18
Aug
Alamo Heights councilor proposes tweaking meeting procedures
Discussion over a newly elected Alamo Heights city councilman's proposal designed to change municipal procedure yielded terse give-and-take at the Aug. 9 council meeting.
Fred Prassel, one of three newcomers elected in May, asked his colleagues to vote on his proposal at the meeting, despite its exclusion from the meeting agenda. (read more).
Related audio: Aug 9, 2010 - AH Council Meeting (partial audio)
Comments
(51)
Show/hide comments
...
written by wfkiel , August 27, 2010
written by wfkiel , August 27, 2010
Actually those things have happened in the last four years:
directed to staff, stated a policy, will put on a future agenda.
We've even started discussion and then stopped. So it is unfair to say that the Council's response has always been no response. Could the Council have said more in some instances? Certainly, and maybe that needs to be looked at as a policy.
directed to staff, stated a policy, will put on a future agenda.
We've even started discussion and then stopped. So it is unfair to say that the Council's response has always been no response. Could the Council have said more in some instances? Certainly, and maybe that needs to be looked at as a policy.
...
written by Peter DeWitt , August 27, 2010
written by Peter DeWitt , August 27, 2010
Let’s model citizens to be heard example since I think our current policy of absolutely no response from council is not what the open meetings act is intending.
Options for council from the open meeting act for off-agenda items are:
1: factual discussion
2: direct person to city staff
3: place on the agenda
4: emergency action
Example:
A person comes forward at citizens to be heard and says a hedge in the city right of way is severely blocking a safe view of oncoming traffic at an intersection and they don’t think it is safe and would like the city to trim the plant back.
Following the options provided by the state open meeting act the council could;
1.State facts like: you may be correct and city right of way safety is controlled by the city among other relevant fact and codes.
2.Direct the person to staff for a review meeting. The problem could be solved as per standard city maintenance.
3.Decide the item is more complex and discussion and deliberation at council is important and put the item on the next council agenda.
4.Decide the intersection is so dangerous and make a motion to act to trim the hedge.
It seems to me that option 1 if relevant facts are know the council could state them without action judgment implied. Option 2 would be a helpful response to notify staff that they should look into this problem. Option 3 and 4 are obvious as solution.
What interests me in this discussion is that the council meetings I have attended in the last 6 years I have not witness a council member stating after a citizen speaks up that they would like the issue placed on the next agenda. I don’t think this is allowed by our current policy of non-response. I have also not witnessed a council member directing staff to meet with a citizen. I have not heard a council member bringing facts forward either. So I do think the current policy of non-response is too restrictive under the open meetings act.
Options for council from the open meeting act for off-agenda items are:
1: factual discussion
2: direct person to city staff
3: place on the agenda
4: emergency action
Example:
A person comes forward at citizens to be heard and says a hedge in the city right of way is severely blocking a safe view of oncoming traffic at an intersection and they don’t think it is safe and would like the city to trim the plant back.
Following the options provided by the state open meeting act the council could;
1.State facts like: you may be correct and city right of way safety is controlled by the city among other relevant fact and codes.
2.Direct the person to staff for a review meeting. The problem could be solved as per standard city maintenance.
3.Decide the item is more complex and discussion and deliberation at council is important and put the item on the next council agenda.
4.Decide the intersection is so dangerous and make a motion to act to trim the hedge.
It seems to me that option 1 if relevant facts are know the council could state them without action judgment implied. Option 2 would be a helpful response to notify staff that they should look into this problem. Option 3 and 4 are obvious as solution.
What interests me in this discussion is that the council meetings I have attended in the last 6 years I have not witness a council member stating after a citizen speaks up that they would like the issue placed on the next agenda. I don’t think this is allowed by our current policy of non-response. I have also not witnessed a council member directing staff to meet with a citizen. I have not heard a council member bringing facts forward either. So I do think the current policy of non-response is too restrictive under the open meetings act.
...
written by wfkiel , August 27, 2010
written by wfkiel , August 27, 2010
Dear )(,
The following is from the Texas Attorney General.
What can city council members do if an unposted issue is raised at an open meeting?
Members of the governmental body may not deliberate or make any decision about an unposted issue at a meeting of the governmental body. If an unposted item is raised, the city council has four options. A council member may respond with a statement of specific factual information or recite the governmental body's existing policy on that issue.(24)Second, a city official may direct the person making the inquiry to visit with city staff about the issue. Third, the city council may offer to place the item on the agenda for discussion at a future city council meeting. Finally, the city council may offer to post the matter as an emergency item if it meets the criteria for an emergency posting. It should be noted that members of the city council are limited in the same way from having unposted items discussed at a city council meeting.
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/open/om_easy.shtml
So, it is not true that " That idea is perpetuated by dutiful city attorneys providing cover, as well as councilpersons who prefer not to engage with citizens..." as Mr. )( has stated. The last line tells it all -
"It should be noted that members of the city council are limited in the same way from having unposted items discussed at a city council meeting."
Mr. )(, You may call it an overabundance of caution. I call it staying out of jail. Frankly, I like that our City officials are cautious when it come to legal matters, don't you?
As for the IRR ordinance, why should proponents have to kill it? They were ready to vote it in last Monday night. Fortunately for them it failed and there is a chance to improve it. You say that this was sandbagged, but by whom? Councilman Prassel made the original request for an IRR charter amendment to be placed on the Nov. ballot He was on the committee that drafted the ordinance that was put forward for a vote. He was one of a few that had access to the ordinance before the meeting. So who was sandbagging this?
Bill Kiel
P.S. Its really awkward typing )(. Could you change it to letters?
The following is from the Texas Attorney General.
What can city council members do if an unposted issue is raised at an open meeting?
Members of the governmental body may not deliberate or make any decision about an unposted issue at a meeting of the governmental body. If an unposted item is raised, the city council has four options. A council member may respond with a statement of specific factual information or recite the governmental body's existing policy on that issue.(24)Second, a city official may direct the person making the inquiry to visit with city staff about the issue. Third, the city council may offer to place the item on the agenda for discussion at a future city council meeting. Finally, the city council may offer to post the matter as an emergency item if it meets the criteria for an emergency posting. It should be noted that members of the city council are limited in the same way from having unposted items discussed at a city council meeting.
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/open/om_easy.shtml
So, it is not true that " That idea is perpetuated by dutiful city attorneys providing cover, as well as councilpersons who prefer not to engage with citizens..." as Mr. )( has stated. The last line tells it all -
"It should be noted that members of the city council are limited in the same way from having unposted items discussed at a city council meeting."
Mr. )(, You may call it an overabundance of caution. I call it staying out of jail. Frankly, I like that our City officials are cautious when it come to legal matters, don't you?
As for the IRR ordinance, why should proponents have to kill it? They were ready to vote it in last Monday night. Fortunately for them it failed and there is a chance to improve it. You say that this was sandbagged, but by whom? Councilman Prassel made the original request for an IRR charter amendment to be placed on the Nov. ballot He was on the committee that drafted the ordinance that was put forward for a vote. He was one of a few that had access to the ordinance before the meeting. So who was sandbagging this?
Bill Kiel
P.S. Its really awkward typing )(. Could you change it to letters?
...
written by )( , August 27, 2010
written by )( , August 27, 2010
Mr. Kiel,
Councilpersons may ask questions of a citizen during comments. Councilpersons can even have a "back and forth dialogue of questions and responses." They can gather information and ask for thoughts.
The limitation prohibits deliberation & action by the council, or a policy discussion. But a back and forth exchange is not prohibited. Again, it is an overabundance of caution, and a means of political cover, that perpetuates these myths.
Councilpersons may ask questions of a citizen during comments. Councilpersons can even have a "back and forth dialogue of questions and responses." They can gather information and ask for thoughts.
The limitation prohibits deliberation & action by the council, or a policy discussion. But a back and forth exchange is not prohibited. Again, it is an overabundance of caution, and a means of political cover, that perpetuates these myths.
...
written by wfkiel , August 27, 2010
written by wfkiel , August 27, 2010
Peter,
Thanks for the information. Most of those options have been used in AH but I don't remember using the emergency posting. The option of "an official may respond with a statement of specific factual information" is not the same as a discussion, which implies a back and forth dialogue with questions and responses. That's what people want to do when they come to speak to Council. That type of discuss would require a posting on the agenda.
Bill
Thanks for the information. Most of those options have been used in AH but I don't remember using the emergency posting. The option of "an official may respond with a statement of specific factual information" is not the same as a discussion, which implies a back and forth dialogue with questions and responses. That's what people want to do when they come to speak to Council. That type of discuss would require a posting on the agenda.
Bill
...
written by Sarah , August 27, 2010
written by Sarah , August 27, 2010
What if we made the request at Citizens to Be Heard to put it on the agenda? That way it would be on record and not disappear, the entire Council and staff and citizens there would hear it, and you could request that you be advised of whether or not it will appear on the next agenda. One of my comments when I spoke was that the Citizens to Be Heard remarks be included in the minutes so the Council would remember them. When the gentleman concerned about his street spoke, he said that was the 5th time he had said something. I complained numerous times about the coyotes, and the City of Olmos Park finally shot them. I complained about the lack of house numbers, and the house numbers we have not being adequate, even ordered a sample of a good one. Nothing has been done.
...
written by )( , August 27, 2010
written by )( , August 27, 2010
Thanks, Pete. A councilperson can respond. He is not required to sit mute. That idea is perpetuated by dutiful city attorneys providing cover, as well as councilpersons who prefer not to engage with citizens, some of whom, we must admit, shouldn't be engaged. But it's not true that councilpersons are not allowed to talk or respond.
Dr. Kiel is correct regarding the timeline. Expectations were unrealistic. But there is no shortage of charter language available to drafters. Texas Municipal League would have been happy to send a copy of their pamphlet on the subject. This effort was sandbagged in order to leave citizens without a useful I&R provision or to force proponents of I&R to have to turn around and kill their own proposal.
Dr. Kiel is correct regarding the timeline. Expectations were unrealistic. But there is no shortage of charter language available to drafters. Texas Municipal League would have been happy to send a copy of their pamphlet on the subject. This effort was sandbagged in order to leave citizens without a useful I&R provision or to force proponents of I&R to have to turn around and kill their own proposal.
...
written by Peter DeWitt , August 27, 2010
written by Peter DeWitt , August 27, 2010
Bill and )(;
I found this interpretation from city of Austin;
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/edims/document.cfm?id=114914
On page 2;
In the meetings, the Act requires that only
the subjects listed on the posted agenda be
considered for that meeting. If an unposted
subject is brought up by the public or a
member of the board there are four options:
- an official may respond wit a
statement of specific factual
information,
- an official may direct the person
making the inquiry to visit staff about
the issue,
- the governing body may choose to
place the item on a future agenda, or
- the governing body may offer to post
the matter as an emergency item if it
meets the criteria for an emergency
posting.
This interpretation seams to say the council could respond in one of four ways; factual discussion, put it up for discussion on future agenda, direct it to staff, or action in an emergency.
Best,
Pete DeWitt
I found this interpretation from city of Austin;
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/edims/document.cfm?id=114914
On page 2;
In the meetings, the Act requires that only
the subjects listed on the posted agenda be
considered for that meeting. If an unposted
subject is brought up by the public or a
member of the board there are four options:
- an official may respond wit a
statement of specific factual
information,
- an official may direct the person
making the inquiry to visit staff about
the issue,
- the governing body may choose to
place the item on a future agenda, or
- the governing body may offer to post
the matter as an emergency item if it
meets the criteria for an emergency
posting.
This interpretation seams to say the council could respond in one of four ways; factual discussion, put it up for discussion on future agenda, direct it to staff, or action in an emergency.
Best,
Pete DeWitt
...
written by wfkiel , August 27, 2010
written by wfkiel , August 27, 2010
Dear )(,
TOMA (aka Texas Open Meetings Act) DOES prevent Council from discussing a topic that was not posted 72 hours before an open meeting. If a citizen brings up a topic at citizens-to-be-heard that is not on the agenda, the council CANNOT respond except to ask staff to take up the issue.
As for "fast tracking", I agree with you. Not only does it tend to limit transparency and openness, mistakes are often made. The recent attempt to pass an IRR ordinance for the charter is a case in point. Huge problems exist with this ordinance and it was never revealed to the public. This isn't the fault of staff or even the committee, it happened because an unrealistic expectation was made from the beginning -" GET IT ON THE NOV. BALLOT." And this was after deciding that the Council wasn't going to meet for 6 weeks, and during the whole month of July! A simple timeline analysis would have told you that it wasn't really possible if the City wanted adequate public input like was done in 2007 for the last charter amendment.
BTW, I'd sure like to know who I'm talking to. Just a thought.
Bill Kiel (more experienced politician?)
TOMA (aka Texas Open Meetings Act) DOES prevent Council from discussing a topic that was not posted 72 hours before an open meeting. If a citizen brings up a topic at citizens-to-be-heard that is not on the agenda, the council CANNOT respond except to ask staff to take up the issue.
As for "fast tracking", I agree with you. Not only does it tend to limit transparency and openness, mistakes are often made. The recent attempt to pass an IRR ordinance for the charter is a case in point. Huge problems exist with this ordinance and it was never revealed to the public. This isn't the fault of staff or even the committee, it happened because an unrealistic expectation was made from the beginning -" GET IT ON THE NOV. BALLOT." And this was after deciding that the Council wasn't going to meet for 6 weeks, and during the whole month of July! A simple timeline analysis would have told you that it wasn't really possible if the City wanted adequate public input like was done in 2007 for the last charter amendment.
BTW, I'd sure like to know who I'm talking to. Just a thought.
Bill Kiel (more experienced politician?)
...
written by )( , August 27, 2010
written by )( , August 27, 2010
TOMA does not prohibit council from responding during citizen comments.
So-called 'fast-tracking' is a bad idea. This a small community. There is no need to rush to consider and vote on anything.
The charter amendment has been neutered and should be scrapped. This, of course, was by design. Hardly an accident that it came out of committee with no teeth and without clearly adequate notice. More experienced politicians won that round.
So-called 'fast-tracking' is a bad idea. This a small community. There is no need to rush to consider and vote on anything.
The charter amendment has been neutered and should be scrapped. This, of course, was by design. Hardly an accident that it came out of committee with no teeth and without clearly adequate notice. More experienced politicians won that round.
...
written by wfkiel , August 27, 2010
written by wfkiel , August 27, 2010
As of the last Council meeting (8/23/10) we now have a clear understanding of who has the authority and RESPONSIBILITY to put items on the Council Meeting agenda for both discussion and action. Prior to this resolution of revised procedures it was always a bit vague as to how things got on the agenda. When I was on council I just asked during a Council meeting to take up an issue in the future. It took time but it always worked. But now each Council member has a right to "fast track" an item for discussion or action. We all know that Citizens-To-Be-Heard can be a frustrating experience because Council cannot respond to questions or discuss an issue due to the Open Meetings Law. I want to suggest to those people that come to speak at Citizen's To Be Heard that if the want to have discussion on a topic before the Council, they should asked their Council, any one or all of them, to request the topic come up for discussion at a future Council meeting. In other words, let the citizens use this newly defined authority as well through THEIR representatives. Then we'll find out if this is really a power to help ALL CITIZENS have access OR JUST A FEW that may have connections to Council. Just a thought.
...
written by BUD , August 23, 2010
written by BUD , August 23, 2010
Sally, well you didn't get an answer to your question but you did get Huh to retreat under fire. Amazing!
...
written by Huh , August 23, 2010
written by Huh , August 23, 2010
Sally for the sake of sanity- you are of superior intelligence! I give up. There are absolutely no special interests; there is not, nor ever has been pandering. I did not charge that money had changed hands. Sorry I wasted so much bandwidth.
...
written by Sally G , August 23, 2010
written by Sally G , August 23, 2010
Huh, Please can we stay on topic. I am not talking about current bloggers or current council. I am talking about your post and trying to understand who are all these special interest people that you keep referring to.
I will try again, how difficult is it to understand my question? To refresh I have posted your two posts from Aug 20 and have added your post you wrote today.
On three separate post you mention "special interest" and I politely keep asking "what special interest?", "who's special interest?" Who do you think the special interest people are that the city was pandering to? Who was pandering to whom? And are you now implying in the Prop 1 election or any election, that money was given and taken? That is a very serious charge.
On Aug 20 :Looked at another way, the last election's results were to correct pandering to special interests
On Aug 20: And finally, those who voted for new council persons had their reasons. Some saw Prop 1 as pandering to special interests
On Aug 23: There are more ways to influence govt than giving money. All of us are 'special interests
Sally, perhaps I could have been more precise. Politics today turns every action into pandering. You may not agree and I will not argue with that. The regulars in here may not consider themselves special interests, but their unified opposition to the three new members and their aspersions cast on those men is pressure (ergo 'special interests') to change city government. There are more ways to influence govt than giving money. All of us are 'special interests'. How is that difficult to understand
I will try again, how difficult is it to understand my question? To refresh I have posted your two posts from Aug 20 and have added your post you wrote today.
On three separate post you mention "special interest" and I politely keep asking "what special interest?", "who's special interest?" Who do you think the special interest people are that the city was pandering to? Who was pandering to whom? And are you now implying in the Prop 1 election or any election, that money was given and taken? That is a very serious charge.
On Aug 20 :Looked at another way, the last election's results were to correct pandering to special interests
On Aug 20: And finally, those who voted for new council persons had their reasons. Some saw Prop 1 as pandering to special interests
On Aug 23: There are more ways to influence govt than giving money. All of us are 'special interests
Sally, perhaps I could have been more precise. Politics today turns every action into pandering. You may not agree and I will not argue with that. The regulars in here may not consider themselves special interests, but their unified opposition to the three new members and their aspersions cast on those men is pressure (ergo 'special interests') to change city government. There are more ways to influence govt than giving money. All of us are 'special interests'. How is that difficult to understand
...
written by Huh , August 23, 2010
written by Huh , August 23, 2010
Sally, perhaps I could have been more precise. Politics today turns every action into pandering. You may not agree and I will not argue with that. The regulars in here may not consider themselves special interests, but their unified opposition to the three new members and their aspersions cast on those men is pressure (ergo 'special interests') to change city government. There are more ways to influence govt than giving money. All of us are 'special interests'. How is that difficult to understand?
...
written by Lawyer Lucy , August 23, 2010
written by Lawyer Lucy , August 23, 2010
Ride, Sally ride!!!! Don't you ever slow that Mustang down!
...
written by Sally G , August 22, 2010
written by Sally G , August 22, 2010
Huh thank you for letting people know you were talking about other posters and not me. I do not want Dr. Wesser or his family to ever think I said something about Dr. Wesser, I never would. I just wanted to caution you on how you post. I do not take things personally.
Now, can we move back to your special interest statements. I am still very interested in your response regarding "pandering to special interest"
YOUR POST:
On Aug 20 :Looked at another way, the last election's results were to correct pandering to special interests
On Aug 20: And finally, those who voted for new council persons had their reasons. Some saw Prop 1 as pandering to special interests
written by Huh , August 21, 2010
Sally G. I am not sure why you care what I say. I entered this conversation because I happen to know Mr. Weser and I do not believe he is pandering to those who voted for him. He made a comment and his words were poorly chosen. Somehow, you thought I was making personal attacks.
Now, can we move back to your special interest statements. I am still very interested in your response regarding "pandering to special interest"
YOUR POST:
On Aug 20 :Looked at another way, the last election's results were to correct pandering to special interests
On Aug 20: And finally, those who voted for new council persons had their reasons. Some saw Prop 1 as pandering to special interests
written by Huh , August 21, 2010
Sally G. I am not sure why you care what I say. I entered this conversation because I happen to know Mr. Weser and I do not believe he is pandering to those who voted for him. He made a comment and his words were poorly chosen. Somehow, you thought I was making personal attacks.
...
written by BUD , August 22, 2010
written by BUD , August 22, 2010
Sally, give it up. You aren't going to get an answer from old Huh.
...
written by Huh , August 22, 2010
written by Huh , August 22, 2010
Sally G you have taken my comments far too personally. I did not mean you attacked Mr Weser. I commented on a number of blogs casting aspersions.
I know we need renovations. I do not agree with the renovations proposed last year.
I know we need renovations. I do not agree with the renovations proposed last year.
...
written by SallyG , August 22, 2010
written by SallyG , August 22, 2010
HUH, Let's try again. On three separate post you mention "special interest" and I politely keep asking "what special interest?", who's special interest?" Who do you think the special interest people are that the city was pandering to?
Does that mean all the great things ( like new Police and Fire stations, City Halls, Community Centers, Rec Centers, Justice Centers, Libraries, nature trails etc) that Cities like, Live Oak, Shertz, Leon Valley, Olmos Park, Shavano Park and yes even little Buda and possibly Terrill Hills have built in the last few years is because of special interest? I think not, I think it is called need, community pride and caring for their families. I encourage you to drive out to Shertz, take a tour then shop and dine. I think they have made an incredible difference as a community in the last 5 years with a new City Hall, Rec Facilities, Library, Senior Citizen facilities etc. Are we a city or just a sub division of San Antonio?
Lastly, I would like to point out that on Aug 21st you posted a note to me. mentioning "Mr. Wesser" inferring that I said something bad about him. I too know Dr. Wesser. and if you go back to my posts you will find I did not mention Dr. Wesser. So in the future please get your posters correct!
YOUR POST:
On Aug 20 :Looked at another way, the last election's results were to correct pandering to special interests
On Aug 20: And finally, those who voted for new council persons had their reasons. Some saw Prop 1 as pandering to special interests
written by Huh , August 21, 2010
Sally G. I am not sure why you care what I say. I entered this conversation because I happen to know Mr. Weser and I do not believe he is pandering to those who voted for him. He made a comment and his words were poorly chosen. Somehow, you thought I was making personal attacks.
As for your need for specifics. If one thought the plans for the municipal complex were extravagant and that extravagance served no purpose, then it follows that the voter would think a special interest was being recognized
Does that mean all the great things ( like new Police and Fire stations, City Halls, Community Centers, Rec Centers, Justice Centers, Libraries, nature trails etc) that Cities like, Live Oak, Shertz, Leon Valley, Olmos Park, Shavano Park and yes even little Buda and possibly Terrill Hills have built in the last few years is because of special interest? I think not, I think it is called need, community pride and caring for their families. I encourage you to drive out to Shertz, take a tour then shop and dine. I think they have made an incredible difference as a community in the last 5 years with a new City Hall, Rec Facilities, Library, Senior Citizen facilities etc. Are we a city or just a sub division of San Antonio?
Lastly, I would like to point out that on Aug 21st you posted a note to me. mentioning "Mr. Wesser" inferring that I said something bad about him. I too know Dr. Wesser. and if you go back to my posts you will find I did not mention Dr. Wesser. So in the future please get your posters correct!
YOUR POST:
On Aug 20 :Looked at another way, the last election's results were to correct pandering to special interests
On Aug 20: And finally, those who voted for new council persons had their reasons. Some saw Prop 1 as pandering to special interests
written by Huh , August 21, 2010
Sally G. I am not sure why you care what I say. I entered this conversation because I happen to know Mr. Weser and I do not believe he is pandering to those who voted for him. He made a comment and his words were poorly chosen. Somehow, you thought I was making personal attacks.
As for your need for specifics. If one thought the plans for the municipal complex were extravagant and that extravagance served no purpose, then it follows that the voter would think a special interest was being recognized
...
written by RedNeckRick , August 21, 2010
written by RedNeckRick , August 21, 2010
Reply to Sarah, I have more ties to AH that you think. Just because I choose to live in SA at the time doesnt mean that I dont care what goes on in AH.
...
written by Katherine T , August 21, 2010
written by Katherine T , August 21, 2010
Mr. Kiel was a great Councilman and served our city well. It was obvious that he put in hours of work each week, only to be criticized. Just go back and look and some of the old post and newspaper articles. I can remember the "Wake Up and Smell the Coffee" poster. These attacks have been going for 6 years and not just toward Mr. Kiel - it is very sad because it runs good people off. I feel over half the posters on this board would never step up to the plate, put their name our there and run for office, they would rather criticize than be productive citizen to our community.
Mr. Kiel thank you for your service to our community and thank you for continuing as a great watch dog.
Mr. Kiel thank you for your service to our community and thank you for continuing as a great watch dog.
...
written by Sarah , August 21, 2010
written by Sarah , August 21, 2010
Hi Rick, I don't remember the masses beating Bill up either, and I was usually at the Council meetings, and on here off and on. Maybe it just seemed that way to you as an out-of-towner looking in.
...
written by wfkiel , August 21, 2010
written by wfkiel , August 21, 2010
or maybe I was beat up by only a few back then?
I didn't mind being beat up then and I don't mind it now.
It comes with the territory when you caste off the cloak of anonymity.
I didn't mind being beat up then and I don't mind it now.
It comes with the territory when you caste off the cloak of anonymity.
...
written by RedNeckRick , August 21, 2010
written by RedNeckRick , August 21, 2010
What surprises me to no end that when Bill was in counsel. the masses would beat him up. Now that he is out and back to being just a citizen, y'all are on on his side. What has changed??? It isnt Bill, his opinions are the same. Maybe it is the viewers of this site!!!
...
written by Bummer , August 21, 2010
written by Bummer , August 21, 2010
I agree with Bill, but this makes me an anonymous poster
criticizing an anonymous poster criticizing another anonymous poster for posting anonymously.
Huh said "I do agree that at last there appeared to be a discussion instead of flaming. It appears that holds true only if the "select few" are blogging" and Hummer said "elite group" rather than "select few" so I agree with Hummer's comments.
criticizing an anonymous poster criticizing another anonymous poster for posting anonymously.
Huh said "I do agree that at last there appeared to be a discussion instead of flaming. It appears that holds true only if the "select few" are blogging" and Hummer said "elite group" rather than "select few" so I agree with Hummer's comments.
...
written by wfkiel , August 21, 2010
written by wfkiel , August 21, 2010
Dear Hummer
I've said this before. It's hypocritical for an anonymous poster to criticize another anonymous poster for posting anonymously.
I've said this before. It's hypocritical for an anonymous poster to criticize another anonymous poster for posting anonymously.
...
written by AHMatron , August 21, 2010
written by AHMatron , August 21, 2010
Huh suggests that Prop 1 was about "pandering to special interests". I would more accurately suggest that it was about NOT PANDERING TO SPECIAL INTERESTS. The former council tried to play it straight, do what was best for the city. Because certain businessmen in this city couldn't make a buck on the deal, they opposed it and lied about it and got their minions to lie about it and the lies won. So Huh, that pile of crap at the top of Broadway is still in critical need of fixing. And it remains to be seen if the current council with a majority of lie-believers are up to the job.
BTW, one of the lies was that the proposed facilities were way overpriced. Terrell Hills has come up with a bond for their much smaller city facility, that does not provide water service, dispatch, trash service, EMS etc., etc. How much is there's costing? $8M
So Huh, your pants are definitely on fire. But our firefighters are decent enough guys to still be there for you.
BTW, one of the lies was that the proposed facilities were way overpriced. Terrell Hills has come up with a bond for their much smaller city facility, that does not provide water service, dispatch, trash service, EMS etc., etc. How much is there's costing? $8M
So Huh, your pants are definitely on fire. But our firefighters are decent enough guys to still be there for you.
...
written by Huh , August 21, 2010
written by Huh , August 21, 2010
Sally G. I am not sure why you care what I say. I entered this conversation because I happen to know Mr. Weser and I do not believe he is pandering to those who voted for him. He made a comment and his words were poorly chosen. Somehow, you thought I was making personal attacks.
As for your need for specifics. If one thought the plans for the municipal complex were extravagant and that extravagance served no purpose, then it follows that the voter would think a special interest was being recognized
And you are correct. Councilpersons serve every resident of Alamo Heights. They get one dollar a year for the honor and I am discouraged when I see attacks on any of them, even when I don't agree with their decisions.
As for your need for specifics. If one thought the plans for the municipal complex were extravagant and that extravagance served no purpose, then it follows that the voter would think a special interest was being recognized
And you are correct. Councilpersons serve every resident of Alamo Heights. They get one dollar a year for the honor and I am discouraged when I see attacks on any of them, even when I don't agree with their decisions.
...
written by Hummer , August 21, 2010
written by Hummer , August 21, 2010
Pandering is what is going on down in Olmos Park. The election is OVER, the Council is working together, so DEAL WITH IT.
WHAT elite group? Do you mean the people who consistently use the same anonymous name and make sense so we have grown to know them, rather than the occasional pot-shot by an anonymous anonymous poster like you?
WHAT elite group? Do you mean the people who consistently use the same anonymous name and make sense so we have grown to know them, rather than the occasional pot-shot by an anonymous anonymous poster like you?
...
written by Sally G , August 21, 2010
written by Sally G , August 21, 2010
Huh - Please re-read your post and re-read mine. I feel you have over analyzed my comments. My statement regarding "recall" was a general comment and beliefs of mine. I did not quote your statement.
Again, you mention " pandering to special interests": "Some saw Prop 1 as pandering to special interests. I am trying to understand this statement - what special interests in Prop 1? Who were the special interests? I would appreciate if you could be more specific.
Next I would like to reiterate to everyone "along with the win comes not only the honor of serving put a very big responsibility of PUBLIC SERVICE". As a public servant, you serve all the people - including the non registered voter. Alamo Heights has 7353 people, they are the constituents you serve, every women, man and child. There is a difference between good leadership and great leadership. Some will serve only those who helped them get elected. Good leadership will try to serve the whole community. Great leadership will serve everyone, even if one's personal beliefs differs from that of your constituent and you do what is best for the community as whole - even if it may not be popular at the time.
Too many times, people try to pigeon-hole or label people and are quick to judge. If you must over analyze my statements then here is a bit of information that might help you: I voted for 2 of the ladies and one of the gentlemen in the last election. Uh Huh!
Again, you mention " pandering to special interests": "Some saw Prop 1 as pandering to special interests. I am trying to understand this statement - what special interests in Prop 1? Who were the special interests? I would appreciate if you could be more specific.
Next I would like to reiterate to everyone "along with the win comes not only the honor of serving put a very big responsibility of PUBLIC SERVICE". As a public servant, you serve all the people - including the non registered voter. Alamo Heights has 7353 people, they are the constituents you serve, every women, man and child. There is a difference between good leadership and great leadership. Some will serve only those who helped them get elected. Good leadership will try to serve the whole community. Great leadership will serve everyone, even if one's personal beliefs differs from that of your constituent and you do what is best for the community as whole - even if it may not be popular at the time.
Too many times, people try to pigeon-hole or label people and are quick to judge. If you must over analyze my statements then here is a bit of information that might help you: I voted for 2 of the ladies and one of the gentlemen in the last election. Uh Huh!
...
written by Huh , August 20, 2010
written by Huh , August 20, 2010
Whistler, you see things from one perspective, your own, and that is your prerogative. Again proving the point that perception is everything. It is not a lie tinkling out others point of view.
...
written by Whistler , August 20, 2010
written by Whistler , August 20, 2010
Who are you going to believe - me or your lying eyes?
Huh, can't keep his story straight and dodged the question asked by Sally.
written by Huh , August 20, 2010
Looked at another way, the last election's results were to correct pandering to special interests.
written by Huh , August 20, 2010
I did not accuse the earlier council of pandering.
Huh, can't keep his story straight and dodged the question asked by Sally.
written by Huh , August 20, 2010
Looked at another way, the last election's results were to correct pandering to special interests.
written by Huh , August 20, 2010
I did not accuse the earlier council of pandering.
...
written by Huh , August 20, 2010
written by Huh , August 20, 2010
My, my, Sally, this proves my points. Mr Weser was accused of pandering by an earlier post. Did you call that a serious charge? Then, when I mention recall ( also bandied around in earlier posts), you say it is too grave a device to be used lightly why only if I bring out up. I did not accuse the earlier council of pandering. I merely pointed out that what was termed pandering could be said of any politician. And finally, those who voted for new council persons had their reasons. Some saw Prop 1 as pandering to special interests. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
I do agree that at last there appeared to be a discussion instead of flaming. It appears that holds true only if the "select few" are blogging.
I do agree that at last there appeared to be a discussion instead of flaming. It appears that holds true only if the "select few" are blogging.
...
written by SAR , August 20, 2010
written by SAR , August 20, 2010
Sally, you wrote an excellent post. You more eloquently made the point I was initially trying to make. Council is elected to serve the MASSES, not just their specific supporters.
I also must agree about the Recall comment. Recall is a tool for voters when their officials are corrupt or completely non responsive. It should not be used as a threat, undertaken lightly or for simple spite.
I did find it interesting on the video of the Initiatives and Referendum topic that it appears Council may try and make it even more difficult for voters to recall them by raising the number of signatures required for a recall. Since this issue has never arisen before, I can only assume that the new Council members have a reason for their actions that we have not heard them speak of before.
We should ask why they are throwing a bigger road block in front of citizens.
I also must agree about the Recall comment. Recall is a tool for voters when their officials are corrupt or completely non responsive. It should not be used as a threat, undertaken lightly or for simple spite.
I did find it interesting on the video of the Initiatives and Referendum topic that it appears Council may try and make it even more difficult for voters to recall them by raising the number of signatures required for a recall. Since this issue has never arisen before, I can only assume that the new Council members have a reason for their actions that we have not heard them speak of before.
We should ask why they are throwing a bigger road block in front of citizens.
...
written by Sally G , August 20, 2010
written by Sally G , August 20, 2010
Huh, please. Yesterday we had a very good dialogue and discussion going without a lot of name calling. I do not think anyone thinks their opinion is more important than the next poster, I certainly do not think that. I have found not everyone agrees all the time with each other. For example, I may agree with Matt D or JAK44 or TJW or Lawyer Lucy or even BUD on one post but totaling disagree with them on their next post. This is good in my opinion. It is Democracy.
You just made a statement that said the previous council pandered to special interest. Would you mind giving specific examples of who these special interest were? That is a very serious charge and should be backed up with specifics. I am sure you will not mind sharing that information.
I respectively, disagree with you on one part of your statement "Elections, bottom line, are the final arbiter". Yes elections are majority wins that is what our country was founded on. However, along with the win comes not only the honor of serving put a very big responsibility of PUBLIC SERVICE. I think if you ask any elected Official about who they represent they will tell you their district or the people of our city. They do not say they represent the people that elected me, for two reasons. First, once an elected official is sworn in, they have the duty to serve all the people of AH, they have to represent all the voters of AH to the best of their ability, plus weighing what is best for the City as a whole (not an easy job). To do otherwise leads to a very short career. Second, they have no way of knowing every single person that voted for them and they know that.
Lastly, I would like to say something about recall which is tossed around a lot. Recall is a very good protective tool for voters to use. It should not be taken lightly or abused. It is there for when an Elected Official has abused their official powers or violated laws and the people's trust. It should not be used as an idle threat.
You just made a statement that said the previous council pandered to special interest. Would you mind giving specific examples of who these special interest were? That is a very serious charge and should be backed up with specifics. I am sure you will not mind sharing that information.
I respectively, disagree with you on one part of your statement "Elections, bottom line, are the final arbiter". Yes elections are majority wins that is what our country was founded on. However, along with the win comes not only the honor of serving put a very big responsibility of PUBLIC SERVICE. I think if you ask any elected Official about who they represent they will tell you their district or the people of our city. They do not say they represent the people that elected me, for two reasons. First, once an elected official is sworn in, they have the duty to serve all the people of AH, they have to represent all the voters of AH to the best of their ability, plus weighing what is best for the City as a whole (not an easy job). To do otherwise leads to a very short career. Second, they have no way of knowing every single person that voted for them and they know that.
Lastly, I would like to say something about recall which is tossed around a lot. Recall is a very good protective tool for voters to use. It should not be taken lightly or abused. It is there for when an Elected Official has abused their official powers or violated laws and the people's trust. It should not be used as an idle threat.
...
written by Huh , August 20, 2010
written by Huh , August 20, 2010
SAR , I don't believe he is pandering to a special interest group any more than any other politician. For some reason, a few of you believe that only your opinions count. Elections, bottom line, are the final arbiter. And if your majority is real then there is the process of recall. Looked at another way, the last election's results were to correct pandering to special interests. I encourage you to contact Mr. Weser and present your concerns. He does listen and he is responsive.
...
written by SARah , August 20, 2010
written by SARah , August 20, 2010
Y'all should start going to council meetings and if you can't, then listen to these videos. I didn't vote for this Council, but it is pretty obvious to me that the Council is working together for the best interests of all of us. Sure we are going to get some situations where somebody is out of line, but, so what? I am impressed with our new council. I just wish it could be bigger, and Bill, Suzy, Jill, Pete, JJ, Maggie, and Susan could be up there with them. Oh yes and Lawyer Lucy to give legal opinions. ;-)
...
written by SAR , August 20, 2010
written by SAR , August 20, 2010
Yes, huh, elections are determined by those who vote. But if we use your specific example, does that mean that Mr. Weser should make all his decisions based on 800+ people without regard to the many others in the City? Is he permitted to ignore the others because they failed to participate?
I would argue that, no, he cannot and should not pander to any specific groups - voters or not.
I would argue that, no, he cannot and should not pander to any specific groups - voters or not.
...
written by Huh , August 20, 2010
written by Huh , August 20, 2010
Elections are not determined by registered voters. Elections are determined by votes. Has AH ever had more than 4000 vote in an election? More than3000?
...
written by SAR , August 20, 2010
written by SAR , August 20, 2010
I think Mr. Weser misinterpreted the election results. While he did win his race, he should consider that there were about 4,591 registered voters who did not vote for him.
To be an effective councilman he needs to consider all the people in the city, not just the small percentage who supported him.
This is a direct parallel to our national government - microcosm vs. macrocosm. Special interests and small voting blocks have no place influencing our government leaders. It takes an alert citizenry to make sure their feet stay firmly planted on the ground.
To be an effective councilman he needs to consider all the people in the city, not just the small percentage who supported him.
This is a direct parallel to our national government - microcosm vs. macrocosm. Special interests and small voting blocks have no place influencing our government leaders. It takes an alert citizenry to make sure their feet stay firmly planted on the ground.
...
written by Whistler , August 18, 2010
written by Whistler , August 18, 2010
Like I commented on the audio story, you had to see it to believe it. Prassel just didn't get it and refused to listen. It was his way or the highway.
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register (free) if you do not have an account yet.
My view was only for the times I was at council meetings and I certainly was not at all or even most of them. You may be right, but I have not witnessed any response while I was in attendance. The mayor has stated at the meetings I was at that the council "cannot comment or discuss" a citizens to be heard items. Are you saying a council person stated directly after a citizens to be heard comment that they want that item on the next agenda? If so that surprises me. I guess I missed the meetings where council had a fact discussion, staff direction, and other responses during citizens to be heard.
In my model idea of the dangerous intersection i could imagine a dialogue like this;
Citizen states overgrown hedge is dangerous for an intersection. Council ask which corner of the intersection. Citizen says southwest. Council asks if it is a four way stop. Citizen says yes. Council asks if any major trees are involved. Citizen says maybe. Council asks police chief, who happens to be in attendance, if he is aware of this issue and if he can remember if any accidents or other complaints are on record for this intersection. Police chief says yes other complaints but no accidents. Council ask citizen if they have discussed this with owner of property on the corner of intersection with hazard. They say yes and the citizen is not in agreement with trimming the hedge. Council decides do to the complexity of the issue that staff should research it and report back at the next council meeting as an agenda item.
This example dialogue would seem to me to fit the definition of the state requirements. The council discussed facts and made a decision based on the four allowed options for an off-agenda item.
Pete