GULFPORT BEGINS A NEW ERA
In it’s 100th year it looks like our fair city is about to establish a Policy Manual outlining our City Council Rules of Procedure. At a City Council Workshop held at 9:00 AM in the 49th Street Center on Friday, October 9 our City Council, Interim City attorney, City Clerk and Acting City Manager held a workshop on creating formal rules for running our City Council Meetings.
A suggested outline was presented by Interim Attorney Minkoff, City Clerk DeMuth and Acting City Manager O’Reilly for the purpose of facilitating discussion. Atty. Minkoff repeatedly stressed the importance of fostering an atmosphere of “collegiality” in Council Meetings. The intent of the meeting was purported to be to get a consensus on the will of the Council in several major areas so that a Policy Manual on rules for conducting Council Meetings could be created, reviewed by the Council and adopted at a later regular meeting of the Council.
Interestingly, after having gone almost 100 years without formal rules, everyone present was in favor of establishing some. Mayor Yakes, who by Charter is responsible for running the meetings kicked off the discussion by endorsing the need for rules of conduct. Bob Worthington, who has been pushing for adoption of rules for his entire time on the Council was particularly in favor so that new Council Members would have some kind of reference material to aid in learning the job of being a City Council Member. As the newest Member of the City council, Sam Henderson was generally in agreement with Bob Worthington’s point and stressed the need for a dynamic document subject to revision as needed.
As the two hour Workshop progressed it appeared, although unstated, that the rules suggested by the Interim City Attorney for Council consideration were predominantly aimed at limiting citizens’ input and access at Council Meetings under the guise of promoting efficiency and the oft repeated “collegiality.” The following is, hopefully, a fair rendition of what went on at the Workshop. The reader may come to his/her own conclusions. The location of the Workshop at the 49th Street Center precluded televising of the meeting.
At the conclusion of the rendition of events, our opinion of the proposed rules, other proposed changes and the potential impact on citizens’ First Amendment Rights will be given for the readers’ consideration.
The first item discussed was the matter of setting the agenda. By statute, the City Manager is responsible for placing administrative items on the agenda through the City Clerk. The balance is to be placed by “direction of the city council.” The discussion was on how that direction might be given. Currently, the primary method is by consensus of the Council at a prior meeting. Mayor Yakes suggested that a Council Member can request an item be placed in the next agenda in the, “Any Other Business,” section of the meeting. Those items that come up after the meeting but require action at the next meeting are now brought to the City Manager for insertion in the next agenda. Acting City Manager O’Reilly stated that he did not want to be in the position to pick and choose non-administrative items for the agenda so his practice was to place all requests in it.
Council Member Sam Henderson felt that a Member ought to be able to bring any item, especially if requested by a constituent at least “for the purpose of discussion.” Acting Manager O’Reilly suggested that discussion items should go directly to the City Clerk with him being notified only as a matter of courtesy. City Clerk DeMuth proposed the addition of a new category on the agenda, “New Business.” The order would be Old Business, New Business and Council Comment. Council Member Michele King asked that if the Mayor is responsible for running the meeting, shouldn’t he/she have some say in what goes into it. Acting Manager O’Reilly said that according to the Charter, the answer is no, but that the Council could change that by rule. Mayor Yakes indicated that he did not want the power to select items for the agenda, but he would like some authority to put items in the proper order.
Acting City Manager O’Reilly introduced the idea of using a, “Consent Agenda.” A consent agenda is a series of items that are of a pro-forma or housekeeping nature that can be introduced as a group and voted as a group rather than going through each one in a series of resolutions. City Clerk DeMuth stated that resolutions were not necessary in many cases. Council Member Worthington mentioned that a Member could request that a specific item be pulled out of a consent agenda by a Council Member for individual consideration if necessary.
Interim City Attorney Minkoff proposed that in the Public Comment Session the public could talk on any subject rather than on items not on the agenda as is the present practice. The public would then not speak on items during the meeting except on items where public discussion is required by statute such as ordinances and hearings. He also suggested that people fill out cards in advance advising the Clerk on which items the person wishes to comment.
Council Member King supported the use of sign-in cards specifying the subjects on which the citizen may speak, saying that cards keep discussion on the issues not responses to other speakers that often result in a debate among the public. Further, she said sign-in cards also help to get the names and addresses of the speakers straight. City Clerk DeMuth suggested that sign-in sheets at the podium could solve the name and address problem.
Interim Attorney Minkoff suggested the idea of placing a time limit on the public session. There was no support for such a time limit. Mayor Yakes was prompted to comment that under his leadership every opportunity for public input is provided and he wants that to continue. He not only opposed a time limit on the public session, but recommended added time for each speaker to speak since they could be speaking on more than one item under the proposed system. He suggested a four minute time limit. Acting City Manager O’Reilly stated that time could be added later if it appeared that added time was needed. It was the consensus of the group that there be no time limit on the public session.
City Clerk DeMuth asked the group how to handle the three minute clock when there was dialogue between a citizen and the Council or the Administration. Council Member King suggested that there be no dialogue between the citizens and the Council or the Administration. Council Member Ryerson said that Council Members could respond to any points made by citizens later in the Council Comments section of the meeting.
Council Member Ryerson suggested that citizens’ handouts should be presented to the Clerk prior to the meeting. She felt it was impossible for the Council to listen and read at the same time. Handouts provided to the Clerk at the meeting would be held and distributed later.
Council Member King proposed that exhibits to be shown on T.V. be presented to the Clerk 24 hours before the meeting.
The consensus was that sign-in cards should be used by citizens wishing to speak and that exhibits to be shown on T.V. be submitted at least 24 hours in advance. It was also a consensus that citizens should continue to operate under a three minute time limit even though they might be speaking on more than one issue.
Decorum on the part of both the Council and the public was the next item discussed. Existing rules created by resolution in the past such as no signs, no banners or the requirement to shut off electronic devices will be incorporated into the Policy Manual.
All questions and comments by both the public and the Council will go through the Chair. The Chair will dispose of all issues. If the Chair needs to communicate with an Administrative person, he will speak to the City Manager who will refer the point or question to the appropriate subordinate.
By consensus, the group agreed that during meetings they and the public should address each other formally such as, “ Mr. City Manager, Council Member Henderson, Vice Mayor Worthington, Mr. Mayor or Mayor Yakes.”
It was also agreed that there would continue to be no public comment at Workshops and that special presentations would be by formal groups or organizations at the discretion of the City Manager.
Acting city Manager O’Reilly recommended that the seating order of the Council be changed since the present order does not allow him to see the faces of the Council and vice versa. He suggested that the Mayor sit in the middle as at present and that the Vice Mayor sit at the right hand of the Mayor. The next most senior Council Member would be to the Mayor’s left, the next most senior to the Vice Mayor’s right and the newest member to the left of the senior member. The Manager would sit to the left of the Council, facing the audience, (where Vice Mayor Worthington and Council Member Henderson now sit). The Clerk would remain in her present seat. The group agreed by consensus.
With the meeting coming to a close due to it being near the 11:00 A.M. deadline, Council Member Henderson asked if rules of order would be discussed. Interim City Attorney Minkoff said that the city could continue to run its meetings under the doctrine of “custom and practice.” He said that rules of order could be studied and adopted later.
City Clerk DeMuth said that a draft “Policy Manual” would be produced out of the agreements reached at this meeting and past resolutions. The draft would be studied by the Council Members and adopted at a future City Council Meeting.
The meeting ended with a small ceremony congratulating Interim City Attorney Minkoff’s appointment as a judge. (Aside-Since Atty. Minkoff will be sworn in on November 7, the City will be without an attorney at that time. Under State Law, he cannot serve both positions at once.}
Opinion Starts Here
It is noteworthy that not once during the two plus hour meeting was the value of citizen input ever discussed. Apparently it is the Council’s belief that citizens have little or nothing to add to the proceedings. It is this dismissive attitude by our administration and elected officials toward the concerns and opinions of their constituents that may contribute heavily to the lack of “collegiality” that our City Attorney apparently sees as missing in our City Council Meetings.
A summary of recommendations and their ramifications that came out of the Workshop may be instructive: 1) The proposed addition of a “New Business” category on the agenda provides a place for a Ward Council Member to place constituent items on the agenda. 2) A “Consent Agenda”, a list of minor items all voted at once, is much more efficient. 3) Limiting a citizen’s right to speak on any item not covered by statute to 3 minutes at the beginning of the meeting is flat out inadequate if open government is to be achieved. 4) Sign-in cards for potential participants, while useful in a large group situation, appear to be overkill in our little City of Gulfport. 5) Refusal to recommend a time limit on the public session is a good thing. That it even came up is an indication as to where this meeting was headed. 6) Prohibiting give and take between the public and the Council, even through the chair is insulting to either side of the discussion. It also gives the Council an unfair advantage in always having the last word. 7) Requiring handouts to be presented to the Clerk prior to the meeting is probably a good idea. Even the best of us can’t read and listen at the same time. 8) Items to be shown on the overhead projector/television being required to be submitted 24 hours in advance is unnecessary and burdensome to the public. A quick review by the Clerk prior to showing would be adequate. 9) Rules of decorum for both the public and the Council are in order, but shouldn’t be overdone. Pretty soon we could have a dress code. 10) The change in seating order of the Council and Administration is a good idea. 11) Ignoring any type of rules of order in the discussion and putting them off to some undefined future date was disconcerting since one would have thought that this would be a major point of the Workshop.
As an observer of City Council Meetings, (I haven’t missed many in the past three years), it was apparent that many of the proposed rules were directed toward the past activities of one particular activist group and are intended to limit them and any other group of activists in the future. By not considering meeting rules of order, the Mayor retains a lot of leeway with the nitty gritty of the meeting, although Mayor Yakes expressed no opposition to adopting rules of order. I wonder how and why this important, much discussed, aspect of Council Rules was swept under the rug until some hazy date in the future.
“Collegiality among staff and Council Members is much to be desired, but if “collegiality” means depriving the rights of citizens who disagree with the governing body then it is not to be desired but is to be condemned. Citizens have the duty and right to express their views and if these new proposals, once adopted, impinge on any one person’s right to do so, they impinge equally on the rights of all other citizens.
We encourage our readers to secure copies of the proposed Policy Manual as soon as they are available, study the contents and then express their opinions at any and all open City Council Meetings. I know we will.
HOW DO YOU SPELL BAYWALK SIDEWALK???
I guess the big question is:
Will the City of Gulfport be any different in its second century?
The mayor asked the Charter Committee to consider changing the charter to allow him more power in setting the agenda. He actually came to a meeting and stated his case. After much discussion the Charter Committee decided not to entertain his request. Too much power borders on a strong mayor form of government. Is that the direction the council wants to go? what a slap in the face to the Charter Comittee now. All that work really meant nothing. They are going to do what they want anyway. Has anything been done with the recommendations from the Charter Committee? Very disappointing.
I went to the City Council last evening to inform them of what had happened on Friday Oct. 9th and had all I could do to be in the same room with those criminals.
462 days ago I argued against the Site Plan on 1431 49th street in Gulfport Florida using the City Ordinances as a guide. I was arguing for the laws while the City was arguing for the right to break the laws with impunity. Ironic don’t you think?
I was standing there after 462 days with the law on my side, with the Department of Environmental Protection agreeing with my position and stating in a written conclusion that the Cause of the problem is Inadequate Zoning.
I showed them photos of our condition and the contradiction between what Don Sopak was saying on YouTube, in a movie about how concerned the City was on Air Quality, in their Emission Control Trucks, while comparing what they had created without filters, catalytic converters, spark arresters, fugitive smoke seals or even fuel quality. The Site Plan was nothing but a farce. They argued that they had the right to break the laws, where I argued they had the right to make the laws but nowhere could I find any evidence where the Council was given the authority to break the City laws. They voted and we lost but the truth is still in my corner. How much is truth worth when your dealing with hypocrites and criminals is a question I guess that I’ll have to learn. I’m hoping to do a better job next time, but I have a hard time having to concede to the authority of the reckless indifference that this City calls governance.
Charter Committee recommendations!
City council ignores the whole process!
You were surprised WHY?
@truthseeker…..at which meeting did the Mayor appear? How would one obtain the video / minutes?
@Dogfish & Truth Seeker….ditto on the Budget Committee and the Survey.
Memorial Service for the Constitution
Friday, Oct. 30th, 8:30pm
Meet on the corner of 2nd Ave & 2nd St N by 8:20p
On October 15th, 2009, the Constitution died in St. Petersburg, Florida after a 6 year battle with an extremely viral strain of fascism. The Constitution was born September 17th, 1787 in Philadelphia with a multitude of congenital problems, including slavery. She endured 27 major surgeries during her brief life, ten immediately after birth. Although she remained severely handicapped by imperialism and greed, there had been great hopes for what she might have accomplished in her life. She is survived by her children: Freedom and Justice, who are, unfortunately, suffering from the same virus that killed their mother.
A memorial will be held in St. Petersburg at 151 2nd ave N at the Baywalk entertainment complex on October 30th, 2009 at 8:30pm. A short funeral procession will follow. Everyone who knew the constitution is invited to participate. We are asking all participants to dress in black attire. For more info, send email.
Another Attempt to Stifle Free Speech
Council chairperson Jeff Danner is requesting city council draft an ordinance regulating the use of bullhorns in public (read). This contradicts city officials’ claims that people’s 1st amendment rights would be upheld if they just went on the south side of 2nd Avenue N.
mtober? I am surprised. Do you feel the city of St. Petersburg did the wrong thing? (Although we may disagree on this issue, I still think your awesome:)
I understand the right for those to express their opinions and exercise their rights. However, what I don’t agree with is doing it at a place that effects those who are tyring to enjoy a night on the town, a movie, or just shop. That’s what happend at Baywalk. I could give a hoot about why they complain, what war their against, or whatever is making them upset at the time, I just want to go out and enjoy Baywalk. There are more visible places to protest.
Where my rights end, another person’s rights begin. And my rights should not intefere with someone elses rights to do whatever. This includes enjoying life, shopping in peace, and trying to go to a freakin movie.
I have always wondered why some americans feel anyone would care about what they care about. Personally, I am against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But why should I force my opinions and my beliefs on others?
If they want to protest, why not city hall, why not the state capital, why not somewhere other than baywalk. Unless, the idea of them being there has some other purpose. (And I would guess that this is precisely what it is).
I think the city of St. Pete thought outside of the box and did the right thing to save the businesses and property at baywalk. And, if the city owns the property, they can do what they please with it. And now since baywalk owns it, they can do what they please, which includes getting ride of the protesters and the unruly teenagers. I hope that the businesses can come back, but I think it may be too late.
And shame on the inconsiderate protesters. Bunch of crybabies…whaa whas whaa!
Watchman – The issues with BayWalk are deeper than the unruly teens and the protestors.The general economy has been a factor and from what some say, it is also not a well managed facility. The protestors weren’t there for months and there apparently was no change in business. I know many people that still go there. Bottom line, I think there are a myriad of issues with BayWalk
My issue with the closing of the sidewalk this is that it infringes on the right of free speech. Regardless of the protestors’ motives, the Constitution gives them a right to do what they did. To better understand my sensitivity to this you should know that both of my parents were both raised in communist countries where free speech came with a price. Even after coming to the US, they still had fears because of what had been engrained in their minds. They would never speak out against the government, challenge a law, etc. No matter how much we told them there was no need to fear, they always had that hesitancy–until they took their last gasps. I still have relatives in the former East Germany where up until just 20 yrs. ago they even had their TV viewing monitored by the government. My cousin told me that you always knew who was watching Dallas (western television) on Thursday nights, because all of their windows were shut tight, curtains were drawn and barely a light was on so that the “policei” would think the residents were not home!
I abhor the thought that “business” can regulate / dictate what one can say and where they can say it. I don’t have an issue if it is a restriction on private property, but when it is public property, it is wrong. Further, the City of St.Pete has now set a precedent. Who will they cave into next?
A couple weeks ago I took my 11 yr. old niece to Washington DC. We were trying to do many things in a very short amount of time. During the weekend we were there DC was the site of the Gay Lesbian Pride March on Washington. On our last full day they held a parade, 400,000 strong. The city virtually came to a standstill and I honestly was ticked off. Not at the cause, ( I support equal rights for all) but at the inconvenience! My niece asked why they were allowed to block the street and it was then, that I realized I was being somewhat of a hypcrit. I went on to explain to her that “freedom of speech” provided that right to the protestors and to us and she had just witnessed it first hand, including the anti-protestors! So, the reality is that if we are going to protect this right we must sometimes endure some inconvenience.
If the article Big Dog wrote about the Procedures Workshop is even close to being accurate, then the citizns of Gulfport need to wake up and pay attention!! I am going to listen to the audio of the meeting and draw my own conclusions. However, I fear that our leaders may be initiating the start of the 2nd death of the Constitution right here in G’port. When the gov’t leaders tell you that you can’t comment on another person’s comments, etc. that is, IMO, infringing on our freedom of speech. It is bad enough to be attacked, by our leaders and their posse,when you speak out, but to curb what you can say? That is sad and just another attempt by our leaders to act like a big city with a small city mentality.
I tend to agree with Watchman on this issue, the location was wrong for the issues that most were advocating. The protesters can still protest somewhere else, like downtown Gulfport, in front of the Casino on a busy night. Let’s see, what would the theme be….hum?
mtober: If what is being said about the council is true regarding changing procedures about public input during public meetings, I would share the same fears. Hope this doesn’t happen. I frequently watch some of the meetings on my computer at home. Some of the public input is very relevant and some is also entertaining. Eitherway, it shouldn’t be limited in my opinon.
I just think those who excerise this should be more considerate of others in certain places. I for instance would not excerise this right in front of your home, at 3am, with a bull horn and a sign. That would just be rude. Now if I did this in front of a city hall during hours when people were not trying to sleep, well then that’s fair game.
From my little experience I have found that the Council has control of the room. They bring their own attorney and staff and it seems to me that they have the final word. I can only present one example so bare with me.
An application, for a Site Plan, is presented by a member of the Department of Community Development and they have as much time as they need to make their presentation. If the presentation is reasonable and complete it will leave little doubt in the minds of the Council,
First, because it has been reviewed by the staff,
Secondly, if there were any legal questions they should have been addressed.
Then, the applicant is invited to pitch their plan and be questioned by the Council. If the plan is sound and the Council is well read on the subject, they will have few if any questions of the applicant. If they know little of the subject they can default to the staff to guide their vote.
After the applicant has been questioned then the public is invited to speak. If a citizen agrees with the proposal then three minutes is probably more time than they need. If a citizen disagrees with the proposal three minutes is rarely enough time to speak, especially if, the Council knows little about the subject and hadn’t asked any pertinent questions. That would leave the dissenting citizen with 3 minutes to make their case and ask questions that should have been asked by Council.
Asking questions could invite the applicant back to the podium, in which case they could go on speaking on their behalf, opening up the topic for more questions. Now, you not only have your original questions but additional questions that will never be asked, because once you have spoken you can not speak again.
There were many questions in our case that were not asked, questions that were asked by Council that were never answered, and at least 30 minutes of time given to the DCD, the applicant and his sponsors, not to mention comments by Council before the vote.
None of the criteria that was established in the Council chamber was ever applied to the real Site, nor was the Site Plan ever complete. There was no follow up on the special exception clauses established by the Planning and Zoning Board as a condition of it passing. The Site was not viewed by Council nor was the Smoker, and the questions that the Mayor stated that he had for the Health Department were never asked. The fire department had not signed off on the plan and as Mr. Taylor told them numerous times the plan was incomplete, but they voted for it unanimously anyway. There was a petition with 15 signatures and letters written in opposition that were never read, and there were two dissenting Citizen who had a total of 6 minutes to speak. The brand and certification of Smoker, the type and regulation of fuel or the extent of emission control was not directly addressed, our questions went unanswered and the consequences were exactly as we had described them to the council.
They didn’t really want to know and they didn’t really want to spend the time to figure it out. The attorney told them time and again that they could take the time to look into the matter, but they didn’t listen, the Smokehouse Sign was already installed on the building and they had no intension of stopping the process.
At stake… was the health of our citizens, the environment and canopy and the marketability of the surrounding properties and the elimination of 7 City Ordinances for a few, which removed our rights to protection under the law.
Even if they design new rules there is no guaranty that they will be followed.
Even with the new rules in place there will be nothing to prevent Mr. Worthington from using up the time making absurd arguments to justify his ridicules votes.
In the interest of fairness and trying to better understand what took place at the workshop, I requested to meet with each of the Council Members and Jim O’Reilly. I made this request on Oct. 22. Jim called me and Lesley DeMuth responded for the Mayor. She advised that he wouldn’t be available last week and he would be in touch this week–probably Tuesday. So far I haven’t heard from the Mayor nor the Councilmembers. Nothing even so simple as a courteous reply like “”got your e-mail and….”. Why??
The audio of the 10/9 workshop is now the City website under meetings.
mtober, the mayor came to one of the early meetings of the charter review. all meetings were attendend by the clerk so i assume you cam get the miutes from the clerks office.
The mission statement for the City of Gulfport states:
“The City of Gulfport is established for the benefit of its citizens and shall provide for the health, welfare and safety of those collective persons. Special attention shall be devoted to improving the City’s appearance, maintaining public facilities and infrastructure, and ensuring citizen safety and quality of life via a fair and equitable system of citizen involvement and input.
I submit that telling citizens what they can and cannot say violates the City’s Mission Statement (“via a fair and equitable system of citizen involvement and input”.) and, more importantly, our rights to freedom of speech.
DOES THIS NOTION OF VIOLATING OUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH NOT BOTHER ANYONE ELSE? COME ON PEOPLE, DO SOMETHING!!!
http://www.mygulfport.us/City_Meetings/Agendas/Meetings.htm
The audio for the workshop on “procedures” is listed at this link. Scroll down to 10/9 Workshop Meeting. Thoughts, comments?
Also, note the comments at the end of the audio tape wherein Tommy Minkoff jokes about not putting his friends in jail and a Gulfport councilmember asks if he might give them (her—his friends) “get out of jail free” cards.
I am sure it was all in jest, however, the fact that Minkoff would say this, when most people (as the St. Pete Times’ editorials aptly identified) think he got the job because of his friends, is incredulous. What does that say about his judgement?
This is an email I just sent to the candidates for office. I will post responses if and as I get them.
Greetings Candidates and Councilmembers:
Last year, Gulfport’s City Council made a decision to refuse to accept and/or seek public input at Workshop Meetings. At the time, Mr. Henderson indicated that he thought public input would be valuable relative to topics on the agenda. Other than the Mayor, the rest of the Council disagreed. At last everning’s Council meeting, some members of Council again indicated a hesitancy to seek public input. When the Mayor indicated he would seek public input at the Workshop Meeting for Ord. 2009-26, one Councilmember declined based on the definition of a “workshop” ( which btw is technically a brainstorming session thus begging for input) and another agreed reluctantly stating he’d agree if it was “important” to the Mayor. Are we then to conclude that this Councilmember does not find public input “important”?
I can’t help but wonder if this Council feels it is so laden with knowledge that the residents and taxpayers, for whom they work, are merely an interference. I also have to wonder if they have considered the teachings of our forefathers. Have they studied Lincoln, Jefferson, etc.? Below are some historic quotes from Jefferson as well as some contemporary quotes from others. I believe they all merit consideration as related to the work of an elected official and freedom of speech and public input.
CANDIDATES: My question to you is: what is your position on public input at Council Meetings and Workshop Meetings?
Thanks in advance for your response.
Margarete Tober
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Truth between candid minds can never do harm. – Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1791
Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it. – Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural Address. March 4, 1801.
It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. – Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia – 1787
Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error… They are the natural enemies of error, and of error only… If [free enquiry] be restrained now, the present corruptions will be protected, and new ones encouraged. – Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia, 1782.
I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800
In every country where man is free to think and to speak, differences of opinion will arise from difference of perception, and the imperfection of reason; but these differences when permitted, as in this happy country, to purify themselves by free discussion, are but as passing clouds overspreading our land transiently and leaving our horizon more bright and serene. – Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waring, 1801.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought. – Justice Anthony Kennedy, majority opinion Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, April 16, 2002.
History is full of people who out of fear, or ignorance, or lust for power has destroyed knowledge of immeasurable value which truly belongs to us all. We must not let it happen again. – Carl Sagan, Cosmos
All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident. – Arthur Schopenhauer
The Aim of an Argument … should not be victory, but progress. – Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. – Mark Twain, Notebook 1904
You can recognize a pioneer by the arrows in his back. – Beverly Rubik
If you make people think they’re thinking, they’ll love you; but if you really make them think they’ll hate you. – Don Marquis
Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so. – Bertrand Russell
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. – George Orwell
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. – George Orwell, Winston Smith, in “1984″, pt. 1, ch. 7 (1949)
Once you have made up your mind, facts are but a mere annoyance. – Unknown
A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking. – Unknown
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts. – Bertrand Russell
If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody isn’t thinking. – Gen. George Patton
The most tyrannical of governments are those which make crimes of opinions, for everyone has an inalienable right to his thoughts. – Baruch Spinoza, “Ethics” (1677)
We must take back our nation from all the people who think that anything that offends them should be removed. – Unknown American
The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. – F. Scott Fitzgerald
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. – George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four, pt. 2, ch. 9 (1949)
The shepherd always tries to persuade the sheep that their interests and his own are the same. – Stendal
“Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.” – Justice Robert H. Jackson
.
“They could be made to accept the most flagrant violations of reality, because they never fully grasped the enormity of what was demanded of them, and were not sufficiently interested in public events to notice what was happening.” – George Orwell
.
“You can’t be neutral on a moving train.” – Howard Zinn
As promised, here are the responses I received, from the candidates, to my inquiry posted above. Only two people–Jennifer Salmon and Dave Steinke responded.
Jennifer Salmon:
Please see my thoughts at:
http://electjennifersalmon.com/Open%20government.php
I support public comment at workshops but at the end of the workshop so the public can comment on all aspects of what they heard. No decisions should be made at workshops.
JS
=====================================================================
Dave Steinke:
Margarete: I think it very important to have public input at both workshops and council meetings. The council men or women have the responsibility to get as much information as possible to make an intelligent decision. And not rely on staff.
Thanks Dave Steinke