Atomic City Talk

daco Wrote:

"You show hyperconcern for everything. Yes you should run for office"

Emile, this is a public forum. The purpose here is to post your thoughts and concerns about whatever is on your mind. I'm not hyperconcerned about much of anything beyond my family or friends.

You pal are a flame. You don't post anything of value. You don't post your own concerns, you post insults and snide remarks about other peoples concerns. Try to think really hard and maybe you can think of something to post that isn't insulting to someone else. Maybe.

I have concern for you. Does that count?

Whitephrog Wrote:

If so, then with two IDB members in attendance at the tax policy meeting, shouldn't the sunshine law have been applicable.

That's my understanding of the sunshine law. If two public members of the same public body are talking about public business, their meeting should be open to the public.

CrackerNation Wrote:

I hope no two IDB members attend the same church. The public comment time would eat into the passing the plate.

Sarcasm doesn't become you, CrackerNation. Not every "public meeting" is required to have a public comment period.

More importantly, when public officials encounter each other in church, the grocery store, a health club, or similar "normal" situations, they are not violating the sunshine law unless they start talking about public business (but officials who see one another in these situations are advised to avoid extended contact).

I'm concerned that City Council may be pressured to adopt this proposed tax abatement plan "as is", based on the many months of discussion and evaluation it has already received -- discussion that neither Council members nor the public were privy to.

Ellen Smith wrote

Quote:

I'm concerned that City Council may be pressured to adopt this proposed tax abatement plan "as is", based on the many months of discussion and evaluation it has already received -- discussion that neither Council members nor the public were privy to.

I agree.

Futher, I believe that incentives should be based soley on community needs and the magnitude of those needs. Those needs and their relative magnitudes should be determined by our City Council through an open forum process with considerable public input. Once the community needs are established and prioritized then we can address the type and amount of incentives to offer that will attract development which will meet those needs.

Quote:

I'm concerned that City Council may be pressured to adopt this proposed tax abatement plan "as is", based on the many months of discussion and evaluation it has already received -- discussion that neither Council members nor the public were privy to.

Welcome to public policy, Ellen. I'm sure you'll feel "pressure" to do a lot of things -- some right, some not. You were elected because a substantial number of people trust you to study the issues, listen to all viewpoints, and represent us by making the best decision possible.

Ultimately, this policy will be decided by City Council, will it not? So, any non-Council meetings to discuss and formulate recommendations (whether it be the Chamber of Commerce, AFORR, or the Maple Street Knitting Club) really don't impact the openness of the process -- unless, of course, multiple Council members were present in any one of those meetings.

Ellen Smith Wrote:

Whitephrog Wrote:

If so, then with two IDB members in attendance at the tax policy meeting, shouldn't the sunshine law have been applicable.

That's my understanding of the sunshine law. If two public members of the same public body are talking about public business, their meeting should be open to the public.

Since the IDB does not set tax policy, having members of the IDB in a meeting of the Chamber (of which they are members) discussing views on changes to tax policy is not talking about the public business of their board. There is no discussion of changing tax policy that occurs at IDB meetings.

Quote:

CrackerNation Wrote:

I hope no two IDB members attend the same church. The public comment time would eat into the passing the plate.

Sarcasm doesn't become you, CrackerNation. Not every "public meeting" is required to have a public comment period.

More importantly, when public officials encounter each other in church, the grocery store, a health club, or similar "normal" situations, they are not violating the sunshine law unless they start talking about public business (but officials who see one another in these situations are advised to avoid extended contact).

You might not appreciate the sarcasm, but you seem to have gotten the point. And in this case, a meeting with an agenda that does not include IDB business should not be a problem. I certainly feel that it is appropriate to raise the question, but when the topic is clear and clearly not in the purview of IDB business, that should set the issue to rest.

Quote:

I'm concerned that City Council may be pressured to adopt this proposed tax abatement plan "as is", based on the many months of discussion and evaluation it has already received -- discussion that neither Council members nor the public were privy to.

I'm concerned that you feel that you will not be able to discuss and amend and have available the recommendations of those who have thought about these problems as the city staff built their proposal which will be brought before the council. That does not seem to be congruent with any of the past procedures that I have seen. Why do you think this will be so unique? Or is it just a new role for you that is uncomfortable?

Emile Autouri

Ellen Smith

Whitephrog

Netmom

CrackerNation