Miles away from Richardson, Texas. That was the plan a couple of years ago but fortunately someone, who is no longer on the council, put the kibosh on it. Oh how the wise self described "council elder" sneering (and bird flipping, cursing, character assassinating, whisper campaigning, chiding and condescending) began in earnest, which wasn't a new thing because others have seen and received this treatment. You would have thought it was as if someone asked to actually meet a person before they agreed to go along and appoint someone to a city board or something. Oh, the further nerve! The same nose out of joint assuming guy attacked again on that basic request. It was very disappointing and painful to see this behavior from him against others who were (and are) doing the right things. Unacceptable that when someone doesn't want to meet away from the City Hall or wants to practice due diligence or who isn't as good Mr. Condescending #2 considers himself, they get attacked and bullied, or at minimum sneered at so others can see, by one of the so called standard bearers.
Of course, because even the non head bobbers aren't anarchist and magical enough to spin straw into gold, they get attacked by those who simply loath anyone once they get on council.
This week is budget "retreat" time and I have said and agree with the few people who are watching that it is a step backward to have the budget "retreat" not broadcast this year, 2010, when it can full well be. It is the people's business and it should be as accessible as any other council meeting. The excuse line about it being tradition to hold it away from City Hall is lame.
In 2007, the retreat was at City Hall.
It worked out just fine logistically (why wouldn't it) and was very productive and transparent on the surface (as it could be without being broadcast, which was opposed by too many who were playing political games, and considering who all was there, and wasn't there, notwithstanding the missing account information and all the spin, and the "who's the mayor, no I'm still the real mayor" tension and what came after).
But sadly the overlords and the people pleaser overruled and it went back to the "Richardson Women's Club." In a recent year it went back to City Hall (purportedly because of Club parking lot reconstruction or problems, interesting that, but who does know for real, I do not know if that is what happened or is the accurate reason or not).
In years prior it was at the Club. I really didn't see the need for it there other than confusing one or two people who wanted to attend as to where the meetings were, not that more than two people bothered to sit through it all the way (or stay awake some years, including some council members who dozed. That was part of the beauty of it for some. That and the beer).
Remember when Gary Slagel, when he was not the mayor of record, and Bill Keffler, with the submission of a part of the council, conducted a non posted meeting in 2007, billing it as a celebration for just the council and city manager, but led by Gary, with the senior staff huddling expectantly upstairs, when executive sessions were suspended, to give "the high five" to signal Bill was going to get a raise and by how much (and so would the senior staff because raises roll down hill, usually). But that was broken up, again, by someone who is no longer on the council. Actually, it was a walk out. Some of those people are just not "team players" enough don't you know. It's a cultural thing.
So you see, things could be worser, couldn't they? How would you know?
A little hint, do not trust that you can get everyone to uphold and participate in such nonsense. Don't let any calls go out. Do not trust that all the senior staff and secretary have stayed put upstairs. You do not know who will hear. You do not know who will see the comings and goings. You have waited until you got rid of all the "visitors" but have any come back? (You know, that happened that other time, oopsie). Why don't you just shut down the parking lot too, you know, for extreme privacy. Now that is real privacy. Oh wait, what about the roads leading in. So many things to cover. Hey, what about holding it at UTD on Keffler Blvd or Slagels Way or Fossil Bridge that is to be built around, or whatever it all gets named. The drive access at those places will be limited too.
Of course, some other people who are not "team players" show up at the visitor's section at council meetings and say really unusual things. What is said makes people conclude things like those commenting on state law don't want to read or understand state law (either). Or check with their own neighborhood when purporting to represent them. Some of them feel that they know something is happening, but they don't know what it is. Or can't explain it. Nor do they seem to care to understand or listen or read, so they come across as slinging noodles against the refrigerator to see if anything sticks.
Are they? Mostly, but not always. Some are looking at the spirit of what they would like to see and have asked for over and over again and not necessarily the technicalities. That is not always a bad thing. It doesn't come across well though if you are an attorney or quoting law and forget to say how you can contradict what the law says (like point to another controlling line of code or something that allows you to make that certain statement, that would be helpful to the point).
I have seen at least one guy flat out make things up who has helped sue our city. I don't deny that he has some very valid points however. Nine times out of ten that mixture gets a limp pile of noodles on the floor to be picked over. Even if someone wanted to agree, with the core spirit of why someone is upset, stuff like that makes it difficult to do so, but not impossible.
I still have to agree that just because something is permitted under the law for a council to do, if it is, does not mean they should do it, especially when the Charter says they shouldn't. Or that people should defend them doing it, refusing to acknowledge the spirit of fairness that others are asking for over and over again, which is even sadder.
And for the things that are not permitted, like a non posted quorum meeting of the council to signal, before the actual posted meeting weeks later, whether the city manager's pay will be raised, you know, for his planning purposes, they shouldn't be doing those things at all outside a posted meeting.
I think Richardson is a very good city and well run in many regards, but it could be even better. Mostly it functions well despite some poor steps of government, some funny business, but it could not function without government as well as it does overall obviously. I don't like seeing its reputation or locale tarnished and people treated unfairly, especially tax payers, so I won't pretend like everything is perfect but everything isn't horrible. Some things are nearly perfect and some things are very far from it, mostly in between.
Some extremely biased but official sounding sources pronounce that citizens should complain to the state, not city council or CM about city actions on a recent matter because state law trumps. The argument basically goes that the council simply does what they are allowed to do by state law (and then some).
So gosh, where does that leave us here at home?
I don't really buy into that. It is not the best, or only, avenue. The city council members who took the actions are the ones who decided to do that.
