Well you do learn something new everyday. During public input today at the informational I asked why a roll was not called before the meeting started. The reason I asked is because only 4 councilors decided to show up in person so I had NO idea who was on the phone. It was later revealed that 2 councilors (Jensen and Selberg) were on the phone and 2 were absent (short timers Kiley and Erickson which I don’t expect to see much of moving forward). While Curt corrected councilor Starr at the end of the meeting that they do not do roll at the informational (I checked previous meetings and it is true) the real reason I asked was because there was no acknowledgement of the councilors on the phone at the beginning of the meeting, roll call or not.
During public input I said that I think this phone it in practice (that really started because of Covid) needs to end, and then I got interrupted by the chair, Soehl that I was off topic. I was going to finish by saying that if the public has to show up in person, the council should too. It will be interesting to watch the new councilors phone it in practices (BTW, none of the newly elected councilors were at the meeting either, to at least watch and learn).
Most of my input was about how the city pretty much did their yearly financial report ass backwards by handing out millions in subsidies without having an audit or final report in their hands right before an election.
I asked, “How can you hand out millions when you don’t have a yearly financial report or audit, with no working sessions or public comment and input?”
Deer in headlights.
‘Ghosting’, that’s what it is. Such councilors are like a blind date with an erroneous unbelievable profile meant to scam the public.
Reminds me of a prisoner playing ‘girlfriend’ with the phone hoping for commissary money.
Zoom democracy, it’s coming. If isn’t already here. Scientist have now connected a brain to a computer. This should be interesting. We’ve involved into the once Apple commercial, but where’s the slug hammer?……..:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtvjbmoDx-I
“‘involved’?”
“‘slug’?”
INFO meetings are strictly informational, they do require a quorum of 5 members to hold the meeting. With 4 present. They need 1 member on the phone. Before the meeting, the City Clerk is instructed to note and record all participants in the public meeting. There is no roll count required, even though it’s good practice to perform one, but the council has a history not taking roll calla. I would argue, you could perform a FOI to audit, inspect, and confirm who all attended, and to collect data of their public commebts, the minutes to verify who all showed up to participate. That’s the role of the city clerk, to record, maintain, and to ensure public meetings are held in a legal manner. The newly elected members are bit obligated by law to participate during public meetings, though I can confirm many of them have been in attendance for regular city meetings of extensive value.
Mike, public meetings are for the public, not the councilors or the city clerk. There would be nothing wrong with just stating before the meeting that 2 councilors are on the phone and who they are. Governing is a function to serve the governed (the citizens) not a function to serve itself. I am still baffled how hard this city government works to keep things in the dark. I shouldn’t have to wait a week to figure out who was at the meeting.
Talvez eles estejam marcando um encontro no Tinder
Talk about them in another language?
Scott,
I was not arguing with you on the thought of forcing a roll call vote during Informational Meetings. I was simply saying that it would not matter one way or the other. The CITY CLERK’s job is to record everything that occurs at those public meetings so the residents can gain the information. Yes, I believe there should be a roll call vote, but even they did not take one, I know I can go to the City Clerks office and obtain a public record request to see who participated in the meeting or not.
Et tu, Brute?