Item #1: The city council Finance and Budget committee appear to be serious this time. They have scheduled a meeting for tonight and they haven't cancelled it. Yet.
On the agenda for tonight's meeting is a discussion of broadcasting city council meetings, and even committee meetings. We feel that's a good idea. We felt it was a good idea every time it was suggested over the past number of years. We would be pleased to see the city council go beyond the idea and discussion phase of doing this to actually getting it done! Government should be conducting the people's business in a fish bowl.
The background memo provides fairly reasonable beginning questions for the committee and, ultimately, the council to consider. But we take issue with the notion that televising committee meetings should not be done "because doing so will change the tone of the meetings and the decorum of the participants." We feel it could have a sobering effect on the decorum of participants, and those who currently "white-wash" meeting minutes won't be able to do that so easily.
Item #2: The Finance and Budget committee background memo also includes a discussion of how the city will play follow the bouncing borrowing ball between city funds in order to bridge the gap between expenditures for city operations and the late, very late, arrival of tax revenues.
Item #3: According to the Finance and Budget committee background memo, the 2006 equalized assessed valuation (EAV) is now $1,528,372,764.00; an increase in property value of 1.7%. Does anybody remember what the city's amount of debt is? Does anybody remember when we had a debt ceiling? Does anybody care to wager what the city's amount of debt could be if all the mega-projects planned by the city are funded through more borrow-bond-spend schemes? Pay attention.
October 23, 2007
Here fishy fishy fishy!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
People generally don't care about local budgets and debt ceilings and stuff like that. Most people are only vaguely aware that they have a local government. No one will watch the meetings on TV who isn't already going there to see them in person.
I disagree completely with Father Mckenzie. There are plenty of families with young children here in town that would come to the City Council and other meetings. The problem is that they are always on a weekday evening when it is hard to get a babysitter.
I have only been able to attend since my children are getting older. The rising cost of our property taxes and lack of city services are a concern of most parents with school aged children.
If the city council meetings are broadcasted on cable, we will be watching!
I disagree with the previous comment. Most people are truly ignorant of local proceedings, yes. Debt ceilings and local budgets are arcane to most people, yes. But that makes it all the more important to have transparency in government, including televising city council and even committee meetings. We have local access on cable which seems to broadcast mainly test patterns. If one additional person is able to watch and come to the conclusion of how poorly represented we really are, it would be a great step in the right direction.
WHAT ARE THEY AFRAID OF? That people may actually take interst in what is going on? That the residents in our town may not like the way they vote on issues?
"Most people are only vaguely aware that they have a local government" because most local elected officials do their best to hide "the people's business" from the people - running into closed sessions whenever they can, blindly approving sketchy-to-outright-misleading meeting minutes, and not issuing press releases or writing letters to the editor to supplement or correct the local papers' botched accounts of what's going on.
Father McKenzie sounds like a lot of our local politicians.
Well, we have now heard from 5 of the 10 people in Park Ridge who care about local government. My original comment still applies to the other 37,000 or so.
Five or Ten people? You either need to get your eyes checked or show up at the City Council Meetings. We have been packing the place!
Father McKenzie,
If we correctly remember the story - God told Abraham that He would agree to spare Sodom and Gomorrah if even only 10 righteous people could be found living there.
If, as you suggest, there are only 10 people in Park Ridge who care about local government, then the city council should see fit to serve the righteous interest of those 10 people.
If 10 was a number good enough for God, 10 should be a number good enough for the city council.
We know the number exceeds 10, significantly.
PRU is right. But whether God's number is good enough for the Sodom that is City Hall is beside the point.
What is the point? Our elected officials should do what's right, regardless of whether 5 or 10 or 100 or zero people are watching. Unfortunately, they don't always do that. Some are better than others. Do things improve when more people pay attention? Yes.
Would it be better to have an informed citizenry where most of the adults in town pay attention and care, and more than 25% of the registered voters turn out for local elections? Yes. Is PRU a helpful means toward getting more people to pay attention? Yes.
I have my doubts, given human nature, that a meaningful proportion of our fellow citizens will start paying attention to local stuff. I applaud PRU for trying, however. Gotta start somewhere.
Hats off also to those who take the time to lob a comment in.
We were asked about the matter of high school students providing the labor for the effort of recording. Some of the negative issues raised against doing so involve the topics of 1)reliability, 2)curfew, 3)experience, and 4)political affiliation.
#1 - Sadly, reliability is an issue whenever volunteers are being relied upon. However, we don't feel reliability is entirely a matter of age.
#2 - The city ordinance governing curfew restrictions allows exceptions:
ARTICLE 14
CONDUCT AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 12 CURFEW AND POSSESSION OF ALCOHOL BY MINORS
SECTION 14-12-1 Curfew (Ord 2004-33, 4/19/04, S23)
A. General Curfew
1. It is unlawful for a person less than eighteen (18) years of age to be present at or upon any public assembly, building, place, street or highway at the following times set forth in this Chapter 12:
Between 12:01 A.M. and 6:00 A.M. Saturday; and Between 12:01 A.M. and 6:00 A.M. Sunday; and Between 11:00 P.M. on Sunday to Thursday, inclusive, and 6:00 A.M. on the
following day.
2. Exceptions:
a. The curfew set forth in subsection (A) does not apply to a child who is:
i. accompanied by the child’s parent, guardian or custodian;
ii. accompanied by a person at least twenty-one (21) years of age
approved by the child’s parent, guardian or custodian;
iii. participating in, going to, or returning from:
1. an emergency involving the protection of a person or property
from an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or substantial
damage;
2. an activity involving the exercise of the child’s rights protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or Article I, Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Constitution of the State of
Illinois, or both, such as freedoms of religion and speech and the right of assembly, to include, but not be limited to:
· a religious event, including, but not limited to, prayer and
vigil services; or
· a political event, including, but not limited to observing or influencing a legislative session and attending a political rally or event.
3. an activity conducted by a nonprofit or governmental entity that provides recreation, education, training, or other care under the supervision of one (1) or more adults; or
4. a business or occupation which the laws of this State authorize a person less than 18 years of age to perform.
#3 - Experience is a matter of concern.
#4 - Give us a break, and bother to know the law governing inquiries about political affiliation and when that matters; if it isn't enough of a matter of concern for Board and Commission members, then it's even less of a conern for high school students operating camera and recording equipment.
Post a Comment