Got a short break waiting on a phone call. I thought I'd give you a preview on what I'm thinking for the next blog. It will take some time, but I would like to re-visit the council meetings for The Villages, the restaurant land give away, and the temporary quarters for the library issue. I want to form some opinion on how much the public was informed as decisions were made.
Please don't think this is a witch hunt. I have nothing against individual members of City Council, however I have taken three video courses required by the State of Texas because of committees I have sit on, or as a member of the City Council. In all three videos it was stressed that the public should be informed. Secrets should not be withheld, unless certain legal and "sensitive" issues are on the table. Of course, "sensitive" is the key word. Transparency is paramount in the eyes of the State of Texas. Pretending transparency is not.
It is my opinion that discussing the spending of millions of dollars of taxpayer money is not "sensitive." The steps that are taken to arrive at a decision of spending money should be shared with the citizens. What I fear is that some meetings are "co-mingled," whereby information that should be shared with the citizens are being included in meetings with the city attorney under the guise of being "legal" or "sensitive" issues. By discussing the pros or cons of an issue, while in a "legal" meeting, the discussions are protected from public scrutiny and is therefore kept from the public. Of course, this would be wrong.
There could be a possibility that the City Council does not want to be viewed as a "sleight of hand" council. There is a possibility I am wrong. I have no "proof." Neither do you. We are banned from such Executive Meetings. In the absence of proof, one has to look at the patterns. I want to study those patterns and I will post my findings and my opinion.
I am aware of at least one council meeting in which a consultant was called into Executive Session to address the council on the zoning of a residential request. This consultant could not, or should not, be present for a "legally sensitive" meeting of city business. The only purpose the consultant could have for being present would be the discussion of the zoning of the project. That is definitely in the realm of the public. I think the State of Texas would think so, also. That is only one example. Others follow.
Please don't think this is a witch hunt. I have nothing against individual members of City Council, however I have taken three video courses required by the State of Texas because of committees I have sit on, or as a member of the City Council. In all three videos it was stressed that the public should be informed. Secrets should not be withheld, unless certain legal and "sensitive" issues are on the table. Of course, "sensitive" is the key word. Transparency is paramount in the eyes of the State of Texas. Pretending transparency is not.
It is my opinion that discussing the spending of millions of dollars of taxpayer money is not "sensitive." The steps that are taken to arrive at a decision of spending money should be shared with the citizens. What I fear is that some meetings are "co-mingled," whereby information that should be shared with the citizens are being included in meetings with the city attorney under the guise of being "legal" or "sensitive" issues. By discussing the pros or cons of an issue, while in a "legal" meeting, the discussions are protected from public scrutiny and is therefore kept from the public. Of course, this would be wrong.
There could be a possibility that the City Council does not want to be viewed as a "sleight of hand" council. There is a possibility I am wrong. I have no "proof." Neither do you. We are banned from such Executive Meetings. In the absence of proof, one has to look at the patterns. I want to study those patterns and I will post my findings and my opinion.
I am aware of at least one council meeting in which a consultant was called into Executive Session to address the council on the zoning of a residential request. This consultant could not, or should not, be present for a "legally sensitive" meeting of city business. The only purpose the consultant could have for being present would be the discussion of the zoning of the project. That is definitely in the realm of the public. I think the State of Texas would think so, also. That is only one example. Others follow.
RSS Feed
