asked for my thoughts on you being “labeled” a “townie.” Like I tell my kids when they get in a little scuffle: I don’t have a dog in this fight. We’re all big boys and girls, and I’m confident we can all handle ourselves just fine.
I will say, however, that just as you had the right to post your opinion, insinuating that this blog is a “hate wagon,” others, in turn, have the right to post their opinions about your comments.
You know what "hate wagon" was the wrong words. I offer a sincere "im sorry"
Gonna start all over
To all hello my name is DocW and i am a concerned citizen
Awaiting the next installment of the Gatton report
yours truly,
DocW
Welcome to "Jaime's Funhouse" Doc....
Yes, you are correct. The agenda and the minutes are posted (though often slowly) on our incredibly sorry town website.
By not attending the meetings (and face it, we all have lifes and bills to pay) you miss the shenanigans that Mr. Dusenbury was treated to.
If the ENTIRE meeting was put on tv (didn't they buy the cable system specifically for the purpose of putting themselves on tv?) or online we'd all be able to see Mayor Power move people who might not be singing his praises to the back of the bus.
Personally I'm looking forward to "This Week with Frank Rader"...a lively discussion of this week's ribbon cuttings.....
6:26
Welcome to the discussion.....
Good to "meet" you, DocW! I look forward to hearing more from you in the future...
At this point, one has to be curious about the black man referenced by the Dusenberry dude. The guy who had to pay $400.00 liability insurance to have a function at the park. This sounds like a typical town of Mooresville (ab)use of policy: they tell the black guy or some other everyday working stiff with no clout downtown, yeah we have this policy where you have to pay $400.00 for liability insurance if you want to have your function. Then they tell their good old boy buddy or the Chamber of Commerce or somebody like that, oh, you don't have to pay for the insurance because you are. . . (fill in the blank here for BS reason about why favored individuals or groups don't have to pay the freight like the common working man). Wouldn't be surprised if this runs the same through lots of other services or facilities provided by the town. It's wrong, and it's one of the reasons why many people are outcasts when it comes to the success of this town. It will end only when "they" get called on it every time. The man who spoke, like Dussenbury, deserves some kind of award. What he'll get probably, is his name added to the Mayor's "blacklist"--no pun intended.
I would first like to thank Ms. Janet Pope and Mr. Steve Gambill for searching the Town policy on Public Comments, they were very helpful and prompt with their reply. The following policy was revised 12/5/05 according to the document which states:
Policy Purpose
The Board of Commissioners ("Board") encourages and welcomes the input of citizens at its regular monthly meetings, and in order to balance the need and desire for such citizen input with the necessity of disposing of its regular Town business during such meetings, the Board is establishing the following ("Policy") to encourage open communications with its citizens pursuant to an organized, yet flexible, procedure. The Mayor, who is th Town official who presides over all Town meetings, shall have the discretion to modify this policy from time to time, in order to accomplish the purpose of this Policy of open communication.
Coverage
This policy, upon adoption by the Board, shall remain in effect until such time that it is altered, modified or rescinded by the Board.
Policy
1) The Board's regular monthly meeting is held on the first Monday of each month at 6:00 p.m. at Town Hall. Citizens wishing to address the Board with regard to a Town-related matter during a regular monthly public meeting of the Board should contact the Town Clerk or Town Manager by 12:00 noon on the Monday preceding the Board's meeting. Citizens who wish to address the Board are requested to give their names, addresses and subject matter upon which they wish to speak. Failure to provide the information requested may result in delaying the public comment by such citizen until the requested information is provided.
2) Recognizing that some citizens who desire to speak may not have previously signed-up to speak, and regardless of whether a citizen has requested to speak prior to the regular meeting, a sign-up sheet for speakers requesting to address the Board at its regular meeting will be placed at the front door of the Board meeting room prior to the said meeting.
3) Each speaker shall be identified by the Mayor as having the right to be heard, and the Mayor shall establish the order of the speaker(s).
4) Time limits for speakers are necessary in order to complete the required business of the Town Board at its regular meeting and the time limits for speakers addressing the Board shall be generally limited to three(3) minutes; however, the Mayor shall have the discretion of extending such time as he deems reasonably appropriate in order to foster and promote the opportunity for citizens speakers to have open and full access to address the Board.
5) The Mayor may establish that a maximum of three (3) citizen speakers shall address the Board with regard to any one subject.
6) A speaker may not transfer his or her time to another speaker.
7) Speakers shall address the Board from the podium unless the Mayor deems that he or she may not be so required.
8) While emotion is customary in public speaking, courtesy is expected from all parties. Speakers are expected to be civil and respectful to the Board and exhibit proper decorum in their language and presentation.
9) At each regular Board meeting, the total time available for citizen speakers shall be determined in the discretion of the Mayor, based upon the anticipated length of the meeting required to transact the necessary Town business.
10) Board members may ask each speaker such questions as they shall deem appropriate with regard to his or her comments.
11) The Board will not take action on the presentations and/or comments of citizen speakers during the meeting at which such speaker addresses the Board.
12) Speakers who sign-up but are not reached due to time constraints may, at their request, be heard at the next Board meeting and will be given priority on the agenda portion allotted to public comment.
13) The public comment segment will be placed at the beginning of each regular Board meeting 6:00p.m. An additional thirty(30) minutes at the end of the said meeting will be providded for the public comment, if necessary.
I would like to add a few observations if I may:
1)
The Mayor shall have the discretion to modify this Policy from time to time, in order to accomplish the purpose of this Policy of open communication. I think this sounds very broad on its face, because it allows the Mayor to pick and choose as with a Power of Attorney; all in the interest of open communication, not to be able to defer a citizen's comments which may be negative in their content because of the speaker's past remarks or knowledge of a speaker's content via a sign-in sheet.
2) Each speaker shall be identified by the Mayor as having the right to be heard, and the Mayor shall establish the order of the speaker(s).,; I was identified by the Mayor who said "Now we'll hear from Mr. Dusenbury, so I rose from my seat and proceeded to the podium, when I was defered. I was recognized, therefore, I should have been able to comment.
3)The Mayor shall have the discretion of extending such time as he deems reasonably appropriate in order to foster and promote the opportunity for citizens speakers to have open and full access to address the Board; I was defered, thus denied access, and I think I was the last to comment/only the lady from hospice was notified of time by the "cooking timer."
4) An additional thirty (30)minutes at the end of the said
meeting will be provided for public comment, if necessary; The Mayor didn't state at the beginning of the regular meeting that due to the large number of speakers, we will have to defer them to the end of the meeting or till next month, or even to new business.
In all, I know the time is held to three (3) minutes for the negative comments, which are curtailed by the "cooking timer," and the praises are allowed the longest three (3) minutes I have ever seen. I don't feel there is equity in the current Town concept of "discretion." I have attended many meetings where there were many more citizens to speak with just as large of an agenda, and they were all cycled before the regular meeting. I feel that it is time to establish an equitable policy, for praise and criticism, so all citizens have equal protection and expectation.
Thank you, Rhett P. Dusenbury
Rhett D. makes a good point about equity--and isn't it true that one of the reasons the meetings were moved from 7 p.m. to 6 p.m. was to accomodate speakers? Interesting.
It apparently was only moved to 6:00 to accommodate sycophants. The unhappy citizen, on the other hand, may have to wait around for hours, it looks like. Mayor Thunberg really showed his behind on this one. How very unmayorly!
DocW beckons us to "come on out to a meeting and speak up and be heard!!" I can see from Dusenberry's comments that he felt heard allright. Think I'll just stick to my way. Thanks for nothing Doc.
I can see from Dusenberry's comments that he felt heard allright. Think I'll just stick to my way. Thanks for nothing Doc.
Why let one person's opinion be the judge of your own actions. Thanks for nothing Doc? No need to thank me for nothing.
DocW
Geeeez, Doc. You're so transparent, it ain't even funny. You tried to "shame" somebody just for calling you a "townie", which by the way is the way many many people I know who are affiliated with the town PROUDLY call themselves. Trying to act like it was a profanity. We weren't born yesterday. And then you make some sexist remark about Jamie's "skirt". I for one am not going to be doing anything YOU suggest! I think I'll stick to my keyboard and let you join your friends at the town board meetings. By the way, you wrote "If a person is alone in the woods and they talk is there any noise?" I don't know. If a gutsy woman starts a blog exposing the corrupt and get over 10,000 hits in about two months, is anybody "listening"? You tell me.
10,000 hits? Good or bad, humorus or serious, it may just be a form of entertainment for many. It's a blog for any and all to comment how they like, whether anonymously or with a signature. Take it as you see fit. For me? All of the above.
"Entertainment"? Hardly. I don't know about anybody else, but I for one don't feel exactly "entertained" when I read about the mayor trying to give away $350,000 to the SICDC when we're not looking. And I don't feel exactly "entertained" when I read the interim town manager succeeded in giving away $250,000 to his friend. I could go on about everything I've read in this blog that I don't feel "entertained" about. Pissed off and wanting to picket Town Hall - yes. Entertained - no.
Good job, May 16th, for your comments. So let us see, May 14th doesn't get to comment on how they felt about this blog? You have unknowingly added to someone's entertainment.
Don't forget 8:39, the bottomless pit of a cable system these turkeys have gotten us into. What about the Wastewatergate mess? If we didn't laugh we would have to cry...Let's see. The commissioners who fell on the wrong side of both of these losing propositions were Rader and Herring, right (the mayor, too)? We'll be saddled for years because of these two decisions alone. Let's see if and how they'll redeem themselves. The only one who's still totally "clean" is Atkins.
In all fairness Mac Herring started to "redeem" himself by his vote on this resolution right? Just keep voting for the good of your constituency Mac and you'll be fine. It's never too late to set things right.
If Mr. Herring,Mr. Carney, and Mr. Rader want to redeem themselves, then they should make a motion to sell the cable system so we can cut our losses.
AMEN TO SELLING THE CABLE SYSTEM. Get out of that deal while we're only "a little behind" instead of when we get "alot behind"...
Post a Comment