During the City Council meeting last night (July 29, 2014), several citizens spoke to the council about their problems with some form of what they perceive is abuse of city code and possibly state records law.
You may watch the clip of this portion of the meeting by going to the meeting website and under the video image, click on the item you are interested in - in this case it is Number 7.
The first citizen to speak is John Bell. Mr. Bell gave powerful graphic testimony to the DRC regarding the Wizer Block development last Thursday night. On Monday, at the beginning of the two-day public testimony portion of the meeting, Mr. Bell gave his power point to the clerk to make sure it would work properly. He was assured he could retrieve it if he didn't testify that evening. Since the testimony ran long and he couldn't speak that day, Mr. Bell requested to have his presentation removed so he could make changes and it hadn't been officially entered into evidence or given an exhibit number.
The Deputy City Attorney, Evan Boone intervened and told him that the presentation was evidence and could not be given back. Watch the video for the rest of the story.
At issue is whether or not Mr. Bell had the right to take his testimony back, and whether or not the city was required to keep it. It is more complicated than that, but in it's simplest form, I have to wonder why, on Thursday when all parties were present (Mr. Bell, Mr. Boone, and Ms. White), were they allowed to agree to destroy what was supposed to be a public record? I have many other questions about who was the hearings officer, who makes the final decision on testimony, etc., but the idea of a small group of people deciding to destroy records that are claimed to be of public interest is serious matter.
Hallinan Subdivision at Question:
Two members of the Hallinan neighborhood testified about a subdivision being allowed a ministerial approval for development. They have presented evidence why the development is not ministerial in nature and that development codes have been ignored in approving the application. The decision by city staff is final and does not allow for appeal or recourse of any kind. It is meant for cases where there are clear and objective code requirements, but not for major and other types of development.
The neighborhood asserts that the new subdivision should be handled like other developments of similar size with appropriate notice and hearings, and be responsible for road improvements like other developments are required to do. They make a very good point. At this time there is little the City Council can do about the subdivision since all decisions regarding the lad use application were mistrial.
The codes that govern which decisions should be ministerial or up for review are in the hearing phase - just one City Council hearing away from approval. Get involved people - or there may be nothing left for citizens to be involved in at all! Listen to neighbor comments using the same link for the meeting video above.
So we all know now since David Powell, City Attorney, said it at the Council meeting - once you hand something to a City staffer it is public. I feel sorry for Janice who supports the meetings; nothing will be given to her until the moment someone is about to speak. I find it a very severe interpretation of the law. Was it cited to keep Mr. Boone out of trouble?
ReplyDeleteMaybe the City should outsource its' legal work. Would it be cheaper?