I was hoping to get some current information from the City Council?’s minutes from their meetings that are supposed to be kept up on their website. Well, in spite of the Queen hiring her new Spin-Doctor, a portion of whose job it is supposed to be to maintain said website, there isn?’t, of course, any updates since September 18th. Well, maybe I?’m too optimistic for real-time data in today?’s technology.
I?’ll be short and open up the floor to the prospective candidates to respond.
Per the meeting minutes from September 18th, there were 11 issues up for discussion. Of these, 9 were declared EMERGENCY issues. Hmmm, that?’s 82%. Mr. Wright, Mr. Maxey or Mr. Parker raised all the issues. Hmmm, that?’s right, they?’re all up for reelection.
Per the meeting minutes from September 4th, there were 10 issues up for discussion. Of these, 8 were declared EMERGENCY issues. Hmmm, that?’s 80%. And of these, all were passed 6-0.
So, for the month of September, an average of 81% of the issues brought before City Council were deemed to meet the criteria to be declared an EMERGENCY. Would someone please explain to me the exact criteria that would mandate an ordinance to be declared an EMERGENCY in an average of 81% of the cases? Is there a possibility that something is going on, out of Council?’s control, that would force them to be 81% REACTIVE in the way they govern us?
Finally, Mr. Monebrake, why aren?’t you on the bandwagon? Obviously Council is pushing the aforementioned Councilpersons out in the forefront to get them the proper per-election exposure. Why are you left behind? Are you not supported by your peers for reelection? Are you the sacrificial lamb so that the Council might give the impression of balance by giving up your seat for a new face? Because you were appointed, does this mean you are being unappointed, so to speak? We understand Mr. Washington?’s role on the Council. Are you simply the second incarnation of him?
In an attempt to bolster my findings as well as answer my own questions, I typed in the following to the search engine for the City?’s website and got the same answer for all of them. Go ahead ?– try it for yourself. It?’s worth a laugh, if nothing else.
City Charter: The content index is corrupt.
Ethics: The content index is corrupt.
Emergency Legislation: The content index is corrupt.
By Voter
I?’ll be short and open up the floor to the prospective candidates to respond.
Per the meeting minutes from September 18th, there were 11 issues up for discussion. Of these, 9 were declared EMERGENCY issues. Hmmm, that?’s 82%. Mr. Wright, Mr. Maxey or Mr. Parker raised all the issues. Hmmm, that?’s right, they?’re all up for reelection.
Per the meeting minutes from September 4th, there were 10 issues up for discussion. Of these, 8 were declared EMERGENCY issues. Hmmm, that?’s 80%. And of these, all were passed 6-0.
So, for the month of September, an average of 81% of the issues brought before City Council were deemed to meet the criteria to be declared an EMERGENCY. Would someone please explain to me the exact criteria that would mandate an ordinance to be declared an EMERGENCY in an average of 81% of the cases? Is there a possibility that something is going on, out of Council?’s control, that would force them to be 81% REACTIVE in the way they govern us?
Finally, Mr. Monebrake, why aren?’t you on the bandwagon? Obviously Council is pushing the aforementioned Councilpersons out in the forefront to get them the proper per-election exposure. Why are you left behind? Are you not supported by your peers for reelection? Are you the sacrificial lamb so that the Council might give the impression of balance by giving up your seat for a new face? Because you were appointed, does this mean you are being unappointed, so to speak? We understand Mr. Washington?’s role on the Council. Are you simply the second incarnation of him?
In an attempt to bolster my findings as well as answer my own questions, I typed in the following to the search engine for the City?’s website and got the same answer for all of them. Go ahead ?– try it for yourself. It?’s worth a laugh, if nothing else.
City Charter: The content index is corrupt.
Ethics: The content index is corrupt.
Emergency Legislation: The content index is corrupt.
By Voter