It would seem that the Attorney General has spoken and many are listening. According to Attorney General Greg Abbott, city councils are not to openly make comments or discuss much of anything at all without placing it on the meeting agenda and posting it as required by law.
Click here to see the article in the Dallas Morning News.
What will it mean now that Lange has to place her Pro-Allen Group comments on a meeting agenda prior to spouting her adornments?
What will it mean to the Lange/Leal/Hagen-Dyess group who believe that all agendas need to be vague and without much substance so that they can operate open handed? Now they can hardly comment on anything without placing it on the agenda.
Is this a partial answer to what ails Wilmer Council meetings?
Click here to see the article in the Dallas Morning News.
What will it mean now that Lange has to place her Pro-Allen Group comments on a meeting agenda prior to spouting her adornments?
What will it mean to the Lange/Leal/Hagen-Dyess group who believe that all agendas need to be vague and without much substance so that they can operate open handed? Now they can hardly comment on anything without placing it on the agenda.
Is this a partial answer to what ails Wilmer Council meetings?
4 comments:
I was at a recent city meeting and asked the city attorney if some of the items listed on the agenda were a bit vague? He stated that they were not. I knew that the agenda items were to vague, but who cares? Problem is it is just an opinion, who is going to enforce it? It is not the first nor is it the last time that the city council will go against an opinion from the Attorney General's office.
I think that the entire state has had their eyes opened on this recent development and will be facing different challenges with the opinion from Greg Abbott's office. Wilmer should be no different. Bob Hager is very good at what he does.
If this is true, then why has Wilmer not abided by an Attorney Generals report on City Administrators? The report makes for good reading and that is about it. So, I guess Wilmer and its attorney will pick and choose which reports they follow and which they will not?
Mary Phinney said...
I am quoting in part from my reply under the article about the Land Use Plan...and going a little in depth on the Agenda. Nothing should be discussed that is NOT ON THE AGENDA. If the item is too vague to understand, whoever wrote it needs to resign, be he or she elected or employed.
A 15-minute open mike for citizen input at the beginning of the meeting would allow the citizens to voice their opinions about agenda items or at the very least ask for clarification and elaboration. This is not unusual, it is an accepted part of conducting an Open Meeting.
Once again, if the reasons behind the decisions that are made in closed sessions, were clearly stated or explained in the open City Council Meeting before the vote, the rumors would go away.
As long as there is secrecy or the perception of clandestine agreements made elsewhere besides City Hall, there will be rumors. The rumors need to stop. This City needs to move forward and the opportunities that are presenting themselves that could benefit the entire population need to be thoroughly examined. The probability of being either deceived or mired in stagnation because of private agreements seems to be the real threat to progress here in Wilmer.
I resent private or vague deals regarding the ETJ like a "Contract for Annexation" when there is an opportunity for participation in a much broader PLAN that would encompass everyone rather than a PLAN that excludes everyone but a choosen few.
If any of you as a Councel Person really believe in what you are voting for, you need to explain your position. If YOU cannot explain logically why you have chosen the path you have taken then you probably should recluse yourself from voting, because if you cannot articulate your decision and position you obviously don't understand whatever it is you are voting for.
And, if it is worth saying, it is worth signing.
Mary Phinney
An ETJ of Wilmer and affected by its decisions or lack thereof.
Post a Comment