Dems’ budget waits on state - The New Britain Herald (newbritainherald.com)
by James Craven------members of the public locked out of this public meeting.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
New Britain CouncilDems’ budget waits on state - The New Britain Herald (newbritainherald.com) Members of The Public locked out of the Public Meeting!
Dems’ budget waits on state - The New Britain Herald (newbritainherald.com)
by James Craven------members of the public locked out of this public meeting.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
If this was a public meeting, why was the public locked out? The Democratic council is adapting the Gestapo methods of the chairman of the Democratic Town Committee. Mayor Stewart, Veto the Council budget!!!
Anonymous said...
Seems to me that blame should not be on someone else.
None of this will convince the the 10 readers of this blog and members of the Republican Town Committee but felt obligated to set the record straight.
IF THE BLAME IS ON THE MAYOR, THEN WHY WAS THE COUNCIL CLERK (A DEMOCRAT) CHALLENGING PEOPLE FOR BEING IN THE BUILDING DURING THE SECRET MEETING?
THIS IS THE EVIDENCE THAT THE COUNCIL INTENDED TO BREAK THE LAW. IF YOU DOUBT IT, LET'S ALL BRING THIS BEFORE THE STATE FOI COMMISSION TO DETERMINE IF THIS BUDGET IS LEGAL, AND YOU MAY FIND THAT SIX MONTHS FROM NOW, THEY ISSUE AN ORDER INVALIDATING YOUR BUDGET, NOT TO MENTION THE POTENTIAL FOR THE POSSIBILITY FOR CIVIL PENALTIES LEVIED AGAINST ALL THOSE RESPONSIBLE.
PUBLIC OFFICIALS JUST DON’T GET IT
By Eric V. Turner, Director of Public Education, CT Freedom of Information Commission...
Under the FOI Act, the public has the following three basic rights with respect to public meetings: to know that a public meeting will take place; to attend the public meeting; and to obtain the minutes of the meeting. Exceptions are permitted for some things like personnel matters, contract negotiations, legal strategy in connection with pending litigation, and security matters.
Generally speaking, what the FOI laws prohibit are public officials meeting in private to discuss the public’s business. After all, it’s the public’s business, not private or personal business that’s at stake here. And how else can the public know if their elected or appointed "public servants" are serving them well and how and why public funds are being spent, without requiring that the public’s business be conducted in a forum open to the public?
Unfortunately, public officials all too often seek secrecy for their own benefit or comfort - not for the good of the public. Therefore, when politicians make comments bemoaning the requirements for open public meetings, be wary. It may be because they believe they were elected to serve their own personal or partisan interests and not the interests of the citizenry.
It was 25 years ago this August that President Nixon resigned because of the "Watergate" scandals, which in turn, led to passage of FOI laws, including those in Connecticut. Do you remember the old adage that those who fail to heed the errors of the past are doomed to repeat them? To avoid a repetition of past mistakes, it’s incumbent upon public officials to ensure that the public’s business remain just that - public.
Anonymous said...
PUBLIC OFFICIALS JUST DON’T GET IT
By Eric V. Turner, Director of Public Education, CT Freedom of Information Commission...
Do you remember the old adage that those who fail to heed the errors of the past are doomed to repeat them? To avoid a repetition of past mistakes, it’s incumbent upon public officials to ensure that the public’s business remain just that - public.
As long as 2-5 people show up at council, budget amd Board of Ed meetings officials will continue skirt procedure and law.
where was FOI Czar Sherwood when this was being voted on in secret?
Anonymous said...
As long as 2-5 people show up at council, budget amd Board of Ed meetings officials will continue skirt procedure and law.
How can more than 2-5 persons attend the meeting if they hold them without publishing them, and then hold them behind locked doors and challenge anyone for being in the building during the meeting?
How is this even remotely legal??
The Common Council should be brought before the Ethics Committee for violating the rules...locking the public out of a public meeting.
Are the demoncratic alderpersons stupid or what !!!! They want to add or restore a posistion to maybe, just maybe collect $100,000 i the parking division.
It will cost well over $100,000 in salary, plus benefits of retirement, health insurance, holidays, sick leave, vacations, uniforms, safety shoes, etc. and the list goes on and on.
Pleeze, set the alarm clock and wake up.
The Republican candidates for council should use that picture in their campaign literature and just simply say that the Democrats stand for locking you out of how your money is spent.
Then turn the page, and there is a key to the lock, and it says "turn the key--vote Republican--and unlock the doors to City Hall!
Talk about Open Government. Certainly not here in NB
Post a Comment