|
|
|||
|
Navigation User login Who's online There are currently 4 users and 54 guests online.
Online users
Support OlyBlog OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation: OlyBlog is powered by:
Who's new
Upcoming events
 Poster Calendar  Favorite Olympia Blogs Bread and Roses of Olympia The Canaanite's Call Clubside Breakfast Time decorabilia Dark Woods Casino Party E. Side Neighborhood Assoc. Flummel, Flummer, Flummo In the Course of Events John G Bell's Blog Jon's Random Acts of Geekery judimendoza Last Word Blog Nafblog No Talking Heads Olympia Dumpster Divers Olympia Time One Pissed-Off Veteran Papa November Peregrinate Pirate Papa Plan B Olympia The Raccoon Arts Collective The Rambling Taoist Trees and Water Word on the Street What This Town Needs Yelley's Photo Blog Oly Public Bloglines  |
Submitted by emmettoconnell on Fri, 04/18/2008 - 8:45pm.
Almost every week this is the "What's on the city council's plate this week" review. I don't cover everything, so if you want the full rundown, read the packet and agenda yourself.
In a few weeks, you may not. The city council is seriously considering doing away with the dripping with process rule that makes sure council members check with each other before discussing new information in a public forum. While possibly being a violation of the open meetings act (in spirit, if not in fact) this is (in my opinion) a fairly lame rule that only protects people's feelings while stifling debate. On Monday the general government committee will review changes to the "rules of procedure" that the council lives by. One of the changes is the deleition of this weird "keep everyone in the loop" rule. I had thought previously that this was a major reason council members didn't blog. What do you think?
|
OlyBlog.net OlyBlog is devoted to hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. Contributors to OlyBlog are citizen journalists who care about their community and are tired of corporate media. If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our Social Contract. You should also look at our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here. Olyblogger of the Month: Docents are fellow citizen journalists who volunteer to be at your service in order to help with any blog-related issues. They are: Rob RichardsInterests: community building; participatory art, democracy and economics; local politics; citizen journalism. emmettoconnell Interests: City Council, developing a local issues forum. enpen Interests: OlyBlog poster calendar, Olympia public art, local artist interviews, his family, poetry and stuff. Robert Whitlock Interests: peace, justice, nature, nonviolence, media, environment Rick Interests: citizen journalism, hyperlocal media, the knowledge commons. Docent email list Latest Classified Ads Books & Collections ›Blog Local 
|
|
|
OlyBlog is a site for news and discussion about Olympia, Washington. |
|||
I think they don't come to OlyBlog...
Submitted by Rob Richards on Fri, 04/18/2008 - 8:59pm.Not coming to Olyblog and
Submitted by emmettoconnell on Fri, 04/18/2008 - 9:04pm.Yeah
Submitted by security_six on Fri, 04/18/2008 - 9:11pm.There is always my website :-)
"A gun is a tool, Marian. No better, no worse than any other tool. An axe, a shovel, or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that.-- ShaneNot to mention your red capet treatment.
Submitted by Guglielmo on Sat, 04/19/2008 - 10:14am.Does that mean that they are
Submitted by Jeff Brigham on Sun, 04/20/2008 - 10:15pm.EDIT: Re: "...because of all the wingnuts." Submitted by Rob Richards on Fri, 04/18/2008 - 8:59pm.
Jeff Brigham
"The best defense against terrorism is a strong offensive against terrorists. That work continues.”
President George W. Bush
ironically, no
Submitted by emmettoconnell on Sun, 04/20/2008 - 10:19pm.Its the "libtards" not the "wingnuts" that have given them pause. At least that's my understanding.
BTW, not nice to call each other names.
But, but, but...
Submitted by Guglielmo on Sun, 04/20/2008 - 10:31pm.Right wing wackos
Submitted by security_six on Sun, 04/20/2008 - 10:33pm.libtards, sheeple, wing nuts, bozo's, etc, etc, etc... it can be funny if you use them the right way. OTOH...
I don't know many slurs for right wing people. Most insulting names I know are for leftists... :-)
"A gun is a tool, Marian. No better, no worse than any other tool. An axe, a shovel, or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that.-- Shane--------uNShun---------
Submitted by The Original Yoda on Mon, 04/21/2008 - 12:12am.Using the "tard" with any type of slur is not very cool, Jeff.
If you had a child who was developmentally disabled, you might choose a different one.
-------------sHun-----------------The contexts that I've heard
Submitted by Ehver Green on Mon, 04/21/2008 - 12:44am.The contexts that I've heard that word used were not an attempt to associate 'liberals' with developmentally challenged individuals. I'm betting it's a play on the word retard; to delay, impede, hinder, or otherwise slow an action or process. The slang form isn't an issue here. At least I don't think so.
Agr wth Y, Yd!
Submitted by Jeff Brigham on Mon, 04/21/2008 - 6:42am.f y wll rd th cmmnt bv tht I ws rfrng t nd thn pt tw nd tw tgthr, y mght gt th pnt ws mkng wth m cmmnt. 'll gv y hnt. Wht's gd fr th gs s gd fr th gndr. r prhps, "Fllw th xmpl f th dcnt!"
Cnsdr tht mmbr f lblg ws cntnsl ccsd f "bd bhvr" whl bng cnstntl btd b thrs, ncldng dcnts, nd rcntl drvn t b dcnt vndtt.
Jeff Brigham
"The best defense against terrorism is a strong offensive against terrorists. That work continues.”
President George W. Bush
I have to disagree with your characterization...
Submitted by jlw on Mon, 04/21/2008 - 7:01am.Libtard
Submitted by Laurian on Mon, 04/21/2008 - 7:05am.Laurian,
Submitted by Jeff Brigham on Mon, 04/21/2008 - 7:09pm.I hope that you also feel the same in the case of the slur used by Rob Richards in: "...because of all the wingnuts." Submitted by Rob Richards on Fri, 04/18/2008 - 8:59pm.
I hope that you will agree that neither one of these terms should be used. To bring that out was the entire purpose of my comment.
Jeff Brigham
"The best defense against terrorism is a strong offensive against terrorists. That work continues.”
President George W. Bush
Just for clarification:
Submitted by Rob Richards on Mon, 04/21/2008 - 7:18pm.Someone's Being Cute Again.
Submitted by Jeff Brigham on Mon, 04/21/2008 - 7:26pm.So, some jokester decided to "disemvowel" my comment. To whomever the jokester is, next time why don't you have the integrity to at least place a comment taking responsibility and stating the reasons. And look; I'm not even cursing or using foul language in writing this!
It's very informative that you did not feel the need to "disemvowel" the comment using the term "wingnut" but consider it essential to do it to my comment.
Jeff Brigham
"The best defense against terrorism is a strong offensive against terrorists. That work continues.”
President George W. Bush
On the other hand...
Submitted by Marcie on Sat, 04/19/2008 - 1:06pm.This rule can help to actually facilitate discussion rather than bogging it down in process. I didn't really read that rule as "checking in" with each other, I read that it meant that if a Councilmember had something new to add, to provide fellow Councilmembers with the details of what they planned to discuss in such a manner as to allow fellow Members the time to read and prepare a response.
This happens at my work all the time. When someone springs something new at a meeting, inevitably someone has some questions or challenges and then has to find the documents to back it up, so it gets put on next weeks agenda (and the week after and the week after that and so on). Before you know it, you've way over-discussed some issue that may have been dealt with had the participants been allowed to prepare before the meeting. In this case, the rule would actually reduce process. I actually think it's a very good rule and that it should be maintained in order to ensure a well-prepared meeting that would foster a more prepared, thought-out debate!
I see what you mean about protecting peoples feelings though. But, what's better - presenting something to the members of the council that might feel passionate about something without notice, therefore limiting their ability to articulate and back up the reasons behind their thoughts OR giving the Council sufficient time to gather information support their feelings and at least opening it up to a good old fashioned debate. I don't know the answer, I've gone on waayy longer than I intended to (believe it or not, I've even edited and filtered) so I'll leave it at that. Good topic for discussion, though.work world vs. gov't
Submitted by emmettoconnell on Sat, 04/19/2008 - 3:27pm.My biggest concern regarding this rule has been mostly on the transparency line, that discussion outside of a public forum -- to give each other a heads up -- would be definition cut the public out. It would also give the appearance of collusion, even if that didn't actually happen.
Even though council members are probably fulfilling this rule by giving heads up over email and their emails are FOIable, that the city only distributes the contents of their email on a monthly basis, puts the public behind the curve. If the council emails were made public real time (like docent emails here), I would have a much different opinion.
How about a 48-hour heads up
Submitted by Guglielmo on Sat, 04/19/2008 - 3:36pm.practical application?
Submitted by emmettoconnell on Sat, 04/19/2008 - 3:48pm.Here's one
Submitted by Matthew Green on Sat, 04/19/2008 - 4:09pm.Once when I was on the council, we were discussing changes to the residential parking program. That program includes a $10 fee for residential parking passes. The fee was introduced before I was a councilmember, and had been a very minor controversy. I wanted to eliminate the fee. However, that fee was not one of the changes that was discussed in the staff report. So, when I brought it up at the council meeting, several other councilmembers were visibly annoyed with me. They didn't want to talk about it again, and particularly didn't like being "surprised". (I suspect they really didn't want to have to vote on it again, because they had taken a bit of flak for it earlier.) I figured, because we're talking about the residential parking program, the whole program is fair game. But they disagreed, beginning what would eventually be a bad relationship between me and several councilmembers. (If you remember, Jeanette often complained I was "breaking the rules".)
Also, this rule was used against Laura and I every time we brought up something about the conference center that wasn't in the staff report.
If you can't guess, I believe this rule is good in spirit -- councilmembers should keep each other informed, so they can be prepared for a full debate at meetings -- but has mostly been used to control and restrict the agenda.
Matthew
That sounds like a good
Submitted by emmettoconnell on Sun, 04/20/2008 - 6:01am.comments closed
Submitted by emmettoconnell on Mon, 04/21/2008 - 8:30am.