The Mayor is proposing a new charter revision committee to look into several pressing issues. (click here for Galveston Daily news story) This is a normal function according to City ordinance ARTICLE 8, Sec. 2-387.
Terms of office; selection of presiding officer; other officers.
(a) The terms of office for all boards shall be for two years staggered, and shall expire on the 31st day of December, unless the length of the term is otherwise provided by the Charter, state statute, contracts, or corporation bylaws. At the time of adjusting the previous term expiration dates into the December 31st expiration date, the mayor shall be empowered to establish the terms of the various members to achieve conformance with this provision.”
Last year the old charter review committee handed in their final report. After one year it appears on a city agenda. We all agree the charter needs changing. Why is Mr. cones trying to revive the old committee? The old committee was appointed in Feb. 2007 and handed in their report in October 2007. It sat without consideration for one year and now Mr. Cones wants to do something?
19 comments:
Hi Chris, everyone. To support Chris' revival of internet based discussion of League City issues, I have broken my longstanding avoidance of blogs, with their "hide behind" pseudonyms. Although not aligned with any party or camp, I am as controversial (e.g. have been referred to as a "malcontent") as they come in this town.
Anyway, having served on the CURRENT charter review committee of League City, I do not like what I see on the next City Council agenda. It looks like an intra-council battle is shaping up. Charter amendments look like the flashpoint. I would rather the ugliness focus on the issues, not on the personalities.
And why do you think this one will do any different CM? You have the report from the past CRC vote the items up or down, the committee is just smoke and mirrors anyway, put the big items on an agenda and vote on them.
Call me old fashion but I have always been about the process. A new charter revision committee is the process that should be followed. Now truth, tell us why the council waited a year to do ANYTHING about the last recommendations. They had an opportunity for a whole year and chose to do nothing. Trying to cram it down the throat of the citizens at the last possible minute? Hmmm seems to me that tactic was overwhelming voted down. The mayor is following the process laid out and used by every city council until now. One must ask the question why.
cram it down our throat? How is having a a new committee everytime you and your beloved Mayor don't like what the last committee said? Or did Joanna, the weed lady, tell you different? Is it true that Joanna gave Ernie a gift? You know that kind that won't go away?
No truth,
What does Ms. Sharp have to do with this? How would you know what she does with whom? Are you one of those that peek through windows for your entertainment? No wonder you use an anonymous name. Grow up. Did you not read the city ordinance that was posted to allow everyone to see what the truth is ? This is a normal process. What part of normal process do you not understand? You want to get involved in an issue then let’s talk about the cost of the Tommy Cones Dog Park. In a time when our Tax Rate is going up and we are asking our department heads to cut jobs and do more with less Mr. Cones supports the spending of tens of thousands of dollars on a dog park? This is not the time for such a pork barrel extravagance. We need to do what is best for ALL the citizens and then he can try to get his help get me reelected pork barrel tax and spend projects though city council.
See now that is just wrong. Why are you saying such horrible things, that is no better than what Mallios said about CR. Chris you need to take that down.
Chris, You got this all wrong as usual. Tommy Cones is not sponsoring a dog park, that is your friends EK and NB. There Park is for dogs not people. Tommy has nothing to do with it. Are you going to blame Tommy for the hurricane to.
Pat,
As usual you jump to conclusions and make assumption that are incorrect. I stated he supports it. I never stated he is “sponsoring” it. We all know Mr. Baron is sponsoring it. But we also know that Mr. Baron is one vote and Mr. Cones carries two votes (His and Jim Nelson’s). It is obvious that Mr. Samulson could care less so we know he will vote with Tommy and the boys. Is this bad timing for pork barrel projects? You bet it is. Could the two votes Mr. Cones dictates on council change this situation you bet they could. Mr. Baron campaigned on ethics reform and doing what is best for the city, but many have asked me about his vote on the Reed situation. One can only wonder why he voted that way. In the same breath they are asking if party affiliation is influencing MR. Baron’s alliance with Mr. Cones. First they raise your taxes then they spend your tax dollar on pork barrel projects that benefit the few and not the many. Fact is Mr. Cones is having a tough time getting support for reelection and feels like he needs to do something to change that. So why not vote for a pork barrel project that will make a few people happy?
Confused party,
What did I say about Mr. Reed? I only made suggestions that he (as any city administrator should) research a subject and bring that information to the attention of the public. Had I made an accusation of any type I am sure he would be attempting to have his legal dogs on the hunt. I still think spousal abuse is something we should all be educated on. If ‘the truth” has an opinion who am I to remove it? While my mother taught me better than that I guess his did not. Free speech is exactly that free speech.
My question is, how will the city manager form of government be better for the residents of League City? Not indirectly, via a chain of reasons starting with city hall, but directly, starting with the residents first.
Blogging makes women out of men.
Blogging men are the new gossippy women of earlier generations. Do you remember a time when a man could keep a secret? I guess that was before blogging.
You go girls!
I'm glad you mentioned my yard because that gives me a chance to tell you about it. My yard won the League City Garden Club Yard of the Month 3 years ago as a specimen habitat landscaping example. The plants that you called "weeds" were selected and landscaped very carefully to attract birds, bees, butterflies and hummers. I am a Certified Master Naturalist and if anyone in town wants to see a real butterfly garden, I will be delighted to show mine off!
Chris,
There is a profound difference between opinion (as in "How is having a a new...) and commentary that is purely malicious in nature (as in "Is it true that...)
I'm all for freedom of speech but I don't believe that "freedom" should come at the expense of this blogs reputation.
This is your house Chris...just as it was Marc's before...and the question remains.
How far is too far?
We all have three choices when someone rattles off a profane rift, or floats some little balloon filled with bad intent across the page.
(1) we can ignore and pretend it doesn't matter
(2) we can engage the flamer and burn up time and space chasing shadows
(3) we can apply the standards we have when visiting someones house
Your house, Chris...just as it was Marc's before.
I don't consider anarchy a real option here.
I would hate to see your house become a repository for individuals
needing to take a dump, politically or otherwise.
charles,
I understand the desire to ensure a modicum of civility in public discussion. However, as I pointed out in my farewell to Marc's blog, once the administrator of a blog starts to exert editorial control over the words spoken by others, that administrator may be incurring a de facto responsibility and therefore liability for what others say. If may be that in this litigious age the only way for a volunteer administered blog such as this to exist is to openly deny any and all editorial responsibility and thereby allow all communication. I'm sure there is some limited control that can exist, such as the long standing policy that Marc and Jimmy had of deleting any posts containing foul language or personal threats.
Of course, I'm not a lawyer so I don't really know what the rules are in this case.
Either way, hopefully City Of Nuts will find his way here soon to stir the pot. Perhaps we should leave a trail of acorns to lead the way?
Jeff
thetruth,
What I said to Charles notwithstanding, your second post is not acceptable or mature behavior. While I will not join the call for Chris to censor you, I do call on you to sensor yourself. Such salacious and unwarranted gossip is not a service to our community. I will certainly remember that your words are not to be given any credence.
Jeff
My recommendation would be for everyone to thoroughly read the following FAQs provided by the EFF. Especially for those of you who are unsure of laws, regulations, etc.. These are probably the best free legal guidelines on blogging rights available without having to consult a lawyer.
Blogger's FAQ: Defmation
Blogger's FAQ: Privacy
Section 230 Protections
Blogger's FAQ: Election Law
How to Blog Safely
Other Information/Legal Guides
- Richard M.
As I said, Jeff, there are three choices...or actually four.
One could choose not to participate.
I don't care much for that option.
I care even less for those that come here with an agenda aimed at nurturing the divisions that keep this city from being great.
Day by day comments like the one made by thetruth work to separate us individually and collectively.
I believe it is by design not out of ignorance or immaturity that individuals... usually anonymous individuals...come in here and throw crap on the walls just to see what sticks.
I understand the "legal" argument...and I understand freedom of expression.
If thetruth wants to step out of the darkness and make those kinds of statements, I would support that right.
But...I think we all know that's not going to happen. The (real) truth is a sniper and the only way for him (her) to survive is in the darkness.
I abhor censorship but defending the rights of anonymous snipers is kind of like censoring everyone else.
The message is what it is, no matter who's saying it. Why is it so important to know who the messenger is? I am more interested in the message. So what if Pat Hallisey has a closet full of masks? When he puts one of them on, it usually reveals more of his face, not less, and more of the ugly truth comes out.
I, for one, wasn't referring to Pat, Paul. In many cases, the message reveals nothing about the messenger, and there would be no message without anonymity.
Words can be more that expressions of knowledge, ideas, or wit. They can be as powerful as a bullet. Instead of wounding the body, they wound the spirit. They can also inflict collateral damage on families and friends.
The messages from snipers seldom have any redeeming value.
How many snipers would there be, Paul, with guns or words, if everyone knew who and where they were?
The folks I'm talking about aren't General Patton standing in front on a flag urging the troops on. Their more like Charles Whitman hiding in a tower zeroing in on his next victim.
You are right...it is what it is. It's not about freedom of expression, though.
Post a Comment