Anonymous said...
February 5, 2008 3:01 PM
If you want to exercise another right, I hear that the procedures and regulations committee will be discussing the open meetings issue and Alderman Schmidt's handling of that issue at its meeting tonight. 7 pm at City Hall. If Alderman Schmidt is going to be getting reprimanded, perhaps some people ought to show up to let the committee know how we feel about closed session meetings....
February 5, 2008 3:01 PM
If you want to exercise another right, I hear that the procedures and regulations committee will be discussing the open meetings issue and Alderman Schmidt's handling of that issue at its meeting tonight. 7 pm at City Hall. If Alderman Schmidt is going to be getting reprimanded, perhaps some people ought to show up to let the committee know how we feel about closed session meetings....
7 comments:
Does anyone know what happened tonight? Are any other alderman supporting Schmidt?
If Alderman Schmidt is reprimanded by Howard and Company, he should wear it as a badge of honor.
Alderman Wsol supports Alderman Schmidt. That's about it. No surprise there. Alderman DiPietro took the opportunity to express how disturbed he was at the disclosure of closed session discussions. He believes it is injurious to the public, and that the public should be protected with a new rule prohibiting aldermen from doing what happened last week. What he fails to understand is that the public needs to be protected FROM a prohibition against disclosing closed session discussions, because it is their right and in their best interests to know what is going on in their government. What he also fails to understand is that the Council has no legal authority to pass such a rule. That doesn't mean it won't try. Stay tuned.
Let the games - begin!
SO? what happened?
Was the officer charged with anything? was the officer really investigated?
I bet, the States Attnys offie "recomended" to the Court to dismiss the charges leaving the officer, the City and the City of Lake Z open for litigation. County offices overworked have to take the cases they can win without delay but...
it is "slander" for what happened to the officer mentioned in the Feb 7th artical of the Advocate. The officer is now tried and guilty in a public forum, without being questioned. What happend to "until proven guilty". It would be ashame if the City had to pay that officer for the City's release of closed session information.
The public should be careful what they wish for, it may only prove to infringe on our own Constitutional Rights.
-Concerend Citizen
anonymous February 7, 2008 3:23 PM:
The case involving the named officer was a civil, not criminal, lawsuit that was filed in federal court in Chicago. The Cook County State's Atty, therefore, had no involvement. The suit also was a matter of public record and not "confidential" despite what Mr. Schuenke tried to do to keep it that way. And if what was reported about that case was the truth, then it's not "slander," either.
Where did you get the idea that the City would have to pay that officer for the release of closed session information? You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. But the same 1st Amendment right that Ald. Schmidt exercised also protects the exercise of free speech by the uninformed like yourself.
Isn't the Constitution great?
Post a Comment