Jump to content
“If we want to control aircraft and carrier, it’s get our checkbook out and never put it away,” Perlman said this month.
That is true if you expect poor seat sales. If planes were full with paying customers then we would get larger planes and more flights.
Short answer is for you, your friends, and me would be to agree that our political views are not the same, but we all agree the city manager and city staff represents all of us and not just the majority on the city council. County Manager and county staff does it so it is a realistic expectation.
I would be more inclined to restructure city government so that city manager is a less powerful position. The heads of public works, public safety and parks/rec could each report to city council instead of city manager. Each of those depts is a larger organization than was once the entire city government. The dept managers should all have the skills to be the public faces of their depts and communicate directly to the city council.
I think a mayor would be more accountable to the public.
But I think a strong mayoral system requires city council members to have dedicated staff to be able to give their side to the mayor's proposals. So a mayoral system REQUIRES even more city staff overhead.
The problem is that there is a majority of the city council that supports ignoring recently passed motions, secret confidential memos, serial meetings and a city manager that defines a course of action.
I think the better solution is for all city council members to agree upon basic standards of conduct for the city manager of respecting open records, open meetings and giving all information pro and con regarding issues. That standard of conduct is exactly how County Manager Tom Sullivan has operated for years with different county commissioners. Tom Sullivan has seamlessly handled a switch from Diane Mitsch Bush to Cari Hermanski. That is possible because Tom and county staff give pretty complete info to the commissioners. If you read through their meeting packets then the letters submitted by the public rarely complain that staff didn't present their side of the situation. Instead, the complaints are more often that staff was too kind giving credence to the other side.
When county commissioners were all Democrats then it would have been easier for Tom to just feed them the info they wanted to hear and leave Republicans fuming that they aren't even being heard. Tom Sullivan didn't fall into that trap and even on controversial issues, there was no complaining that people's concerns weren't being heard. County commissioners accepted a lot of data and information from the drillers and county staff accepted it as true as the environmentalist data. It was left for the county commissioners to evaluate and decide what was best for the county.
City's URA proposal is being handled completely differently with only supporting info in city staff reports.
Key questions that I think an open records and open meetings legal expert should address would be confidential work product documents, serial meetings and improperly held meetings.
I think that city manager labeling documents as confidential work product and thus not to be released or discussed with the public as a very dangerous idea because it has allowed the city manager to stifle discussion on topics by city council members. I think it also has no basis in law. I think the work product exemption to an open records request is purely practical to not require saving every draft version. I see no legal grounds to claim that work product is confidential and cannot be discussed with the public. Likewise, communications with the city attorney are not automatically confidential legal advice, It has to be legal advice regarding an active legal matter.
Likewise, from comments by city council members, it appears that city manager has held one on one serial meetings with city council members that are legally questionable. And now there were two attempts to hold serial meetings to discuss specific topics with council members. Thus, an outside legal opinion of what is the law would be helpful.
Remember the city attorney works for the city council and if council leadership is not interested in open meetings and open records then the legal advice can become as it was recently that it is unlikely that anyone would sue over violations.
"I love you, Scott."
So that is completely ambiguous. Two previous posts, both by someone with the first name of "Scott" and your warped mind :) is too unpredictable to deduce which one is the subject of your kind comment.
Dispensaries means the question is whether more medical mj dispensaries should be allowed and is not asking about retail mj stores.
And this sort of event is why it is best to have local recreational facilities run by private operators. There was no months of government haggling and demands for additional tax dollars to host an event.
By having the Swiggarts run the facility the public is far better served than by government employees just seeking to collect their paycheck. The city's resulting cost to provide excellent recreational opportunities are far lower at the Tennis Center than at Howelson Hill.
I think city's problem in denying a liquor license was that city laws make it so easy that they had no valid reason to deny it. That their reasons for denial existed in other applications which they accepted.
That is not the situation for retail mj licenses which city has said no except to those three that got in before the moratorium on mj dispensaries.
Maybe the forums could be recorded and placed on the paper's website as a what every candidate (and voter) should know.
Also, I think it would be helpful if the paper had an open meetings and open records forum. Local governments have run afoul of those laws often enough and have even lost in court. So it might be useful to have a local forum with a lawyer that can explain the laws from the press association's perspective of how the courts have ruled. The person could also help describe how citizens can file open records requests and how to proceed if the request is declined.
So what was the well researched basis for having 3 retail stores? Oh yeah, that is how many applications for medical mj dispensaries before SB invoked a moratorium. And only those license holders were allowed to open retail stores.
Capex and everything else just means there is a significant investment to open a new retail store. Thus, the potential number of retail mj stores would tend to be rather limited. That is no argument for why SB has 3, not 5 or 7 retail mj stores.
The issue is presented because other people would like to invest in and create more SB retail mj stores. Kevin Fisher presents nothing on why 3 retail mj is the magic number. With his experience in mj regulatory affairs, he could propose conditions for new mj retail stores that are fair and protect various community interests. Instead he throws up a smokescreen on why his store should not face any additional competition.
Last login: yesterday
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.