13
Aug
Aug 9, 2010 - AH Council Meeting (partial audio)
The city was having a problem getting all the audio loaded so the rest will be posted early next week.
Recognition of Firefighter/Paramedic Sam Menges on his retirement after 27 years of public service with the City of Alamo Heights
City Manager’s Report
An Ordinance to amend Chapter 18 of the Code of Ordinances to change the effective times and days for parking restrictions West Elmview and the 100 block of West Fair Oaks...
Partial discussion: Consideration of an Ordinance granting a license to the Alamo Heights Optimist Club to use a portion of Viesca Street
Part 1 ~1 hour, 7 min.
Recognition of Firefighter/Paramedic Sam Menges on his retirement after 27 years of public service with the City of Alamo Heights
City Manager’s Report
An Ordinance to amend Chapter 18 of the Code of Ordinances to change the effective times and days for parking restrictions West Elmview and the 100 block of West Fair Oaks...
Partial discussion: Consideration of an Ordinance granting a license to the Alamo Heights Optimist Club to use a portion of Viesca Street
Part 1 ~1 hour, 7 min.
| Agenda | Action | Approved Minutes |
Comments
(46)
Show/hide comments
...
written by b kiel , August 19, 2010
written by b kiel , August 19, 2010
Dear Betty,
No Way, I've done my time but thanks for the kind words. We all need to help in positive ways with suggestions and honest comments that seek understanding on both sides of this divide.
No Way, I've done my time but thanks for the kind words. We all need to help in positive ways with suggestions and honest comments that seek understanding on both sides of this divide.
...
written by Bungalow Betty , August 19, 2010
written by Bungalow Betty , August 19, 2010
Mr. DeWitt and Mr. Kiel I wish you would both think about running for Council some day. Both of you have so much to offer. Mr. Kiel I do wish you would think about coming back. I do enjoy both of your post.
...
written by Sarah Reveley , August 19, 2010
written by Sarah Reveley , August 19, 2010
Be patient, Fed Up. Just in the last few days there has been a shifting of attitude, so when you see the flamers, ignore them. The main thing I heard on the tape was the positive way our Council was responding, trying to work together. Yeah there were a few hiccups but can you imagine what it would be like if they followed the rules we have on here?
...
written by M Whitley , August 19, 2010
written by M Whitley , August 19, 2010
I hope the link below is of some help. In Texas OMA violations penalty can be imprisonment. It is very serious, and the Texas AG takes OMA very seriously. Both Mr. Kiel and Mr. Dewitt have some very good points. The "walking quorum" is one you always need to be aware of and absolutely "no polling". You can in a Council meeting ask for something to be put on the agenda for the next meeting. Agenda items are usually posted as discussion items, public hearing items or action items. The Golden rule: as an elected official is that you are there TO SERVE ALL THE PEOPLE and THE PEOPLE, the public, under OMA has the right to know the City's business. Rule of thumb if it "ain't" posted don't go there.
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/open/og_training.shtml
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/open/og_training.shtml
...
written by b kiel , August 19, 2010
written by b kiel , August 19, 2010
By the way, I'm seeing more people use their real names and that's very positive if we want our comments to be taken seriously. Also, using one's name tempers one's response - it cuts down on the flaming. It may not be as entertaining but its better for the city. I would suggest to the administrator that the "vote" feature be eliminated. It only encourages divisiveness and we all know it can, and has been, manipulated. Let the comments stand on their own.
...
written by b kiel , August 19, 2010
written by b kiel , August 19, 2010
Peter: You bring up many good suggestions. First, I think the committee structure is valid as long as only two or fewer council persons are involved on a committee. Of course, this gets close to the line and an inadvertent communication to a third council person would violate OMA. As for what the committees work on, it is my experience that topics are chosen from the Strategic Action Plan or topics that arise at Council meetings and are directed to committees. The SAP is a public document and is presented at a Council meeting for public information and comment.
During the recent election campaign, statements were made that the staff essentially ran the committees and the council had a more passive role. This could not be further from the truth. The decision of what projects to work on was always made by the full council, mostly as directed by the Strategic Action Plan, and the council committee members actively directed the committees.
You point out that the committee system ..." pressures the other council members, not on that committee, to go along with the recommendations. Often this works, but also it gives the appearance that council meetings are for public show of approval and not an open discussion of the details." Occasionally this has occurred to the point of discomfort on the part of non-committee members but rarely such that they would just go along. There were several report outs that were rejected by the full council either outright or to return to the committee for more work. Also, the details were quite extensive to the point of sometimes over-doing it. But that's looking at the past.
Your other suggestion I like a lot if can be done legally.
1) "to make the minutes from the internal committees public once completed prior to acting on the data? "
Currently there are no minutes of committee meetings, nor are they required or public. And, releasing them prior to a decision meeting might constitute an OMA violation. But they could be released at the meeting in public or afterwards. Its a good thought.
2) Posting the entirety of the agenda materials is a great idea and has been planned for some time. I hope it happens but I don't see it on the SAP. Marian Ramirez would know and maybe she'll comment.
During the recent election campaign, statements were made that the staff essentially ran the committees and the council had a more passive role. This could not be further from the truth. The decision of what projects to work on was always made by the full council, mostly as directed by the Strategic Action Plan, and the council committee members actively directed the committees.
You point out that the committee system ..." pressures the other council members, not on that committee, to go along with the recommendations. Often this works, but also it gives the appearance that council meetings are for public show of approval and not an open discussion of the details." Occasionally this has occurred to the point of discomfort on the part of non-committee members but rarely such that they would just go along. There were several report outs that were rejected by the full council either outright or to return to the committee for more work. Also, the details were quite extensive to the point of sometimes over-doing it. But that's looking at the past.
Your other suggestion I like a lot if can be done legally.
1) "to make the minutes from the internal committees public once completed prior to acting on the data? "
Currently there are no minutes of committee meetings, nor are they required or public. And, releasing them prior to a decision meeting might constitute an OMA violation. But they could be released at the meeting in public or afterwards. Its a good thought.
2) Posting the entirety of the agenda materials is a great idea and has been planned for some time. I hope it happens but I don't see it on the SAP. Marian Ramirez would know and maybe she'll comment.
...
written by Whistler , August 19, 2010
written by Whistler , August 19, 2010
Do these guys have any idea how long council meetings will be if they don't ask and get answers to some basic questions before bringing it to council? Taking it to committee allows many questions to be answered in advance. Just look at how long it took to cover what you can hear here. I left about the 2 1/2 hour point and they weren't halfway through the agenda.
I do think that the committee structure meets OMA but only if the councilmen are ethical.
I thought it was odd that Weser knew so much and was so opinionated about Prassel's ordinance when Prassel and HIS WIFE only handed it out a few minutes before the council meeting. Even that struck me as odd because it was not a city sanctioned documents and they should not have been handing it out. Most handouts are done by a City employee.
Now we find out it wasn't checked by the City attorney. This will continue to be a problem if they just put things on an agenda, don't vet it and try to vote.
I've got a budget saver! We can let staff go and just use the Councilmen's wife to do secretarial duties. It would be great spousal support.
I do think that the committee structure meets OMA but only if the councilmen are ethical.
I thought it was odd that Weser knew so much and was so opinionated about Prassel's ordinance when Prassel and HIS WIFE only handed it out a few minutes before the council meeting. Even that struck me as odd because it was not a city sanctioned documents and they should not have been handing it out. Most handouts are done by a City employee.
Now we find out it wasn't checked by the City attorney. This will continue to be a problem if they just put things on an agenda, don't vet it and try to vote.
I've got a budget saver! We can let staff go and just use the Councilmen's wife to do secretarial duties. It would be great spousal support.
...
written by Sarah Reveley , August 19, 2010
written by Sarah Reveley , August 19, 2010
Excellent comments, thank you Pete and Bill. I would like to see the content of the Citizens To Be Heard items added to the minutes, since most people turn in a written copy of what they said. Is there any example of that in other cities?
...
written by Peter DeWitt , August 19, 2010
written by Peter DeWitt , August 19, 2010
I am wondering if the current committee structure is valid under the OMA. The internal city committee meetings work on council level topics, form opinions, craft law, and spend resources forming answers to agenda items before the public has input. This pressures the other council members, not on that committee, to go along with the recommendations. Often this works, but also it gives the appearance that council meetings are for public show of approval and not an open discussion of the details. This is what the OMA was also trying to avoid, the public blessing approval vote of non-public decisions. In the search for uniformity and cohesiveness among the council members the appearance of independence is lost.
Would it be better for council to publicly decide what the committees work on and also to make the minutes from the internal committees public once completed prior to acting on the data?
I also have noticed many cities are now posting the entirety of the agenda presentation materials that council is reviewing for a meeting in PDF form on their websites. This would include all written laws, pictures and presentations. They don’t allow any other information to be included that is not in the PDF packet posted with the agenda. I have noticed our city puts items on the agenda and post it Friday before the Monday meeting. Unless someone has the time Monday to ask for the information from the city we often don’t see it until we are at the meeting. I think this would be great for our city transparency.
Would it be better for council to publicly decide what the committees work on and also to make the minutes from the internal committees public once completed prior to acting on the data?
I also have noticed many cities are now posting the entirety of the agenda presentation materials that council is reviewing for a meeting in PDF form on their websites. This would include all written laws, pictures and presentations. They don’t allow any other information to be included that is not in the PDF packet posted with the agenda. I have noticed our city puts items on the agenda and post it Friday before the Monday meeting. Unless someone has the time Monday to ask for the information from the city we often don’t see it until we are at the meeting. I think this would be great for our city transparency.
...
written by b kiel , August 19, 2010
written by b kiel , August 19, 2010
Another important aspect to the Open Meeting Law is the "Walking Quorum". That occurs when one councilperson talks with another and the second talks to a third about pending business before the City. This violation can take place not just face-to-face but over the phone, e-mail, etc. and possibly through intermediaries. As a former councilperson I can attest to the difficulty of adherence to this requirement and it sometimes causes communication problems between council members. BUT it is absolutely essential to ensure that the voters have transparency in their government and elected officials.
...
written by C Darrow , August 19, 2010
written by C Darrow , August 19, 2010
Common Sense good post. The OMA is not to be taken lightly. It is a highly regarded law. It is a law that should never be violated by elected officials. They should read up on the Alpine case if they have not already. I know the City Managers and City Attorneys are always looking after elected officials back side when it comes to this issue. Once elected you can not say you did not know, because state law requires training by every elected official.
...
written by Admin , August 19, 2010
written by Admin , August 19, 2010
Nikki, start the audio, then click ahead of the green bar while its loading. That will move you to different sections of the audio and you can skip parts. It plays and loads at the same time, so it will only be able to go as far as it's loaded.
...
written by Common Sense , August 18, 2010
written by Common Sense , August 18, 2010
Before we leave the topic of Open meetings I want to mention something that I caught Mr. Weser saying on the Mayors lunch during the approval of the minutes .
He asked that the Mayors lunch be posted by the City so that Council members could attend - as if that was all that needed to be done to make the gathering legal.
He, like Mr. Prassel, fails to understand what is required or why. A meeting item posted by the City needs to state specifically what City business is to be discussed. Since the lunch is informal, located on City property and topics cannot be defined in advance, even a posted gathering of a majority of Council would be a quorum - and would on its face be quite ILLEGAL. Councilmen can take turns attending so long as there is no quorum.
A majority of Councilmen (3 in our case) are also prohibited from gathering after adjournment of a meeting.
When Council gathers for a funeral or a social event where NO city business is going to be discussed, it can be posted and all Council members can appear.
Whoever is giving these men advise is leading them down the path of incompetence and possibly criminal charges. Mr. Weser may feel he has a "mandate" and but it is not one that allows him to break the law.
The reference to Windcrest by Mr. Prassel is troubling since some of the Councilmen in that City have had numerous issues. His example does not meet the highest standards.
I think the City Attorney needs to have a workshop to go over these simple rules for all of Council - some for a refresher and some so they get the drift. The latest ruling should also be brought to their attention.
The Capitol Annex reported in May 2010 - Twitter, Texting & The Texas Open Meetings Act:
"The Texas Attorney General (under both Abbott and Cornyn), has already ruled that personal email messages sent by government officials that constitute official business–even if sent from personal email accounts–constitute public records and are subject to disclosure under the Texas Public Information Act. The primary precedent for this was a city of Arlington open records decision in 2001. The current AG’s administration has continued to abide by that precedent.
Thus, should the issue of text messages being requested by a citizen arise, the AG and courts already have precedent from the Arlington opinion to guide them."
From what I hear Mr. Prassel isn't answering his city e mail so he must be using his personal account which the public does not have access to. He needs to be very careful regarding the e mail ruling.
He asked that the Mayors lunch be posted by the City so that Council members could attend - as if that was all that needed to be done to make the gathering legal.
He, like Mr. Prassel, fails to understand what is required or why. A meeting item posted by the City needs to state specifically what City business is to be discussed. Since the lunch is informal, located on City property and topics cannot be defined in advance, even a posted gathering of a majority of Council would be a quorum - and would on its face be quite ILLEGAL. Councilmen can take turns attending so long as there is no quorum.
A majority of Councilmen (3 in our case) are also prohibited from gathering after adjournment of a meeting.
When Council gathers for a funeral or a social event where NO city business is going to be discussed, it can be posted and all Council members can appear.
Whoever is giving these men advise is leading them down the path of incompetence and possibly criminal charges. Mr. Weser may feel he has a "mandate" and but it is not one that allows him to break the law.
The reference to Windcrest by Mr. Prassel is troubling since some of the Councilmen in that City have had numerous issues. His example does not meet the highest standards.
I think the City Attorney needs to have a workshop to go over these simple rules for all of Council - some for a refresher and some so they get the drift. The latest ruling should also be brought to their attention.
The Capitol Annex reported in May 2010 - Twitter, Texting & The Texas Open Meetings Act:
"The Texas Attorney General (under both Abbott and Cornyn), has already ruled that personal email messages sent by government officials that constitute official business–even if sent from personal email accounts–constitute public records and are subject to disclosure under the Texas Public Information Act. The primary precedent for this was a city of Arlington open records decision in 2001. The current AG’s administration has continued to abide by that precedent.
Thus, should the issue of text messages being requested by a citizen arise, the AG and courts already have precedent from the Arlington opinion to guide them."
From what I hear Mr. Prassel isn't answering his city e mail so he must be using his personal account which the public does not have access to. He needs to be very careful regarding the e mail ruling.
...
written by Nikki , August 18, 2010
written by Nikki , August 18, 2010
I want to be able to listen to this thing more than once without having to listen to the whole thing again. How can we get some kind of slider to we can skip what we don't want to hear again? I don't care about the minutes corrections.
...
written by SallyG , August 18, 2010
written by SallyG , August 18, 2010
Fed Up Are you talking about Mr. Kiel Video camera or AHNA's video camera? You seem so angry.
...
written by FED UP , August 18, 2010
written by FED UP , August 18, 2010
I believe this is a good time for my group to step up and start filming on their own. We have a camera and I don't know why we aren't using it. Then we can show everyone on this board just how wrong they are about the new councilmen. That would shut up all the naysayers who have forgotten about Prop1 and let them know who is in charge now.
...
written by SallyG , August 18, 2010
written by SallyG , August 18, 2010
Maybe it would help to have the video loaded, since the audio is just a partial recording of the Council meeting. Just a thought.
...
written by BUD , August 17, 2010
written by BUD , August 17, 2010
Now that we've settled that, let's go waste another 30 minutes of our lives and listen to the end of the tape. If it's this bad right out of the shoots, the next 30 should be a barn burner.
...
written by JDD , August 17, 2010
written by JDD , August 17, 2010
Thank you Mr.Kiel, I misunderstood your sentence "This was the approach we followed for the prior four years and this would simply codify it." and thought you were referring to the procedure of setting up the agenda itself.Thank you for the clarification.
...
written by b kiel , August 17, 2010
written by b kiel , August 17, 2010
Dear JDD: I doubt it was an ordinance that was just laying around. I think it was one that another city had, maybe Shavano Park, since Councilman Prassel mentioned it. Besides, it was handed out by Councilman Prassel at the meeting, not by the City Secretary. One point that needs to be stressed concerns the near violation of the Open Meeting Act. Toward the end of the discussion there was a push to pass the ordinance and come back later and amend it after the City Attorney had looked at it. Ms McGlone strongly cautioned against this since it hadn't been posted for action, only for discussion. She deserved credit for keeping things straight. I can understand how someone would interpret her actions as resistive but they were entirely necessary.
Someone mentioned that I had a video of the meeting and I do. If there is a need for further clarification I might be able to post it.
Someone mentioned that I had a video of the meeting and I do. If there is a need for further clarification I might be able to post it.
...
written by Common Sense , August 17, 2010
written by Common Sense , August 17, 2010
I did not read that Mr. Kiel said he didn't know about the ordinance. There was no ordinance to be ignored. Clearly, his problem was the fact that it was not posted as required by law and vote on it that night would have been ILLEGAL.
Add to that mix the fact that no one knows who wrote the ordinance. I am not convinced that Mr. Prassel was capable of doing that himself.
Mr. Prassel, who should be one of those most current on Open meeting laws, chose to ignore them. Other Councilmen clearly need a refresher course also. That's the point Mr. Kiel was making.
Add to that mix the fact that no one knows who wrote the ordinance. I am not convinced that Mr. Prassel was capable of doing that himself.
Mr. Prassel, who should be one of those most current on Open meeting laws, chose to ignore them. Other Councilmen clearly need a refresher course also. That's the point Mr. Kiel was making.
...
written by JDD , August 17, 2010
written by JDD , August 17, 2010
Thankyou Mr Kiel. If you didn't know about the ordinance, is it possible that it has been ignored for many years and none of the council persons knew of it? That would explain alot.
...
written by Common Sense , August 17, 2010
written by Common Sense , August 17, 2010
This is a singular case where a working knowledge of the Open Meetings Laws come into play. Clearly, our City Manager is on top of her game and was attempting to keep Council from violating any laws. Credit to her as she did so as respectfully as she could.
As men who ran on the concept of "transparency" it does appear they are trying to circumvent it. The new Councilmen had 60 or 90 days (I'm not sure which) to take the open meetings class after being sworn in. Perhaps they have not yet done so. If they have taken the course, then this was a blatant disregard of law.
There is no excuse for the other Councilmen or Mayor from attempting to vote on an ordinance which was not an action item on the agenda for that night. They should have spoken up and helped Mr. Prassel understand why he could not get what he wanted no matter how much be berated the City Manager. The best I can do in their defense is that they didn't want to embarrass Mr. Prassel. However, their job is to watch out for the rights of the citizens, not fellow Councilmen who don't understand what they are doing.
I, too, would like to know who provided this so called "ordinance" to Mr. Prassel. He has no legal background to know if the ordinance is legal or not - despite what he said. If he doesn't understand Open Meetings laws or the chain of command at City Hall, why should we assume he understood the meaning or legal requirements of the ordinance. Is this how they run things in Floresville?
Is he running up a legal tab with a law firm we know nothing about?
The big question they failed to address, as I see it, was what do they want to fast track. That should be what raises the alarm bells.
As men who ran on the concept of "transparency" it does appear they are trying to circumvent it. The new Councilmen had 60 or 90 days (I'm not sure which) to take the open meetings class after being sworn in. Perhaps they have not yet done so. If they have taken the course, then this was a blatant disregard of law.
There is no excuse for the other Councilmen or Mayor from attempting to vote on an ordinance which was not an action item on the agenda for that night. They should have spoken up and helped Mr. Prassel understand why he could not get what he wanted no matter how much be berated the City Manager. The best I can do in their defense is that they didn't want to embarrass Mr. Prassel. However, their job is to watch out for the rights of the citizens, not fellow Councilmen who don't understand what they are doing.
I, too, would like to know who provided this so called "ordinance" to Mr. Prassel. He has no legal background to know if the ordinance is legal or not - despite what he said. If he doesn't understand Open Meetings laws or the chain of command at City Hall, why should we assume he understood the meaning or legal requirements of the ordinance. Is this how they run things in Floresville?
Is he running up a legal tab with a law firm we know nothing about?
The big question they failed to address, as I see it, was what do they want to fast track. That should be what raises the alarm bells.
...
written by Allsion on Argo , August 17, 2010
written by Allsion on Argo , August 17, 2010
b Kiel, Could not agree with you more. I did not realize that our City attorney had not approved this. Thank you for taking up the mantle of watch dog.
"I don't have a problem with Councilman Prassel's suggestion for changing the procedures to add agenda items or for calling special meetings. This was the approach we followed for the prior four years and this would simply codify it. I do have a problem with bringing the ordinance to council for a vote without a discussion meeting first, or a decision to send to a committee. Since it was obvious that the City Attorney didn't write the ordinance, who did? We shouldn't be freelancing our ordinances. Ms McGlone was simply following the established rules of the council and it seemed that Councilman Prassel wanted to bypass those rules in order to bypass the rules. I also didn't appreciate the Councilman's comment/question to Ms McGlone "why are you defying me?" That was uncalled for and I hope doesn't happen again. We must give respect if we expect to get it."
"I don't have a problem with Councilman Prassel's suggestion for changing the procedures to add agenda items or for calling special meetings. This was the approach we followed for the prior four years and this would simply codify it. I do have a problem with bringing the ordinance to council for a vote without a discussion meeting first, or a decision to send to a committee. Since it was obvious that the City Attorney didn't write the ordinance, who did? We shouldn't be freelancing our ordinances. Ms McGlone was simply following the established rules of the council and it seemed that Councilman Prassel wanted to bypass those rules in order to bypass the rules. I also didn't appreciate the Councilman's comment/question to Ms McGlone "why are you defying me?" That was uncalled for and I hope doesn't happen again. We must give respect if we expect to get it."
...
written by Whistler , August 16, 2010
written by Whistler , August 16, 2010
As one who witnessed this and having listened to the tape twice to make sure I didn't judge too harshly, I disagree that Ms. McGlone didn't hear him. I thought she was painfully careful trying to explain how things worked to someone who has no knowledge of how our government works. He either didn't hear what she said at all or could not understand the significance. Either option is a little scarey when one considers he is running the town.
I would like to know if anyone can explain to me what Weser said about the subject. For the life of me I can't figure out what he meant. He is a true politician. Talks a lot and says nothing.
I would like to know if anyone can explain to me what Weser said about the subject. For the life of me I can't figure out what he meant. He is a true politician. Talks a lot and says nothing.
...
written by listen carefully , August 16, 2010
written by listen carefully , August 16, 2010
It appears she didn't hear him either. Agreed, his tone was not warranted. Both sides handled it badly. If the Club and Argyle were discussing it, then this really is a slow news month.
...
written by Maxwell312 , August 16, 2010
written by Maxwell312 , August 16, 2010
Did anybody get past the first 30 minutes yet? I don't have the time to listen but want to know what happens next. JACK, where are you?
...
written by Barbara , August 16, 2010
written by Barbara , August 16, 2010
I sincerely hope this was a one time incident. He didn't seem to comprehend what the manager was saying. This is not who I thought I voted for.
...
written by Thomas , August 16, 2010
written by Thomas , August 16, 2010
I am shocked! My wife told me I had to listen to the tapes, especially since the Council meeting was the talk at the Club and Argyle. It is pretty unbelievable. What is going on with some of these elected official? I would never talk to an employee that way, not very productive or very professional. Hopefully, they were just having a bad day and an apology was given.
...
written by b kiel , August 16, 2010
written by b kiel , August 16, 2010
I don't have a problem with Councilman Prassel's suggestion for changing the procedures to add agenda items or for calling special meetings. This was the approach we followed for the prior four years and this would simply codify it. I do have a problem with bringing the ordinance to council for a vote without a discussion meeting first, or a decision to send to a committee. Since it was obvious that the City Attorney didn't write the ordinance, who did? We shouldn't be freelancing our ordinances. Ms McGlone was simply following the established rules of the council and it seemed that Councilman Prassel wanted to bypass those rules in order to bypass the rules. I also didn't appreciate the Councilman's comment/question to Ms McGlone "why are you defying me?" That was uncalled for and I hope doesn't happen again. We must give respect if we expect to get it.
...
written by Nikki , August 16, 2010
written by Nikki , August 16, 2010
This is the first time i have listened to any of the council meetings and i only made it about 20 minutes. Mr. Prassel doesn't sound like a nice person to work for.
...
written by BUD , August 16, 2010
written by BUD , August 16, 2010
Being a Monday morning quarterback is a lot more fun than being a Sunday afternoon quarterback. A Monday morning quarterback is always right!
...
written by JDD , August 16, 2010
written by JDD , August 16, 2010
Suit yourselves. Perhaps you should have run for city council. I never enjoyed being a Monday morning quarterback.
...
written by Whistler , August 16, 2010
written by Whistler , August 16, 2010
Prassel needs to look at the city flow chart. Then he would have known who to give it to when the city manager is gone. Had Prassel taken it to the Mayor, he would have gotten it into the right hands. No excuses for Prassel on this one.
...
written by BUD , August 16, 2010
written by BUD , August 16, 2010
I always tell my kids that Respect is earned not just given out willy nilly. Prassel needs to work on this one.
...
written by JDD , August 16, 2010
written by JDD , August 16, 2010
Whistler How do you know that Mr Prassel knew she would be gone?
...
written by BUD , August 16, 2010
written by BUD , August 16, 2010
They should stay away from video if it is as bad as Whistler says it is. Better to be thought foolish than to have us see it and remove all doubt.
...
written by JDD , August 16, 2010
written by JDD , August 16, 2010
Mr Kiel took video
Whether you like a councilman or not, a more respectful attitude wouldn't hurt. I agree, Mr Prassel deserved better answers up front. Mrs McGlone said she could not receive email. Mr Eddy should have contacted Mr Prassel immediately if the councilman's request could not be met. Mistakes are made every day.
Whether you like a councilman or not, a more respectful attitude wouldn't hurt. I agree, Mr Prassel deserved better answers up front. Mrs McGlone said she could not receive email. Mr Eddy should have contacted Mr Prassel immediately if the councilman's request could not be met. Mistakes are made every day.
...
written by Whistler , August 16, 2010
written by Whistler , August 16, 2010
We do have a Mayor and an asst. city manager when the City manager is gone. My first question remains. If this was so important why didn't he mention it the day before she left. He knew she was leaving.
What or who made this a matter of such urgency?
What or who made this a matter of such urgency?
...
written by Sam09 , August 16, 2010
written by Sam09 , August 16, 2010
While I'll agree Prassel comes across like he's whining, I do not buy Anne's excuse that she was not able to see the email. It's inexcusable for a City Manager not to be in touch with their city even when away. It's a 24/7 position in my opinion.
Mr Administrator, how about adding video, it would be much better.
Mr Administrator, how about adding video, it would be much better.
...
written by Whistler , August 16, 2010
written by Whistler , August 16, 2010
Well Prassel sounds like even more pompous on this tape than he did in person. After the City manager explains why she has to follow open meetings laws he sounds like a 2 year old whining about what he can't get.
If the ordinance he wants was soooo important, why didn't he tell her about on Tuesday before she left. Why didn't he call the Mayor? Prassel says he left it with the City secretary and she cannot set the agenda.
What this tape does not show is the ping pong match with Weser. When Prassel got in over his head he looked directly to Weser and Weser jumped in and tried to give a better explanation. You have to see it to believe it.
If the ordinance he wants was soooo important, why didn't he tell her about on Tuesday before she left. Why didn't he call the Mayor? Prassel says he left it with the City secretary and she cannot set the agenda.
What this tape does not show is the ping pong match with Weser. When Prassel got in over his head he looked directly to Weser and Weser jumped in and tried to give a better explanation. You have to see it to believe it.
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register (free) if you do not have an account yet.
It is similar to how friends tell me I can cook and I should open restaurant. They are two different things. I can cook up a good political argument from my point of view but serving as a counsel person representing all the citizens is wholly different thing.