IS IT TRUE DECEMBER 31, 2015

16

IS IT TRUE we can’t wait to read the State Boards Of Accounts audit results of the City of Evansville due at the end of January, 2016?  …we shall finally get the answer if past City Council Budget Chairman John Friend CPA was correct that 2015 budget had a $6 million dollar deficit?

IS IT TRUE it looks like the highly regarded long term member of the Evansville Police Merit Commission Rev. Adrian Brooks reappointment to this Board is in jeopardy?  …we hear that Rev Brooks may be replaced by a young person of color who is in the advertising business?   …we hear that the movement to replace Rev Brooks is being orchestrated by a few members the FOP and two members of City Council?

IS IT TRUE we are  sadden to see such the hard working and dedicated public servant Denise Johnson deciding to move on.?  … for many years Denise dedicated herself on trying to make our Parks system the best possible without the proper financial support from the Mayors office?  …we wish her well and know she will do well in what she choses to do in the future?

IS IT TRUE we also hear that Evansville Redevelopment Commission member Cheryl Musgrave will be replaced by someone who shall be a rubber stamp for Mayor Winnecke and DMD Director Kelly Coures?

IS IT TRUE  that City Council President elect Missy Mosby will declare that anyone who wants to speak at 2016 Council meetings will only be allowed to speak for 3 minutes?  …this move is design to shut up ‘Blight Fighter” George Lumley from speaking his mind about the obvious Brownfield Corp and DMD mis-management of State and Federal funds earmarked for blighted homes?  …if she decides that citizens and taxpayers of this community can only speak for 3 minutes about complex governmental issues that concern them she may find that this move will attract the attention of the ACLU?  …that he ACLU has a history of opposing unreasonable restriction of freedom of speech?

IS IT TRUE  that Dale McCuiston will announce he shall run for the  Vanderburgh County Commissioner seat now held by Joe Kiefer, a Republican who is not seeking re-election?  … we also hear that an extremely popular Vanderburgh County Council is also considering running for this seat?

IS IT TRUE todays “Readers Poll” questions; Do you feel that City Council should gift $1.7 million dollars to Brownfield Corp. without strings attached?

IS IT TRUE we wish you a “HAPPY NEW YEAR”?

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

16 COMMENTS

  1. It’s a really sad state of affairs. A person like Missy Mosby is unfit for public office.

  2. If those creeps try to limit public input before the council to 3 minutes and Mr. Lumley has more than that for them to hear, he could chop it up into 3 minute segments. He will not have any trouble finding people to do the relay. I’ll take 4 minutes worth and promise to make the warning lights flash and buzzers buzz until they have to put their earbuds in while having me removed.

    It would probably be wise to have his comments, in their entirety, passed out to each person in the council chambers. If there’s one thing this blighted administration can’t stand it’s the light of day.

    • It as absolutely necessary to put your comments in writing when dealing with our “local leaders,” as they don’t have to give anyone time to say anything. That, of course, assumes they can and will read your handout. It used to be that if you made sure you gave copies to the media, you were usually heard. I doubt that is still the case.

  3. I am not a fan of Missy, but I believe most points can be made in three minutes. Brevity is the soul of wit. I like George and I usually think he has some good points. I do not like “Windy People” who try to control a conversation by using rhetoric. Just my opinion; hope it was not to long.

  5. Please be advised that there is NOT a law that requires any governmental board (City Council, County Commission, County Council, and so on) to allow a “public comment” period at their meetings. As someone who has worked on this locally for many years, I am sadly familiar with the background.

    Per the Indiana Open Door Law (Indiana Code 5-14-1.5), as promulgated by the Indiana Public Access Counselors office:

    “The Open Door Law (ODL) does not guarantee the right to speak at public meetings. Although an individual has
    the right to attend and observe all public proceedings, no specific statutory authority allows an individual to appear before and address a governing body. A governing body may choose to provide an opportunity for
    comments or discussion at any time or may allow a limited number of comments or limited amount of time for comments on matters under consideration”

    The handbook that gives guidance to the general public can be seen here:

    http://www.in.gov/pac/files/pac_handbook.pdf

    Yes, I am completely in support of all boards and commissions providing an opportunity for the public to speak. The ability to address the “powers that be” should be a bulwark of good public policy by allowing citizens to address officials and request that their concerns be resolved or at least looked into. But good public policy is not always how things are done (even though they should be)

    On the same note, it is not necessarily bad policy to apply reasonable limits to people who wish to address a governmental board or commission. Would anyone argue that allowing unlimited ability to talk as long as a person wants is a good way to conduct business? Many boards and commissions (not just Indiana, but all over the nation) have specific comment length guidelines in place. I find that to be permissible and reasonable. Otherwise, you could find a public meeting “held hostage” if a group of people (for the sake of discussion, make it 10) decide that they want to make a “public comment”, and those 10 people each have an hour-long speech. If you are at that meeting and on the agenda and find yourself being forced to follow 10 people speaking for an hour each, I imagine you would be plenty angry about it.

    As an alternative, some boards and commissions have addressed this issue by asking that any citizen who wishes to address them to send in a request in writing to be placed on the agenda as an official meeting portion. In some instances this can be a good idea, since this means that in addition to being allowed an opportunity to speak, you become a permanent part of the meeting history. If you simply speak during the “public comment” section, your only part of the meeting historically is left to the audio recording. You may not end up in the minutes of the meeting.

    My final FYI is the part above about requesting permission to be officially placed on the agenda with time to speak. We found out (the hard way) that permission to be on the agenda is COMPLETELY at the discretion of the President of that board or commission. When Marsha Abell was President of the County Commission we were denied multiple times when we requested to address the County Commission at a scheduled meeting. At the time we were working on University Parkway, and the neighbors wanted to address the County Commission about concerns. The County Commission did NOT have a “public comment” portion for their meetings, so the only way to speak to the members of the County Commission was to request to be on the agenda. We were refused multiple times, even when we went to the County Commission meeting and sat thru the entire meeting till the end, President Marsha still refused to allow citizens to address the County Commission.

    If anyone has questions please let me know. I am glad to provide more info.

    • I believe the past city council limited the citizens input to 10 minutes. But it seemed like if someone was speaking and agreeing with their agenda they were allowed to go on and on.

  6. PS: As much as I agree about the ACLU and how they address freedom of speech issues, I can find numerous court cases where the law is not violated as long as there is a consistent application of the law to allow public comment where permissible. Since Indiana law does not specifically require unfettered comments during a meeting covered by the current Indiana Open Door Law, I doubt that they would be able to assist on this.

  7. Bandana and Stonedreamer,

    Thanks for the support. I have two others so that makes five people who feel everyone’s best interest should take precedence over special interest. The rest of Evansville seems to be focused on their special interest. I say give the new council a chance. If they are good honest people looking out for the best interest of their constituency, I will not even need 3 minutes. I will not even have to appear there. Even though Mosby and Weaver rolled their eyes when I spoke about the scamming of the river boat demolition funds to support general fund activities, as president and vice president maybe they will start showing a little respect for the other point of view. The election is over – lets make the best of what we have.

Comments are closed.