|
|
| Post Number: 21
|
Liberal 
Group: Moderator
Posts: 11451
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
 |
Posted on: Nov. 08 2003,3:26 pm |
|
   |
The ALEDC group is going to have a fight on their hands when they try to skirt the open meeting law and the first amendment. It seems to me that St. Paul and the Minnesota Supreme court have made it pretty clear that groups like this are subject to the open meeting law.
| Quote |
The list of groups covered by the open meeting law does not refer to nonprofit corporations created by a governmental entity. However, the law creating a specific public nonprofit corporation may specify that it is subject to the open meeting law.6 In addition, corporations created by political subdivisions are now clearly subject to the open meeting law
Minnesota Open Meeting Law INFORMATION BRIEF Minesota House of Representatives
|
One of the ways this group is going to try to skirt the law is by making sure that the city council doesn't have a quorum(3 or more members) but the Minnesota Supreme court has held that if you only have two members just to avoid the open meeting law then the meetings may be found in violation of the open meeting law.
So if a council member attends three or more closed meetings they are subject to $100 fine for each and removal from office for the third offense.
| Quote |
The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that the open meeting law applies only to a quorum or more of members of the governing body or a committee, subcommittee, board, department, or commission of the governing body.Serial meetings in groups of less than a quorum held in order to avoid open meeting law requirements may also be found to be a violation, depending on the facts of the case.
Minnesota Open Meeting Law INFORMATION BRIEF Minesota House of Representatives
|
--------------
The people are masters of both Congress and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it!
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 22
|
minnow
Group: Members
Posts: 2243
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 08 2003,3:49 pm |
|
 |
It just amazes me that someone at the meeting would smile and wink about possibly skirting the open meetings...thinking of ways to hide their actions from the public...and thinking it's cool. The public should be outraged!
Albert Lea and any arm of its government must have transparency and anything short of that is unexceptable!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 23
|
just looking
Group: Members
Posts: 24
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 09 2003,12:32 am |
|
|
shaker - I can appreciate that you go to meetings and voice your opinion, if stagefright is what is stopping other people perhaps then they could put it in writing (letter in the mail). I was once told that if you have a complaint and
1. You call to complain - the person on the other end of the phone hears you. But who else....
2. If you complain in person - everyone present hears you.
3. You write a letter, whomever opens the letter, and who they direct it to reads it.... If it gets read or repeated to the right person you stand a chance of your complaint being heard. So having an opinion posted on this forum does not necessarily mean that the appropriate or change making persons have read and acknowledge it.
So the way that I see it #2 will be heard by the most. No doubts as others will also have heard you speak your opinion. Granted this was advice about being unhappy about goods or services recieved but I would think that it also applies to unhappiness with politics and government.
I personally don't have alot of spare time (or shall I say at this point in my life I have not made the time)to get involved or obtain enough knowledge to develop strong knowledgeable opinions. This does not make me proud, but at this junction in life I have to live with it.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 24
|
The Advocate
Unregistered
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 09 2003,4:38 pm |
|
|
The entire issue that has been discussd here only magnifies the core problem concerning the democratic process in terms of local (Albert Lea and Freeborn County politics/concerns. We are unique in that we have an MCLU lawsuit pending regarding Freeborn County in terms of both restriction and prior restraint. Interestingly enough the above mentioned forum was in effect also a "Prior Restraint" situation as the solution was resolved prior to the discussion. What exactly were Mr. Ahrends and associates looking for in terms of public input? What possible difference would it have made? Six months from now Mr. Arends and associates can correctly state that a public forum was held and the citizens were in fact given an opportunity to express their views. But they never again have to explain that the citizens had NO VOICE AT ALL because the decision was already made, that those citizens opinions would mean nothing and those citizens were only given lip service. I can strongly identify with Liberal, they did not want hear what I have to say. It does not matter what I have to say. And why on earth would I say anything at all when the deal was already done. The only way that I can see any type of change is to re-establish what Mr. Trow had envisioned in the first place. A petition signed by the residents of this community concerning a vote of "No Confidence" with Sparks in the Port Authority position. You may question this reasoning as the Port Authority is no longer part of an elected position but public relations can be a powerful tool in this arena. Just look at how quickly the City Council and Mayor leaped to voting on the Port Authority position. Remember, Mr. Trow and the "think tankers " had just announced that they were starting up a petition for the citizens to sign to get rid of Sparks. We then read that Jean Eaton was going to make an announcement in a "few months" that would be a good solution for everyone involved. Low and behold, the very next day, the Mayor and Council slipped the issue into the agenda and voted without public input and now its' taken on a life of its' own. The Mayor and Council were really nervous that a vast majority of citizens would have signed a get rid of Sparks petition and then it would be impossible for them to not get rid of him. I have heard time and again from the "Powers that be" that if the citizens do not stop the negative statements they are making no new business or industry will want to come to Albert Lea. They say that all a prospective business has to do is look at this web site or the "negative" editorials in the paper and these are the reasons why a prospective business would not locate here. I may not be the brightest bulb on the tree but even I can figure out that an MCLU lawsuit concerning freedom of speech (in regards to it's citizens input) is pending against Freeborn County in a Federal Court. I don't know, but after I'd heard the Minnesota Public Radio and the Star Tribune's take on the lawsuit I just might look further and see that local web-sites and local papers editorials do in fact concur that the democratic process is not alive and well in Albert Lea and Freeborn County. That the citizens rights are not being respected. I may think further that if the Mayor, The Albert Lea City Council, The Freeborn County Board of Commissioners, Greater Jobs, The Port Authority and key city and county leaders are placing the blame for lack of economic development on those citizens that do not agree with the above mentioned entities, well I guess as a prospective business owner, I may feel the above mentioned entities would treat me the same way that the citizens have been treated and I would take my business elsewhere. I think the PR nightmare is just starting and with the Mayor and City Council minicking the Board of Commissioners we are going to get a lot more press and it is not the kind we want.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 25
|
To A TEE
Unregistered
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 09 2003,9:32 pm |
|
|
In response to Just Looking, why on earth would anyone want to publicly voice a dessenting opinion at any type of meeting in this community? Tony Trow, Dr Blumer, Karen Smed Blumer, Don Sorenson, Tom Leland have all written and spoken eloquently on valid dissatisfactions with current practices. My goodness, if this was Rome they would have all been stoned. They have acted with courage as it has not been easy for any of them. Do you want other citizens to come forward with the same opinions as those people that are calling for real change so that you can publicly smear their good names as well? Why would anyone put themselves through that?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 26
|
just looking
Group: Members
Posts: 24
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 10 2003,1:40 am |
|
|
To a TEE - It seems to me that many of the posters to this forum have complaints about something, all I am saying is that if it helps to write here and get it off of there chests, good then they feel better but if they truly think that their opinion is worth being heard they cannot assume that it is being heard by the proper persons here on this forum. This forum is a great outlet, but if they really want to be heard they need to take it to the meetings, to me that would be the next step. This is my opinion - I didn't mean to offend - It's just an opinion.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 27
|
Guest
Unregistered
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 10 2003,8:13 am |
|
|
It doesn't make much sense to get the MCLU involved in the county issue over the 1st Amendment, and then say that it doesn't matter if you say anything on this issue that you claim to have such strong feelings about. Writing is not the same thing as saying.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 28
|
Liberal
Group: Moderator
Posts: 11451
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 10 2003,9:41 am |
|
|
| Quote |
It doesn't make much sense to get the MCLU involved in the county issue over the 1st Amendment, and then say that it doesn't matter if you say anything on this issue that you claim to have such strong feelings about. Writing is not the same thing as saying.
|
If we are talking strictly about the concept of free speech then writing something is exactly the same as saying something.
As far as it not making sense that I'm party to the federal lawsuit over free speech and then not speaking at meetings. If I were defending someones right to bear arms would I be expected to become a gun owner?
Anyone that thinks that I could have said something at that meeting to stop Paul Sparks and Pam Bishop from getting complete control of our economic development is delusional.
The mayor and and 2 councilmen were there and they didn't ask one question. And when Arends made the presentation to the council two weeks ago there was only one question asked. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that either our council is to stupid to ask questions or that they've done all this behind closed doors and all the questions have been asked and the answers been given and the decisions been made without any public input.
If this council cared about what we had to say about this then they would table this resolution and have ward meetings.
--------------
The people are masters of both Congress and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 29
|
Guest
Unregistered
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 10 2003,10:03 am |
|
|
So is it the councils job to seek out those who may disagree with their actions and make direct inquiry for public imput? Why don't you ask them to table he resolution and have ward meetings? Nice spin dead head!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 30
|
minnow
Group: Members
Posts: 2243
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 10 2003,2:25 pm |
|
|
It's their job to make certain our government operates with transparency. They've failed woefully in this area by anyones standard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
