February 22, 2005

Freedom of Speech: Part Two

Barnum and Bailey would have been proud.
Last night's City Council meeting was a circus.

Julia Ludwig's wonderful speech was, however, a moment of clarity.
So was her letter in Sunday's South Haven Tribune.
After challenging the new rules restricting topics for public speech at council meetings, Julie was attacked by some Council members via email and phone this week. I suspect that is why she chose to go public again at the meeting. The reception was not just icy, but downright hostile. Her speech was courageous and absolutely right on the mark.

But the real head-scratcher mystery is that The Mayor would like us to believe another thoroughly absurd notion. (Remember when we were asked to believe that IF the city sign ordinance didn't permit advertising banners on city lightpoles...THEN we couldn't have American flags or Christmas decorations either? Yah, kinda like that.) The Mayor angrily pontificated (he seemed to actually be spitting) that the two new restrictions on public speech at Council meetings are NOT restrictions. In further blurring of the lines between reality and mania, he orders us to believe that the new rule that all topics must be "actionable by Council" and/or "approved by the Chairman" are "EXPANSIONS of freedom of speech opportunities, not restrictions".

Huh? Sorry, but that's just plain clueless.

Mayor Lewis also angrily denounced some unnamed citizen who emailed him this week (also to question the new rule restricting speech). This person, it seems, called the mayor "Hitler". Oh my. This truly serves no purpose other than to further alienate the Mayor from his frail connections to reality and citizenry. Not helpful.

Anyway, the wicked pleasure of watching The Mayor totally lose control of the meeting and appear to not have the slightest idea of where he was or what he was doing.....priceless. Kudos to Janet Fahs for actually apologizing for "the worst meeting I have ever attended" in her post-meeting comments.

Kudos also to Tim Stegeman, who seems to have found his voice and is showing passion and tenacity at the Council table. Scott Smith continues to display his unwavering desire for responsible, compassionate and open government. Orley Vaughn displayed his willingness to bare teeth in his love for The Michigan Maritime Museum and the tall ship Friends Good Will. Bill Bradley was, as always, a reliable yet affable watchdog for government responsibility. Larry King is frequently the only Robert's Rules of Order thread that keeps these meetings from unraveling altogether; and he even made a self-proclaimed "protest vote" by voting No to the proposition that money be assessed to the schools to cover the administrative costs of getting tax money to them.

Jeezo, I am starting to admire this gang. They are doing their homework, thinking, communicating, listening, establishing real opinions, fighting for what they think is right....!!!!!!!!
Hallelujia!
We don't have to agree with them but we can certainly be
proud of their transformation into activists lately.

And we will always have comic relief as long as this mayor is trying to run a meeting.
Was it a circus?
Well, they didn't all get out of a tiny little car as they entered the room, but the rest of it belonged in 3 rings. :-)

BTW, the Council also appointed me to The Planning Commission last night.
I am not sure yet if I will be in the ring with the trapeze artists or the lion tamers.

Posted by Elaine at 09:49 AM | Comments (0)

February 17, 2005

Freedom of Speech

This posting should actually be under the other blog "Impending Doom".
Last meeting the City Council passed an amendment to the meeting rules that imposes restrictions on what topics residents and taxpayers can
speak about under the agenda item called "Citizens Speak on Items Not On The Agenda". Now the topic must be "actionable by council" and/or "approved by the chairman (Mayor Lewis, in this case)".

At a previous meeting I made (what I thought was) a passionate and factual plea to keep this agenda item as "free speech" moment.
But free speech interrupts and delays the meetings, it seems. It also, methinks, brings items to the meeting that The Council prefers NOT be public.

Council passed it 4-3 with Lewis, King, Fahs and Vaughn voting yes,
Smith, Bradley and Stegman voting no.

This Sunday's South Haven Tribune did not mention the passage of this amendment to the rules.

Dorothy Appleyard has sent this to Council and the Mayor:

Mayor Lewis and Members of the City Council,

I was sorry to read your amendment of the Council Rules for Public Comment. Over the last year, the Council has made strides in opening the lines of communication with the public, but this amendment to the rules has eliminated one of the few opportunities members of the public have to address their concerns directly to the council and to the public at large. This rule limits the right of an individual to speak on a topic that is not actionable or approved by the Mayor. I believe this is a regrettable decision and does not meet the standard of state and federal law.

>From the Michigan Constitution:

§ 5 Freedom of speech and of press.
Sec. 5.
Every person may freely speak, write, express and publish his views on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of such right; and no law shall be enacted to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press.

>From the Open Meetings Act:

Short title; effect of act on certain charter provisions, ordinances, or resolutions.
Sec. 1.
(1) This act shall be known and may be cited as the “Open meetings act”.
(2) This act shall supersede all local charter provisions, ordinances, or resolutions which relate to requirements for meetings of local public bodies to be open to the public.
(3) After the effective date of this act, nothing in this act shall prohibit a public body from adopting an ordinance, resolution, rule, or charter provision which would require a greater degree of openness relative to meetings of public bodies than the standards provided for in this act.

15.263. Meetings of public bodies; attendance, nonapplication
(5) A person shall be permitted to address a meeting of a public body under rules established and recorded by the public body.

While I recognize your intent to keep meetings to a reasonable length and to the business at hand, bullet 3 should be eliminated entirely from the Rules for Public Comment. I hope you will act immediately to restore the public’s right to address the Council on “items not on the agenda” and take every opportunity to protect the right of freedom of speech guaranteed to every citizen by the Bill of Rights, the Constitution of Michigan and the Open Meetings Act.

Regards,
Dorothy Appleyard

Posted by Elaine at 10:40 AM | Comments (0)

February 13, 2005

The Proposal

The City Council and The DDA are now formally informed with this proposal from a prominent citizen:

The following suggestions are made to improve the DDA's image inside and outside its boundaries, improve the City's image with other governmental entities, and improve accountability for everybody:

* Revise DDA boundaries to represent a South Haven downtown business district that would be consistent with the recently approved Strategic Plan. This could comprise the CBD (Central Business District) zone, the R-2 zone embedded within it north of Quaker Street, the B-3 zone from the south city marina northward to Dunkley Avenue, and the B-2 zone along both sides of Broadway from Erie to Conger Street. Do not include the Celery Pond or City barns because no Strategic Plan options propose their use as a downtown. The proposed boundary would encompass business areas that could use revitalization (the DDA's original purpose), so tax benefits would devolve from appropriate improvements. This would help focus the DDA on its intended purpose,. Taxing entities outside the DDA would not have to subsidize its future activities, and they would directly benefit from revenue base improvements elsewhere in the city.
* Drop the lawsuit against the Van Buren County Road Commission. It seems questionable at best to sue for back tax revenue at the same time that the DDA intends to capture the same revenue source. Maybe the City and County could settle on Baseline Road improvements in return for dropping the suit.
* Do not allow captured taxes to be used for marketing, as this draws future revenue from other worthy agencies. Utilize existing organizations in the advertising business to manage advertising campaigns, with revenue coming only from DDA members. This will ensure that DDA marketing activities are financially and philosophically supported by their members. The last effort to directly fund advertising failed due to lack of support from merchants in the district. It doesn't seem fair - even if legal - to use other agencies' potential revenue to do an end run around such a message.
* Establish a policy that the City and its agencies adhere to the same zoning and site plan review processes as the private sector. Ensure that city staff members are allowed to perform objective reviews.
* Prior to taking action on any more DDA funding requests, commission an independent review including an audit of DDA finances from 2000 to the present. Reviewer selection should be approved by the City's auditor. Determine whether nature & size of expenditures was appropriate for results. Confirm effective competitive bidding. Set a 60- or 90-day deadline for report release to minimize impact on DDA plans. Since the DDA is a public agency, it should fund the review and release the results to the public.
* In order to avoid conflicts of interest, establish a City policy that paid city staff members cannot also receive income from other organizations for which they could exert influence.

Posted by Elaine at 05:20 PM | Comments (0)

February 01, 2005

In Sunday's Tribune article, John Braun, DDA Chairman, says that
opposition to DDA's new plan is based on inaccurate and twisted
information, and *personal agenda*.

Mr. Braun might have been able to clarify what was *inaccurate or twisted* in our information if he would have made a presentation to City Council and the public when the Council met to debate the public hearing.
No one presented DDA's plan at Council at all.
Mr. Braun might have been able to clarify what was *inaccurate or twisted* if he participated in the online discussion at www.shwatchdog. org.
No one is presenting DDA's plan here, and they've been invited.
DDA has previously had a lot of success hanging out in the shadows like that.

Mr. Braun also seems surprised that citizens and City Council thought that the DDA's budget proposal WAS actually a budget proposal.
No, Braun says, actually the Plan offers:
"simple examples and amounts of what possibly could be done and not what would be done".

Welcome to the light of day, DDA.
That ambiguity is just ONE of the reasons why City Council sent the Plan back to DDA requesting details.
City taxpayers and City Council are finally recognizing that DDA needs to be understood and monitored.
Now DDA wants City Council to grant them very broad new power given "simple examples" for expenditures in the multiple millions?
I hope those days are over.

We have been discovering that the DDA has wealth and independance.
DDA operates with very little accountability to the public or City Council.
We question their debt, past projects, future plans and their
addition of large waterfront residential areas to their tax capture district.
That is our *personal agenda*.

Our *personal agenda* is to direct our huge property tax burden to be spent to make South Haven a prosperous, livable and beautiful hometown community.
We've been willing to do the work and join our voices in this effort.

But let's clarify the main issue so that our focus is clear:

Many residents of the city and county feel strongly that their
PROPERTY TAXES SHOULD NOT BE SPENT ON MARKETING.
"Simple examples" of several million dollars for highway billboards, print and television advertising only add emphasis to our opposition.

We would like the DDA to withdraw their request to City Council to approve an amendment to their mission (known as "The Plan" ) to include marketing.

We want City Council to refuse to amend DDA's Plan and deny city property tax revenues from being used for marketing and advertising.

We believe that marketing is the job and budget of The Chamber of Commerce, South Haven Visitor's Bureau and private business itself.
If downtown businesses wish to tax themselves or their customers to create a marketing arm (like lodging has with The Visitor's Bureau) they have an option to create a Principal Shopping District (PDF). Or simply take up a collection amongst themselves. We suggest they do that.

We would like Mr. Braun, City Manager Kevin Anderson and the DDA Board to kindly acknowledge and respond to the issues.

Posted by Elaine at 08:23 AM | Comments (0)