September 10, 2005
More "Wild Accusations" (amended)
At Tuesday night's City Council meeting, Councilman Larry King referred to "wild accusations". Here's one for you. But the only thing wild about this accusation is how wildly TRUE it is.
The draft of the 9-6-2005 City Council minutes do not record the Council's decision to bar me from speaking. What a WILD coincidence.
The incident, including the Mayor's suggestion to bar me from speaking, discussion and my objections to not being allowed to speak does not appear in the minutes at all. As the videotape will clearly clearly show such challenges and discussions, City Council should vote to approve the minutes with appropriate amendments.
Of course, I will email them and offer them the opportunity to set the record straight in case there is any challenge to the city's action.
The minutes are the legal record of the meeting. False minutes, it seems to me, are as bad as barring someone from speaking on a relevant issue during an officially open public hearing.
Recommended draft amendment with my proposed insert in QUOTATION MARKS:
Moved by Smith to open the public hearing regarding the special assessment district.
Seconded by King.
Voted Yes: All. Motion carried.
"Elaine Herbert, 140 North Shore Dr – requested to read an e-mail sent to City Council by Don Bemis, the Chairman of the Planning Commission.
Mayor Lewis said the letter is not "germane".
Ms. Herbert said it was, indeed, relevant because it had to do with the subject of the public hearing currently opened.
The Mayor still attempted to get the council to vote to not allow Ms. Herbert to speak.
Ms. Herbert reminded Council that she asked during the workshop session just prior to this meeting if the subject of the Planning Commission would be discussed during the Quaker St. Improvement agenda item and was told yes. Otherwise, Ms. Herbert said, she would have spoken under agenda item "Citizens Speak on Items Not on the Agenda".
Discussion. Mr. Paull said the letter was part of the public record and available to the public.
Ms. Herbert said the letter was not included in the City's website agenda or agenda notes and was not available to the public. Mr. Paull said the public could read it on the internet. Ms. Herbert said that her personal blog is not where the public should be expecting to read Council correspondance. Ms. Herbert said that the letter was sent to Council and members of the Planning Commission, not the public, and that no one on Council had responded. That, and the failure to include it in the meeting agenda, is why she wanted to read it.
Councilman Stegeman said that he had not read the letter (email),
didn't know what it was about and that Ms. Herbert should read it.
Moved by King to receive comments from Don Bemis by including Mr. Bemis’ e-mail as part of the official record. Seconded by Paull.
Voted Yes: All. Motion carried.
Ms. Herbert was not permitted to read the letter.
Moved by King to close the public hearing regarding the special assessment district.
Seconded by Fahs.
Voted Yes: All. Motion carried.
(This entry was amended 9-14-05 to correct the record. The vote was to submit the letter to record, not to ban me from speaking. Nevertheless, I was not allowed to speak during a public hearing, period.)
Posted by Elaine at September 10, 2005 02:49 PM
Comments
Come on Elaine,
If you weren’t so darn busy being offended, taken aback, aghast, bored and a host of other negative reactions to those who speak of ideas slightly different from you, you might have a chance to recognize opportunities to work with others.
There was no motion to deny you the opportunity to speak.
The public hearing on assessments was opened. You requested to read the letter. I moved to waive the reading of the letter and to recognize that it would already be part of the official record as Mr. Bemis had requested. That motion passed so there was no need for you to read the letter and you were not denied the opportunity to speak. In fact, you spoke a good deal - not on the substance of Mr. Bemis’ letter, but that you couldn’t read it verbatim. We spent so much time on it, it would have been quicker for you to just read the letter.
You asked when would you be able to speak on the plans and Mr. Bemis’ request to have planning commission review them. Council stated that it would be more appropriate under the next agenda item where council would actually be discussing the plans and budget for the project -not under the assessment hearing. The hearing was closed.
Council member Dave Paull moved and I seconded to approve the project with approval of the parking lot and street plans by planning commission. This would have been the perfect opportunity for you to work with council by re-stating Mr. Bemis’ reasoning behind having planning commission review the plans. But unfortunately you did not get up and speak. A number of good discussions took place among council members as to why council should have planning commission review the plans. Your voice affirming Mr. Bemis’ arguments along with those by Dave, I and others might have persuaded the vote you desired. But you sat silent.
Its awfully hard to hear those opportunities to work together when the blood is rushing through angry ears.
Larry
Posted by: Larry at September 11, 2005 03:27 PM
Larry,
The fact remains that I was not permitted to speak during a PUBLIC hearing. After watching the video of the meeting it does seem you had the legal good sense to disguise the denial of speech as the "waiving of the reading" and the motion as one that "put Mr. Bemis's letter into the record". Well that's your BS. But to anyone with half a brain it's obvious that it was a denial of speech. Even the newspaper represented it as a vote to deny me from speaking. Speech is speech, and I should have been able to read the Koran if it was relevant to the agenda. In fact, you came to the Mayor's rescue when he actually attempted to take a vote on whether to let me speak so that you could quickly hide such a vote behind a more defensible motion.
If the letter wasn't appropriate during that agenda item, as you said, then why make a motion to enter it into the record then? To stop me from speaking, that's for sure.
The truth is, from the moment I stood to speak it was obvious that the letter, read publicly, was what you wished to stop. No one believes for a second that stopping me from reading it was a "saving time" idea, but thanks for that insulting rationale.
The open meetings act permits public speech during a meeting. The Lewis-King Act clearly does not.
As to speaking during the motion to send the plans to Planning Commission, I have been censured at Council long enough to know that Mayor Lewis would not have allowed me to speak during a non-public Council motion "discussion". Having already been NOT allowed to speak at the public hearing it is amazing that you expected me to leap up and try to speak during a non-public moment. You know full well I would not have been allowed to speak.
The only reason I didn't read the letter by the time the NEXT public hearing came up was because you dunderheads had already voted NOT to send the plans to Planning Commission. The letter was a moot point by then. Nice Robert's Rules of Order stunt. The best I could do was say how disgusting this was.
The fact remains that the city ordinance calls for a Special Use Permit and a public hearing at Planning Commission for a project such as Quaker Street. The letter even pointed out serious flaws and violations of the ordinance in the construction plans, but what did you care? The notion to not "bother " Planning Commission with the overseeing of plans is another patronizing insult, expecially with a letter on record *demanding* that Planning Commission be involved.
You may talk yourself into such foolishness, but the public doesn't buy it.
And how about Councilman Stegman? He voted NO on sending the plans to Planning Commission after admitting that he never read Mr. Bemis's letter. What a joke!
Angry? You bet? So are a lot of people. But it doesn't cloud my vision or thoughts, only clarifies.
Posted by: Elaine at September 12, 2005 07:38 AM
Elaine,
There are several bottom-lines here. You obviously can choose what you like. For me, a motion was made and supported to send the project to planning commission. That was the time for you to work with Dave, I and the rest of council by highlighting the key points of Don's letter.
I didn't say the anger clouded your vision or thoughts, just your listening skills. We all hear what we want to hear when we are angry.
Larry
Posted by: Larry at September 12, 2005 08:48 AM
My anger is appropriate.
Posted by: Elaine at September 12, 2005 09:23 AM
Larry--
The letter from Don Bemis was relevant to the public (???) hearing--those people watching on T.V. were entitled to hear it. It's likely that many people are unable to read it on-line. The public HAS A RIGHT TO KNOW. What a concept...openness.
And you're right about one thing at least--the controversy would have been over much sooner if Elaine had read the letter. No matter how you paint it, the Council has egg on its face.
Posted by: vikke at September 13, 2005 07:29 PM
Vikke,
Absolutely. I never said the letter wasn't relevant.
And I believe Dave Paull moved and I supported Mr. Bemis and the request he made in his letter. And I believe the substance of his letter was discussed under that motion.
Larry
Posted by: Larry at September 13, 2005 09:27 PM
It was The Mayor who deemed the letter "not germane" and asked for a vote to not permit me to speak.
The substance of the letter was surely not "discussed"; it was not included in the agenda documents, it was "filed" without public hearing, misrepresented and then swatted away. When Councilman Stegeman admitted that he'd never read the letter, you, Larry, described it as "just like" Mr. Bemis's previous letters about the Huron St. Parking lot, etc, basically a repeat version of that bothersome call for planning commission overview and public opinion.
No mention that the letter alerts you to the fact that the city ordinance calls for any parking lot plan in the Central Business District to require a Special Use Permit and a public hearing at Planning Commission. Ms. Fahs asked the only pertinent question to the city manager: who made the plans and is what Mr. Bemis says about these plans violating the ordinance correct? The City Manager called them a "collaborative effort of city staff, engineers and the DDA", which of course leaves that darned public and know-it-all Planning Commission out again. Furthermore, the DDA Board has never laid eyes on the plan either, just the plan's budget. The city manager just shrugged off the question of whether the ordinance is obeyed, no answer, just a shrug.
I believe that this was an orchestrated maneuver designed to keep the public out of the plans, period. Hard to deny.
Take, for example, the city manager's disingenuous reasoning for why the determination for public improvement, setting of date for public hearing, actual public hearing, approval of the improvement and awarding of the bid all happened in one meeting instead of the 3-4 meetings it usually takes for such a process. He said: It saves people from having to come to multiple meetings. Hey, we don't mind coming. We have things to say, thanks. What a crock.
But, hey, those darn tree huggers might have wanted to retain that last bit of harbor, lighthouse and lake view down Avery with a small green park or something equally silly. The public just delays and holds up all that rushed progress and paving we like so much. Maybe those parking places designed to specifically benefit the neighbors (keeps them quiet about the $5,000 assessment too) might have been called into question. Maybe it would have been too much scrutiny of that quiet budget at the DDA.
No, that's right, those are just "wild accusations" by "angry" people. Isn't that a convenient way to dismiss those who want a voice, who do their homework, show up to speak and bother you with all those darned delays and options? Onward we go to the next expensive bikepath that goes nowhere, valiant servers of the angry, unheard public.
--
Posted by: Elaine at September 14, 2005 06:39 AM