Today we'll do the "minuses". Once again I'll start things off by listing my top five. and I'll be looking for another five from the comments section.
Here goes:
- Commissioner Georeg Ostergren - Sorry George, as much as I hate to disparage a former school board member, and someone who has given so much of his time to the town over the years, I have to say that your contempt for the public, and you use of profanity puts you at the top of my list.
- Not following Dr. Reock's Prime Directive - Charter Study expert Dr. Ernest Reock told the CSC explicitly that they must not make a recommendation based on what they think the public will vote for, but rather on what their study shows will be the best for the town. Yet at recent meetings, commission members based their recommendations on what would be most palatable to the public, and said so! even though they believed other choices were better - five council members rather than seven, for instance.
- The choice of towns for study - I think too much emphasis was placed on towns that had been through charter studies. I would like to have seen the CSC choose some townships that had never had a charter study - why does their government work so well that they have never even thought of changing.
- The Final Report - What a mess - based on a misunderstanding? Chris Jensen is concerned that the report holds up well to any legal challenges - after all, there are things that are required to be in the report, and he wants to make sure all the Is are dotted and Ts crossed. Glenn van Lier desires a report that is easily readable - one that almost acts as the first piece of campaign literature, if you will. Both viewpoints are perfectly valid and shouldn't be mutually exclusive - but so far we have seen walkouts, threats of walkouts, name calling, fist banging, and the like - Insane!
- The Pluses and Minuses themselves - Despite Mr. van Lier's recent assertion that no one from the public has been able to dispute the plus and minus lists, there indeed were residents who came to the microphone at meetings and did just that - Frank Herbert and Carl Suraci to name two.
I have more, but I want to hear from you! Where did they go wrong? Let me know, below.
6. Commissioner Bill Page - This may be premature, but, all indications are that he will NOT be writing a minority report. This is a disservice to the public. He advocated the M-C-A form and voted AGAINST the Mayor-Council. The public is entitled to this information.
ReplyDelete7. The filing of the minority report by Gloria McCauley. Not to say that having the report is bad. However it was filed at the eleventh hour on the last possible day. That in itself is fine, except for the fact that the minority report is supposed to be included as part of the final report. Since it was filed separately at the last minute without any notification to the commission, it stands alone outside of the final report which is wrong. However, the worst part of this is is that the minority report was filed not at arms length to either the public or the commission. This was definitely the wrong thing to do. Everything that the commission has done has been in full public view with ample comment time allowed from all interested parties. This protocol was not followed in this case. The public had no chance to view or comment on this document. Nor did the commission. Considering that public tax dollars are being used here, this is a slap in the face to all involved in the process. Taking action outside of the public venue is not allowed, and this was done without consideration of affected parties. This action is especially improper considering commissioner McCauley had ample time to examine the final report, make changes and was accomodated. Adding to that injury, at this point an electronic version is not available for public viewing. It would do well to have the minority report brought to the table in full public view and examined, then filed as a part of the final report.
ReplyDeleteBy your statement Chairman Jensen, I will have to remove my "plus" comment and add number 8 to this list. You all know that it is typical of a Charter Study Commission to have a minority report included with the final report.
ReplyDelete8. The Majority Members of the Charter Study Commission Failing to Work with the Minority Members in Good Faith. As Commissioner Chariman Jensen stated in Number 7, the Majority rushed to issue their report without consideration and consultation with the Minority for their report. The Minority made it very clear during proceedings of a) their issues with the majority recommendation, and b)their intent to write a minority report.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMythbuster. You have it completely wrong here. The majority report was scheduled to be signed at the August 1 meeting. Extra meetings were scheduled because the commission was running behind. As it was, the report was submitted several days later than scheduled. M. McCauley came to every meeting were the report was discussed except for the meeting where she was out of town. Every single issue she brought up was dealt with. Some text she objected to was removed, some narrative was moved, and some reworded. There was no point that she raised that was ignored.
ReplyDeleteAfter Gloria stated that she intended to file a minority report, a draft of the report was requested so it could be inserted into the main report. The idea was that it would be easier to update that at the last moment. This request was repeated several times. Gloria never provided a version of her minority report to the commission so it could be included. At the last moment, the page that was written to say that the minority report was appended was changed to state that none was submitted to the commission but that if one was it would be appended to the main report. As of right now, Gloria has not provided a minority report that could be inserted into the main document.
The public also requested details of her report which she refused to do.
If there was any bad faith in this matter, it was from M. McCauley.