3/1/2011 workbook commentary

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

Here is my usual review of, and commentary upon, the workbook for this Tuesday’s City Council meeting:
First, I notice that this workbook contains only 59 pages. It is usually in excess of 150 pages. Given City Hall’s recent extreme swerve towards secrecy, it makes me wonder what we are NOT being told!!!
Next, there is a report from a consultant regarding the Aeronca Discharge Relocation Project. While I will not comment on the overall wisdom or efficacy of this project, since I believe that decision has been made, I do question the judgment and the economics of the proposed TRENCH-LESS construction of the bulk of the force main. I believe that this is more expensive on the face of it, and will likely also result in cost overruns due to extras.
Next, I notice a “legal ad”:

“The City of Middletown is holding a City Council Work session on March 1, 2011. The meeting will be held in Conference Room 4C at 5:30pm. One of the items to be discussed will be that of a City employee in police records purchasing a property from the Community Revitalization Department under the NSP program. The discussion will detail the circumstances of the transaction and explain the safeguards in place to ensure there was not a conflict of interest violation.”
Please notice that this discussion of “conflict of interest” is being held in the semi-secret portion of the meeting. City Hall must NOT want it to be a very “public” public meeting!!!
Next, the minutes of the February 8 city council meeting are included for approval. This includes the minutes of the first “semi-secret” business meeting. These minutes are not very detailed (nor are they required to be, by law) but I do notice that on several items, “after discussion, consensus was reached”!!!
How do they know that “consensus” was reached unless they took some sort of tally or “head nod” or “nose count”??? To paraphrase Shakespeare, “A vote, by any other name, is still a vote!!!” 

Hiding behind weasel words during semi-secret meetings is NOT the way that PUBLIC POLICY should be discussed and decided!!!
It has been city policy that when a sewer system is extended within the city, homeowners MUST tie into it and be assessed for the cost. Now it is “consensus” that, for the section of Lefferson Road to be repaved this year, homeowners will be given a “break”. Now, I am happy for these homeowners, I truly am. But, does this mean that there is an official CHANGE in city policy???
There was also “discussion” concerning damage done to a privately held downtown building (The former Dohn’s building) during the parking garage demolition. One would think that the demolition contractor, or his insurance company, would be responsible for this damage unless it was the result of actions of that contractor DIRECTED by the city!!! The “discussion” was whether to repair the action in a first class manner or on the cheap!!! The “consensus” was not clear, but some action was decided.
If this building was owned by one of the FOCs (Friends Of City hall), you can bet your sweet bippy the repairs would have been on the “Cadillac” side.
Fellow Middletonians, surely you can see why semi-secret meetings with “discussions” that go unreported and votes recorded only as “consensus” are detrimental to the citizenry.
This cloak-and-dagger stuff is infectious and has even begun to spread to heretofore well-performing units of our local government. You know that I have been generally supportive of our health department and the work that they have been doing--up front and out in the open!!! However, the minutes of their meeting included in this workbook give me pause. Specifically, Item “2. Approval to read Ordinances 2010-008 and 2010-009 by title only.” (Passed unanimously.) What are Ordinances 2010-008 and 009, you ask???

MBHE Ordinance 2010-008 2011 Health Department Budget (Passed unanimously.) 
MBHE Ordinance 2010-009 Pay and Benefits Approval (Passed unanimously.) 
I guess everyone will be following city council’s lead and all manner of matters having to do with money or other “sensitive issues” will now be cloaked in as much secrecy as can be shrouded around them. I guess the Sunshine laws shall no longer be “liberally construed” as mandated by the ORC, but in Middletown shall now be “as narrowly interpreted” as closed minds can get away with.

Author	Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic
Mike_Presta Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List MUSA Council Joined: Apr 20 2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3483	Post Options Post Reply Quote Mike_Presta Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Topic: 3/1/2011 workbook commentary Posted: Feb 28 2011 at 3:23am
	Here is my usual review of, and commentary upon, the workbook for this Tuesday’s City Council meeting: First, I notice that this workbook contains only 59 pages. It is usually in excess of 150 pages. Given City Hall’s recent extreme swerve towards secrecy, it makes me wonder what we are *NOT* being told!!! Next, there is a report from a consultant regarding the Aeronca Discharge Relocation Project. While I will not comment on the overall wisdom or efficacy of this project, since I believe that decision has been made, I do question the judgment and the economics of the proposed TRENCH-LESS construction of the bulk of the force main. I believe that this is more expensive on the face of it, and will likely also result in cost overruns due to extras. Next, I notice a “legal ad”: “The City of Middletown is holding a City Council Work session on March 1, 2011. The meeting will be held in Conference Room 4C at 5:30pm. One of the items to be discussed will be that of a City employee in police records purchasing a property from the Community Revitalization Department under the NSP program. The discussion will detail the circumstances of the transaction and explain the safeguards in place to ensure there was not a conflict of interest violation.” Please notice that this discussion of “conflict of interest” is being held in the semi-secret portion of the meeting. City Hall must *NOT* want it to be a very “public” public meeting!!! Next, the minutes of the February 8 city council meeting are included for approval. This includes the minutes of the first “semi-secret” business meeting. These minutes are not very detailed (nor are they required to be, by law) but I do notice that on several items, *“after discussion, consensus was reached”!!!* How do they know that “consensus” was reached unless they took some sort of tally or “head nod” or “nose count”??? To paraphrase Shakespeare, *“A vote, by any other name, is still a vote!!!”* *Hiding behind weasel words during semi-secret meetings is NOT the way that PUBLIC POLICY should be discussed and decided!!!* It *has been* city policy that when a sewer system is extended within the city, homeowners *MUST* tie into it and be assessed for the cost. Now it is “consensus” that, for the section of Lefferson Road to be repaved this year, homeowners will be given a “break”. Now, I am happy for these homeowners, I truly am. But, does this mean that there is an *official CHANGE* in city policy??? There was also *“discussion”* concerning damage done to a privately held downtown building (The former Dohn’s building) during the parking garage demolition. One would think that the demolition contractor, or his insurance company, would be responsible for this damage unless it was the result of actions of that contractor DIRECTED by the city!!! The “discussion” was whether to repair the action in a first class manner or on the cheap!!! The *“consensus”* was not clear, but some action was decided. If this building was owned by one of the FOCs (Friends Of City hall), you can bet your sweet bippy the repairs would have been on the “Cadillac” side. Fellow Middletonians, surely you can see why semi-secret meetings with “discussions” that go unreported and votes recorded only as “consensus” are detrimental to the citizenry. This cloak-and-dagger stuff is infectious and has even begun to spread to heretofore well-performing units of our local government. You know that I have been generally supportive of our health department and the work that they have been doing--up front and out in the open!!! However, the minutes of their meeting included in this workbook give me pause. Specifically, Item “2. Approval to read Ordinances 2010-008 and 2010-009 by title only.” (Passed unanimously.) What are Ordinances 2010-008 and 009, you ask??? MBHE Ordinance 2010-008 2011 Health Department Budget (Passed unanimously.) MBHE Ordinance 2010-009 Pay and Benefits Approval (Passed unanimously.) I guess everyone will be following city council’s lead and all manner of matters having to do with money or other “sensitive issues” will now be cloaked in as much secrecy as can be shrouded around them. I guess the Sunshine laws shall no longer be “liberally construed” as mandated by the ORC, but in Middletown shall now be “as narrowly interpreted” as closed minds can get away with.
	“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012

Mike_Presta Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List MUSA Council Joined: Apr 20 2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3483	Post Options Post Reply Quote Mike_Presta Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: Feb 28 2011 at 6:58pm
	Speaking of the "purchase of public property", the recent sale of 2605 Elmo Place was a *SALE of public property.* How was this accomplished without a resolution by City Council??? Was this something that was done by "consensus" in a super-secret meeting and never reported in minutes nor the media???
	“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012