To be quite honest with everyone, I am slightly ticked off by the quick gavel by the ‘acting’ Council President and not allowing someone to figure out how to unmute their phone to get in their farce of a ZOOm meeting.
Here is a copy of what I was going to say:
First, why was the City Attorney’s memorandum regarding changes to the City Charter allowed to sit for almost a month from the eyes of the citizens of Lawrence? The memorandum was dated January 11 of this year and was finally posted on the City Clerk’s public meeting notice section of the City’s website on February 8th and probably went unnoticed by most until people checked for the agenda of this council meeting last Thursday afternoon.
In Section 2 of the memorandum you want to change the term of office for councilors to 2 years for district councilors and 4 years for councilors at-large and later on you mention with these words “No person shall be elected to the office of city councilor more than 2 consecutive full terms.” My first question is “Why the differing length of terms of office between district councilor and councilor at-large?”
My second question is “Does the phrase “office of city councilor” refer to strictly district councilors or does it include councilors at-large also?
My third question is “Why didn’t you include a period of absence from elected office to prevent individuals from jumping from 2 consecutive terms in one office to run for election to another council office?
Next; in Section 5, you mention 3 member standing committees; if one member is absent, you still have a quorum. However, it is my understanding that the chairman of a committee cannot make motions or second them. How effective is that for committee work?
Continuing on to Section 10, what safeguards are there to prevent nepotism and the hiring of politically connected individuals for jobs that usually require no heavy lifting or thinking?
In Section 12, you mention that public hearing notices will be posted on the city’s website…”. Well, IMHO, the city needs to do some serious work on making these notices more readily accessible to the general public. Some of us know where this information is usually ‘hidden’, a lot of citizens are not savvy with the inadequacies of the city website.
In Section 19, why the change from 5 to 12 percent of the signatures? Isn’t this going to add work to an already understaffed and overworked City Clerk’s Office and Election Department?
In Section 21, you mention as 15 percent of the registered voters as the required minimum number of signatures on recall petitions. First, you haven’t clearly stated which officials are recallable and the time frames to be required clearly enough; and second, if a district councilor were to be recalled, does that require 15 percent of the registered voters in the city or just 15 percent of the voters in their district? And why is the required number set at 15 percent? Why not lower the number to a more manageable number for the citizens of Lawrence to obtain? Or is the number set artificially high as insurance that no one can be recalled?
Continuing on I, and a lot of others, would like to see councilors pay docked for missed meeting and subcommittee meetings.
Last and most importantly, I take it as a slap in the face to the citizens of Lawrence that only you, the councilors, have the expertise to be the only ones to be able to come up with these suggested changes to ‘our City Charter’ that are supposedly for the benefit of the residents of the city. Furthermore, to conduct these meeting, on this issue, while we are operating under the Governor’s exemption to Open Meeting Laws flies in the face our American rights. Particularly when you, the council, are making changes in the way the city is governed.
Why was there no outcry when the 2010 Charter Review was tabled and never finished? I can’t see any problem with this Charter review being tabled until Governor Baker’s Open Meeting Law restrictions are lifted and a real honest to goodness face to face public hearing in the City Council chamber can be held. Or are some of you afraid of facing irate citizens of Lawrence over some if not all of these changes?
If you desire to continue with a zoom public hearing on this matter, it only shows that you, the council or at least some of you have no concern for the citizens as this would be the second time in a little over a month that you railroaded something through the council without providing the citizens of Lawrence a proper forum to express their concerns!
If other communities are starting to open up their legislative processes to public attendance, then I think that that the City of Lawrence should do so also. To use the COVID-19 pandemic as an excuse to not have opened to the public city council meetings is not exactly to our American way of life; then I think that you should look back on the year 2020 where we had 2 primary elections and a Presidential election with no outbreaks of COVID-19 forthcoming from those events.
Quite frankly in the opinion of myself and others, the Lawrence City Council has put the ZOO back into Zoom meetings. The city bought quite a few plexiglas shields for use at the various polling locations for protection from the COVID-19 virus; why not put them to work by using them as separators between the councilors at the council desk? You have so few attendees at the council meetings, that there would be enough room in the council chamber to seat everyone safely. If the city can’t do better with what passes for council meetings with Zoom meetings, then I think that it is time that you should consider going back to open meetings.
Tonight’s meeting is a prime example of why we should open city council meetings; no more of this ZOOm meeting BS! Hanging Judge Roy Bean gave convicted horse thieves more time to say a few words after being sentenced than the council president did in waiting to see if anyone wanted to say anything at the public hearing on the ‘proposed changes to the city charter’ before gaveling the public hearing closed!
Be the first to comment