Blakespear's latest newsletter:
"What's now clear to me is that the hard questions need to be asked in private, before the meeting, when there's time for city staff to get additional information or research an issue more. Most of the preliminary issues and all the relevant data points need to be ironed out before the meeting so that when the five City Council members get together to find consensus, we are in the position to be able to move forward. My process is improving!"
Why does Blakespear want to take things into the back room where residents cannot hear the questions or staff explanations? We were told there would be a new transparency. Is this it?
Saturday, March 21, 2015
Closed is the new open
From the Inbox:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is not a good idea. The questions that some council members have are the same ones the citizens have. It is good to have these questions answered in an open form of government so that we all can learn.
ReplyDeleteKeeping information hidden and only known by five people is not the way to go.
No, Catherine. Transparency is what we want.
Transparency is what we were promised.
DeleteBlakespear has turned to the dark side...
ReplyDeleteIt comes down to this, staff has told her they will NOT answer any questions in public, they will NOT be made to be seen as the fools that they are, nor will they allow any progress on hard issues such as salaries and pensions to be shared with the public.
No council person has the balls to challenge the staff in public on any issue, the citizens are screwed.
It's time for flaming torches and pitchforks.
Total bullshit.
DeleteI don't by it. Catherine is the best Council person we have.
DeleteKeep up the good work Catherine.
11:19- You don't buy what? What she is proposing is already illegal.
DeleteSabine must be directing her too now. At one meeting, Blakespear came out of closed session and revealed that Sabine did not support the Council's unanimous decision to defined against the building industry lawsuit. Shaffer grabbed her arm and silenced her.
ReplyDeleteSabine and the staff work for builders and depend on them to generate their retirements. Enough people have convinced Catherine that she has to follow the crowd. This is really sad. At least she has legal training and a brain that I had hoped she would use to represent citizens.
CB is reacting to the inherent tension between transparency and efficiency in city government. If the council meeting serves as the first time the council members are made aware of a complex issue, the best they can do try to understand what the issue is. Once they understand, questions can be asked at the 2nd meeting. Staff may take one, two, or three weeks to answer the questions, so now we're in week 7 and council might have enough information and knowledge to make a decision. Meanwhile, council observers and critics wonder why it takes so long for council to make a decision! It would be far more efficient if agenda materials could be made available well before the meeting (to everybody) so that council has the time to read everything and then form up a list of questions to give staff before the meeting so that they can be prepared to answer them. If need be, the councils list of pre-meeting follow up questions can also be made public in order to give the public some sense as to what a particular council member is thinking.
ReplyDeleteWouldn't that be more useful? Does this fit within the 4 corners of the Brown Act?
- The Sculpin
CA Government Code 54950. " In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be
Deletetaken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly. The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created."
Perhaps the lawyer should read and observe the code.
Delete1:44 PM
DeleteExcept when (Gov Code 54952.2):
(a) As used in this chapter, “meeting” means any congregation of a majority of the members of a legislative body at the same time and location, including teleconference location as permitted by Section 54953, to hear, discuss, deliberate, or take action on any item that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body.
(b) (1) A majority of the members of a legislative body shall not, outside a meeting authorized by this chapter, use a series of communications of any kind, directly or through intermediaries, to discuss, deliberate, or take action on any item of business that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not be construed as preventing an employee or official of a local agency, from engaging in separate conversations or communications outside of a meeting authorized by this chapter with members of a legislative body in order to answer questions or provide information regarding a matter that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the local agency, if that person does not communicate to members of the legislative body the comments or position of any other member or members of the legislative body.
(c) Nothing in this section shall impose the requirements of this chapter upon any of the following:
(1) Individual contacts or conversations between a member of a legislative body and any other person that do not violate subdivision (b).
...
The Brown Act allows council members to individually discuss with staff any agenda topic prior to the meeting to review the item and ask any clarifying questions. Staff may not discuss these conversations with another council member. I have often heard a council member bring up a question they had answered by staff because they felt if they had that question, others would too.
People complain that the council is uninformed but they don't seem to want them to get better informed either.
??? Vina was exposed, repeatedly, for making "arrangements" behind Council's back and feigning innocence. Talk to your council members on an individual basis and most will admit that staff is not forthcoming with information.
DeleteThe fact that council members individually and as a whole do not demand full and truthful disclosure at all times from staff falls squarely back on the members. How many times has staff been caught out by the public and council sits there, blinking?
The public is not responsible for the council being poorly informed; in fact, council seems oftentimes annoyed by the public's revelations. Go down the line: Kranz is totally impassive, Muir has down pat the pretense of caring, Shaffer looks permanently angry, Blakespear wants it all neatly packaged behind closed doors, and Gaspar says nothing.
Don't make council's excuses for them.
5:49 PM
DeleteWhile I've seen mistakes by both staff and the council, most of what gets labeled here as a mistake or worse, those favorite backroom deals, is just a case of the people here not agreeing with decisions and being unable to fathom why others don't follow their line of reason.
Besides, it's called representative government because we elect people to make decisions. Sure you should weigh in on topics at the meetings but at the end of the day it's the elected council that makes the decisions. If you don't want that then form a townhall form of government where we all get together, all get to discuss, and then we all vote.
I've never made excuses for the council as others have by claiming they were under Vina's spell or some other fancied reasoning. They sought the position and they should be prepared to execute their duties. For example, I've been saying that the responsibility for the YMCA lease situation is totally on the council. They were told of the language change clearly in the staff report. The fact that it was on the consent calendar was no excuse. They should have asked questions about it either before the meeting or at it.
8:02 PM
DeleteThe Jim Bond excuse - "You elected us, and we will decide what is best for you."
Back to comments that it takes weeks for staff to respond. This is because they all meet and check stories, destroy evidence, hide files, and meet with council and whine as victims so that they can cover their backsides. If all that was involved was telling the truth, they could answer questions on the spot. Therefore, we are paying them to work against citizens plain and clear!
Delete2:15 PM
DeleteAnd I suppose 9/11 was an inside job.
8:46 PM
DeleteStart the petitions for direct democracy. From Wikipedia:
A town meeting is a form of direct democratic rule, used primarily in portions of the United States – principally in New England – since the 17th century, in which most or all the members of a community come together to legislate policy and budgets for local government.
Sounds good to me! A lot of things happened without having over-paid staff members who are sucking at the government teet!
DeleteWhy does it take staff up to three weeks (or more) to answer questions?? Watch some of them in action and you'll see a lot of squirming and evasiveness. Trained under Stocks, Sabine, and Vina to evade and obfuscate, staff - who supposedly are well-performing professionals - need time to justify their misleading "guidance" to council.
ReplyDeleteResponse time could be way curtailed if "staff" gave straight answers.
DeleteIt is disheartening to read Blakespear's comment. She has only been on the council for about three months and has now quickly turned into an insider. Kranz took a little longer.
ReplyDeleteStaff takes weeks or months to prepare an agenda report. The Housing Element Update, for example, has been going on a long time. Jeff Murphy is always reminding the council that it will take month to prepare something.
Sadly Blakespear has misjudged the competency of staff. She thinks that backroom discussions will suddenly make them competent. It will only allow them to get their "story" straight. Best that all of this is done under the scrutiny of the public. Otherwise it's all a way to blindside the public and push unpopular decisions on the electorate.
Just when we, at least myself anyway, was/were beginning to believe Catherine could make a difference to the status quo, she squanders any perception of true representation by this boneheaded sell out move. Hopefully, this is just a stumble and not a glimpse of what is to come.
ReplyDeleteThat we have a staff that is never prepared to answer without getting back to us weeks later is obvious to the public and not to the council. How convenient for them and shameful.
Yet accepted without so much as the bat of an eye by Council. Shame on the Council, too.
DeleteI don't think Catherine is suggesting an overt Brown Act violation (although it is ironic that most here instantly hold the rule of law as sacred, after months of suggesting we give the middle finger to state housing law, but I digress).
ReplyDeleteShe's a lawyer; she knows better. She may be headed toward a digital SharePoint-type tool, where Council and staff can post material in advance, ask and answer questions in advance of meetings, and the public can read it all. Alternately, I think individual council members can meet with staff privately, just not three or more. If each council member legally asks for a private meeting prior to important agenda items to resolve questions and reach decisions faster, then why not? Hold them accountable for their votes.
"Headed toward a digital Sharepoint-type tool?" What the heck are you talking about and where do you get your information or supposition?
DeleteThe main concern any city watcher has is this push to take things out of the public eye, made even stranger by the fact that she ran on a promise of transparency...she and Shaffer, who likewise wants city conducted in the dark and likewise arranged in advance before presenting to a now-uniformed public.
I don't know who pays your bills, 3:46, but your comments sure sound like those of someone pushing an agenda of secrecy. We've been there and done that and it did not work in favor of residents.
Ha, typos galore! "Shaffer, who likewise wants city business conducted in the dark"...and "presenting to a now-uninformed public." Guess you know what I meant, though.
DeleteThe Brown Act doesn't require any discussion be held in closed session. It only allows limited kinds of discussions can be held in closed session. Our council could hold all discussions in open session, but chooses not to.
DeleteLet's remember that Barth boycotted closed sessions for a period as a protest over Brown Act violations. Some changes were made. All sitting council members ran on a platform of transparency. Both Kranz and Shaffer are often eager to go into closed session. It is only Muir who sometimes says he prefers open discussion. He wanted it on the Pacific View purchase. We didn't get it, and look how that turned out. Often the public is way ahead of the council, and the public is banned from closed sessions. Citizens can speak in open session before the council goes into closed session. But does the council listen?
The Brown Act doesn't restrict council members from individually meeting with staff to review items on the agenda. They should be fully prepared for the meeting. These aren't backroom deals. This isn't doing city business in the dark. This is reviewing the materials prior to the meeting. Any discussions between the individual council member and staff cannot be communicated to the other council members. That would violate the Brown Act's restriction on serial meetings.
DeleteSee 7:03 PM below.
DeleteCatherine needs to learn right away that things take time, and in some cases a very long time in government and city issues. Her suggestion to speed things along, per say, will not fly.
ReplyDeleteIt is each council person's responsibility to read and digest the material given to them. If they have questions, it should be done in an open public environment so that we, the people, can also know the answers.
If these people are too busy with their other jobs, children, and other social activities, perhaps they should not be representing us. We elect people with the hope that they will take the time and do what is best for our city. If these people are off running to Disneyland, Legoland, ball games, etc., how much time are they spending doing the job they were elected to do?
As always, the taxpayers get screwed time and time again.
For awhile Catherine looked promising, but to continue this charade with wanting council consensus and wanting to know how each council member feels about something, is getting a little annoying and a waste of time.
4:06 PM
Delete"If these people are off running to Disneyland, Legoland, ball games, etc.,"
So if you get elected to council you can kiss all that family stuff goodbye.
Or to Yosemite as Shaffer did, or to D.C. where Kranz went courtesy of us. Would love to know what they learned, if anything.
Delete3:46 FP.
ReplyDeleteWhy is expecting staff to be ready to answer any questions about a scheduled agenda item too much to ask? That is part of their job description. That our council rewards them for sub standard performance repeatedly reflects back at them.
ReplyDeleteDemand staff do their jobs and stop congratulating them on their work if they never seem prepared to answer questions for an agenda item. Performance like this would never fly in the private sector and sure as sheet should not be acceptable at city hall.
Catherine, please don't succumb to the standard practice of falling in line once elected that too many have done in the past. Don't extinguish the hope you showed initially that we have at least one council member who won't sell out.
Come 2016, I would like to think you could be the one keeper among the bunch.
Not if she continues on this path. Transparency, transparency, transparency.
DeleteIf she wants a personal (I.e. Just her, no other council member present) non-public meeting with staff to prep for an upcoming public meeting, that is within both the letter and the spirit of the Brown Act.
ReplyDeleteThe Brown Act is about non-public meetings of deliberatve bodies with a quorum of voting members present. It prevents vote trading (I'll support your pet project if you vote for mine).
7:03 PM
ReplyDeleteYou don't seem to understand the issue. This isn't about the Brown Act. It is information given to a Council member that will never see the light of day during a Council meeting.
Why does Catherine think that her questions should be answered behind closed doors? Does she want to give the appearance that she is very knowledgeable? Or does she just want to get out a quick 5-0 vote without discussion? Catherine has some serious flaws as she represents herself as a transparency advocate. Very disappointed with her.
7:50 PM
DeleteI'm afraid it's you that doesn't understand the issue. For example, several meetings ago when council reviewed the mid-year budget report, Catherine (and several other council members), didn't appear to understand how pass-through fees worked. Staff had to explain it to them. This could have been done at a review session with staff prior to the council meeting. While there isn't anything wrong with taking the time to explain it to the public at the meeting, there's nothing secret about it.
And when staff purposely misleads council behind closed doors and residents get screwed over, I guess you'll be cool with that, 8:27?
DeleteWait let me anticipate your response: "If you don't like council's actions, don't reelect them." It is you who are missing the point and showing a bias to defend Blakespear no matter what nonsense she sometimes (not always) comes up with.
You can't explain away this corker of hers by pointing to one example where staff got something right or, more to the point, didn't twist their response. If we had reliable and straight-shooting staff, her idea would be slightly less alarming. Slightly.
Pass-through fees are exactly the kind of thing that needs to be explained publicly, not in the backroom. How many members of the public know what this means? Staff should be prepared to give a cogent explanation. Too many times we have seen staff flub the answers. It makes one wonder if staff really knows the answer. Too often we've seen the question passed from one staff member to another and to another.
DeleteI'm all for explaining to the public how government works. I just think the council should understand it as well.
DeleteBut with this "backroom" meme that so many are harping on. I have a question. Does the backroom label fit the deal the city worked out with the Marrs. When Krans brought it up at council he indicated being friends with the Marrs. Yes they formed a subcommittee that held open meetings but by the logic I see here, you could make the case that the deal was wired for them. Even if you think they were getting a raw deal to begin with, the logic used here would lead one to believe something happened in the "backroom".
Just asking.
11:11 PM
DeleteI'm not cool with staff misleading council behind closed doors or in front of them. I'm not cool with staff deliberately misleading anyone. Nor am I trying to defend Blakespear, I'm just tired of this open season on staff to try to justify why council doesn't do what you think they should be doing.
Unless they change state law (i.e. the Brown Act) council is going to meet with staff individually to prepare for council meetings. They could always pass an ordinance or resolution prohibiting the practice or individually refrain from the process but that, to me, would be stupid. The council meets and deliberates in public with public input. They make their decisions in public. Individually meeting with staff is not a meeting as defined by the Brown Act and it certainly isn't a closed door meeting.
7:12 Ahhh, but you forgot one very important aspect. That is that staff could sway them to vote one way or another depending how convincing staff was or how honest staff was with their answer.
DeleteManipulation or undo influence might be better words to use.
7:43 PM
DeleteSo Encinitas has inept, untrustworthy council members and inept, untrustworthy staff. We should give ourselves gold stars for creating such a horrid city.
Who will be first here to call for firing the new city manager? After all, it will be the council who selects the city manager and whoever they select is incompetent by definition.
I know many here don't accept this premise, but professional staff should have the ability to influence council. They are the experts (I know you all disagree). If council is always going to disagree or distrust staff it will become dysfunctional (I know you all think it's already there).
And by influence I mean council should give it the proper weight.
That's not to say that council should always agree with staff or to never question staff findings and recommendations. But to take the conspiracy approach that staff are just a bunch of Machiavellian operatives is counterproductive.
Counterproductive would be how much time council wastes on trivial things (hours and hours) and the big ticket items slide right by.
Delete6:46- In case you, or anyone is interested, the City has changed the original rules placed upon the Marr's. And it is not in their favor, but the City's. I guess they should not have expected the City to live up to the agreement they set forth.
DeleteRiiiiiiiight.
Delete5:35 PM
DeleteI am interested. What got changed and who told you about it? If it came from the Marr's they have a credibility problem but I'm willing to hear it out.
Ask Murphy.
Delete8:58 PM
DeleteNo I'm asking 5:35 PM. If you're going to make inferences like that then back it up with facts or at least credible sources. You know the kind with names, as in Joe Blow told me, not "Ask Murphy". Other than that it's nothing but BS.
I'm not trying to relitigate the Marr's case but as a resident, if the agreement isn't working I want to know why.
8:27 PM
ReplyDeleteEach council member meets with the city manager and staff to discuss the agenda items on a regularly scheduled day before the Council meeting. The public isn't privy to what questions are asked or information provided in those meetings. Your pass through fees example is a good red herring.
Good point.
DeleteCatherine is going great. Keep it up Catherine. don't mind these loser trolls.
ReplyDeleteLets as the real questions. why is our staff so big and why do they pull in sooooo much pension compared to other Cities.
I think we should look at leaning out staff and looking to become a more cost efficient City.
Yeah, I agree with Sculpin and others like the post on this one, WC. I can't really hang the issues with the process of city government on CB. As a lawyer, I think she will understand the issues of transparency better than most.
DeleteYou're not going to get the turnover in city staff at the rate you want. It's going to be a slow process to bid the Phillips, Vinas and Sabines of the world goodbye. That said, Vina is on his way out, so we'll see what transpires. We also got rid of the cheesy open government website, so by my tally, things are at least looking up.
-MGJ
I won't hang issues that came before on Catherine either, MGJ. But what we're talking about here is a new idea that she alone is proposing; something that, given our staff's past and continuing practices, would be the worst thing possible for residents.
DeleteThat she doesn't grasp why her suggestion has at the very least the appearance of enabling wrongdoing is quite disturbing.
Yes getting rid of Sabine should be the #1 priority for this council, the trimming of excessive expense can start with him and work through the rest of staff over time. It is in everyone's interest including the pension hogs who won't be fed if fiscal reform doesn't take place.
DeleteRight, but you're coming into this with the perception that staff is up to no good all the time, she is not. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I am saying it's a difference in perception. She out of all the council I think has a chance to shine. Muir and Gaspar are a write-off on most things and it's at best 50-50 with Tony and Lisa. Lisa has the smarts, but I don't think she has the stomach for the fight. So I'll take a wait and see on Blakespeare. I'm all for transparency, but the level that a lot on here would like to see is never going to happen in our lifetimes..
Delete-MGJ
I have high hopes for her, too, but she really, really needs to follow the saying "You don't know what you don't know" and learn some history here. Residents at the boililng point did not come out of the blue and she would be well-served by finding out how we got here. Otherwise, she is going to keep stepping in it.
DeleteHer perception is lacking in history and I would hope she'd be at least a bit curious about what went before.
12:21 Agreed. Blakespear should have been paying attention to what was happening in this city. Looks like she just started paying attention to win a seat and we all know she was parading herself to the cameras at the council meetings before election. Has anyone seen her at a council meeting before that?
DeleteI know she was on a commission and you would think she knows how things are done, but apparently not. If she keeps looking for consensus from the council, she will have a long wait and a long struggle.
The communication to the public needs to stay open, not hidden. Otherwise, we are back to the same old games of less transparency.
It would appear that the Commission's are worthless to this Council. Catherine was on the Traffic Commission. Not much ever done there, because Council won't let it.Nor will it let any other Commission do anything. Example: Did you know that the Parks and Recreation Commission was never tasked with ANYTHING related to the new park?
DeleteCB has only been on council for a short time, but in that time, she seems reasonable, dedicated, articulate, and smart.
ReplyDeleteThis writing was a little clumsy, politically speaking. Transparency is popular (duh). Legal or not, efficient or not, to make a public statement decrying the hardships of transparent government is to touch a third rail that should not be touched.
Conspiratorial minds will hear the dog whistle of back room dealing and corruption, but even those with a more generous spirit will have our ears perked up by this tone deaf statement.
I for one am willing to give her a little extra leash, given her positive start. But I will watch closely where she goes with this. She needs to clarify, and get specific with actions and policy that flow from this thinking. I will withhold judgement until she does that, but will certainly be listening closely.
10:28 here. I meant to sign that:
Delete--FP
Well said FP, that was perhaps a leaden statement for her to make, but I'm not one to pounce on every little statement, ie I'm not going to be a hater at every possible turn.
Delete-MGJ
No one has used the word "hate" here. Let's keep it real.
DeleteExactly, 12:00. No one used that word. The problem is, this one is not in the "every little statement" category, this is a biggie. Enough of a biggie that people are pouncing.
DeleteI don't have any idea what's discussed in closed session here. But there are things that are probably best vetted first before the public is aware of them - if at all - just to save a lot of time with the public and to ready council for their ultimate decisions on those matters. Things like who's suing the city this week and why. A lot of it boils down to trust. Maybe it would be best to record closed meetings so everyone's sure everyone is acting professionally and making no back room deals. Then again, when it comes to legal matters, there's not a lawyer around who doesn't tell their client to clam up and not say a word to anyone about important issues. And maybe sometimes that's best.
DeleteRecorded sessions leave no room for public input that may (and often does) expose staff's lying.
DeleteTrust is not something the city has earned and that's just the way it is. Pulling down the shades is not going to help the city repair the broken trust, but rather will reinforce the feeling that something wrong is going on behind the closed doors.
Lawsuits aside, there's not a whole lot that's "best vetted" in closed session unless you want to see the staff run even more amok than ever. Recorded or not, it will shut residents out of the opportunity to be heard before staff has spun the story and council has made up its mind to rely on staff.
Don't worry about saving the public time, 1:08. I'd rather hear as much as possible when council is presented with an item and am in good company with many others. You don't have the time? Fine, read about it in the paper later. Personally, I don't need the decision made for me about what I do and don't need to know about, especially with our city's track record.
2:04, Well, that might make a good experiment. Save Closed Sessions for lawsuits only and open the rest up for increased public input. Try that for 2 years and see how much that increases the average length of Agenda Items to determine how well received it is by the public; how much it might add to bureaucracy or reveals how much more efficient and/or beneficial it is.. I just get the sense from Catherine's take that there are some things besides lawsuits that procedurally would be inappropriate to blast on the public prior to their roundtable discussions.
DeleteYou have an inside's protective viewpoint that does not favor residents. Many have stayed late, many a night: the price of transparency the many will gladly pay.
Delete12:00 hating someone and being a hater are two different turns of phrase with different meanings. Being a "hater" could fairly be applied to many of the comments on this blog, ie permanent negativity on a subject or topic no matter what happens. So in this case, the fact that Blakespeare made this comment makes her a person to distrust, someone who believes staff is always lying.
DeleteThere's no room for nuance, everything is black and white etc..There's an undercurrent of distrust on this blog sometimes that I dont' agree with, despite a lot of the great commentary.
Sorry, Blakespeare gets a bit of run on this one from me, and I didn't even vote for her..
-MGJ
8:46 I think the people here know the difference between hating someone or being a hater. Your long explanation was not necessary as the person who posted only said no one used the word "hate" on here.
DeleteYes, there is distrust and rightly so by many people on this blog. Candidates want to get elected and say things so that you will vote for them, only to find out after they are in office they play a different game. We have seen it time and time again. I didn't vote for Blakespear either, but I'm not willing to cut her any slack.
She started out fairly well, but is going downhill fast. Maybe she is the one who should be meeting with staff to get up to speed before a meeting as she has admitted several times she doesn't understand things. Then, I say, get yourself informed. We need better representation.
When they reply that no one said "hate" when I used the term "hater", I feel compelled to respond and clarify.
DeleteWe clearly differ on our approach to evaluating city council people. I think she's clearly pretty well prepared, hence my comment about people being haters. There's nothing wrong with saying you don't understand. Danny D. never said those words in all likelhood, and that hayseed clearly didn't understand most of what went on.
It's too early to whack someone this early in the process. If you need better representation, then you better start sourcing candidates now....
-MGJ
10:57 Unfortunately in this city there are no good candidates.
DeleteNow, I feel compelled for you to stop with your explanation. If you want us to think you are smart with words, then we will accept that. But, the rest of us are all well educated. Thanks for trying to enlighten us, but we already knew the difference in the words.
Not to early in any process to "whack" someone when it is needed. Please, we don't need an explanation of the word "whack".
correction to my last statement - should read "not TOO early".
Delete5:47,Fine. You've found your special purpose micro-managing city affairs and making sure council meetings last long enough to please you. If only time wasn't money and you were electable, things might go your way more. I read all about you in How To Make Government Bigger AND Longer.
DeleteAnd we read all about you, 5:15 - how to "streamline processes." Do it behind closed doors and you've got your side deal time down to a matter of minutes.
DeleteThis council and city need micromanaging, in case you haven't noticed. Or perhaps you have and it's interfering with business.
Have it your way, 6:15. And bring lots of coffee.
DeleteThe only thing that really matters is how council members vote. They all have their individual ways of showing that they are considering an idea while they have already decided how to vote long before the meeting.
ReplyDeleteCatherine asks better questions than some of the others, but does she really represent Encinitas citizens, or is she interested in benefits for her family?
5:23, I'll take what I suspect you think is too much transparency any day over the BS we've had to endure from staff and council "acting in the residents' best interests."
ReplyDelete2:20 PM Self interests usually reign paramount.
ReplyDeleteThe "Need to Know" Council is in secret negotiations - with their handler/sponsors.
ReplyDeleteYour chance comes weds night, flaming torches and pitchforks will get their attention.....
ReplyDelete"My chance?" come on down...new faces who are not pleased need to be seen and heard. The same three people every time only reinforce with council their fantasy that they're doing just fine.
ReplyDelete3:33, Maybe if those 3 people wore disguises each week it might help?
ReplyDeleteToo much work added to what they already have to prepare, but it could be amusing.
Delete