Posts
That is about all I can tell you about the substance.
I went down to city hall to attend the meeting, but was not allowed to stay during the closed session. Who was there? In addition to the committee members, the Mayor, city administrator, city planner, city finance director, and the CDA consultant were at the meeting and, of course, they all stayed in the room for the closed session.
(It's worth noting that unlike most city committees, the Mayor is actually not an ex officio member of the CDA. That's because the CDA is actually a separate legal entity from the city. Under the Open Meetings Law, the CDA can let anyone they want stay in the room during a closed session if they think it would be useful.)
After approving the minutes, I asked that I be allowed to stay in the room during the closed session. It was noted by Chair Bob Miller that the CDA had previously not allowed alders to attend closed sessions (three other times in seven years that I am aware of.). I expressed my hope that the committee would articulate a better justification to keep an alder (me this time) out of the closed session than 'because we did it before'. Committee member and former chair George Lightbourn said something to the effect that 'if we start letting individual citizens stay for closed sessions, then where do we draw the line'.
One might suggest that a good place to draw the line would be to let 'elected officials who are expected to vote on CDA proposals' to stay in the room and hear the discussion. But instead of looking for bright lines, how about just exercising some considered judgment?
My impression (shared by at least one other person) was that by even asking to stay in the room I was viewed as making waves. Of course, it's awfully easy to make waves in our normally placid waters. All I wanted to do was the hear the discussion. CDA has some really smart people on it and was hoping to hear them.
The committee then voted to go into closed session. I left the room (along with the Meriter's folks) to await my fate. The city attorney joined the meeting by teleconference. Some fifteen or twenty minutes later, Chair Miller emerged from the room and told the Meriter group they could go back into the meeting room and then told me that I could not. He said it was his call and not the committee's. He emphasized he was following precedent.
True enough. I was previously excluded from a CDA closed session several years ago and apparently alders Kugle and Veserat have been excluded more recently. Precedent has value, but bad precedent should be ditched.
***
I didn't stick around, but apparently the meeting ran until about 10:00 PM. I don't know how much of the closed session the developers were allowed to attend or much of what was said other than a couple of brief and necessarily second-hand reports.
The city council agenda for Monday (which is not on the city web site as of 11 PM tonight) calls for a decision by the city council on this developer's agreement at the first reading next Monday. Without being specific, the developer's agreement seeks a large amount of TIF funding (and in return promises a very good project and a large amount of property value increment).
I missed about three hours of education on the project tonight that would have put me in a lot better place to make a decision about this project.
***
For some background see a Previous post that mentioned the development and linked to the Meriter plans.
Here's the article on the development from the Herald Independent.
Doug,
ReplyDeleteWhy are you bothered by all of this? I suggest you start asking around town about what happened at the latest CDA closed sessions AND you are bound to find out most of the details. Heck, I could make 3 to 4 calls and with the bit pieces that each party gives me-I could get a pretty good picture.
Closed session information does not stay closed for very long in this town.
It is sort of funny/ironic/stupid that Merriter was let back in, but not you. It reminds of the US governement, we got to keep these secrets; what we are doing from our citizens or they might revolt.
"Closed session information does not stay closed for very long in this town."
ReplyDeleteSo secrecy is OK because the city leaks so badly it doesn't matter, huh? That's even more cycnical than I usually am about national politics.
One problem with your idea is that about half of the information you get in that way is at least half wrong. Other parts are completely wrong.
If the information was more public, you wouldn't have to rely on rumors.
Anyway, I know what the proposed agreement is, but what I wanted to hear was the discussion and the concerns of the CDA members and responses by Meriter.
Doug,
ReplyDeleteIs one of the problems with letting alders in on their closed sessions is that it could cause a problem with having a quorum of the council present if they did that? What would happen if four alders showed up? That would be an illegal, unposted meeting, would it not? This said, the fact that the council is going to be asked to react and vote on information they have had virtually no time to mull over is very disturbing. I hope Adam does a thorough job of reporting how this all goes down.
And boy, nail on the head with your response to anon above. The misinformation in the rumor mill is incredible. I will never understand how gullible people are when listening to the gossip.
"Is one of the problems with letting alders in on their closed sessions is that it could cause a problem with having a quorum of the council present if they did that?"
ReplyDeleteLily, that's an astute guess, but that's not the reason. The Open Meetings Law anticpates that council members will attend the meetings of its subunits (like a typical city committee).
Section 19.89 states "No duly elected or appointed member of a governmental body may be excluded from any meeting of such body. Unless the rules of a governmental body provide to the contrary, no member of the body may be excluded from any meeting of a subunit of that governmental body."
The city includes a notice on all its agendas that a quorum of another body may show up, but will not take any action. This is called a Badke notice after the case that considered this issue.
The CDA is not considered a subunit of the city so that statute doesn't apply. It's basically a policy question.
"One problem with your idea is that about half of the information you get in that way is at least half wrong. Other parts are completely wrong. "
ReplyDeleteGood Point-to some degree. Now let me ask you a serious question. How much information will get in the meeting that will be proven wrong...half or a little more? It is my guess that about half will be wrong.
Once read a research article that showed by the end of md's practice about half of everything she/he learned in med school will be proven wrong.