I would like to afford anyone who would like to address the people of Hickory this forum as a platform. I am not here to censor people. If you don't agree with the message of this blog, you will be afforded the same opportunity as anyone else. The only thing that we don't want to do is resort to threats or obscenity.
I feel that this is a much better platform to bring issues to the people. The audience is limited at Hickory City Council because you are talking to a wall of non-response and maybe 50 people in the audience. This blog has the capability to reach a world wide audience and bring your concerns to the fore.
The City Council could do a few things to open up governance on the local level and take actions towards being transparent. 1) Televise (or at least Audio Record) the meetings and make them available on the Internet in an expeditious manner, 2)Town Hall Meetings a few times per year, and 3) Move Citizens Requesting to be Heard to the front of the City Council Meeting Agenda and if something happens during the meeting that piques curiosity, then people should be allowed to address those issues at the end of the meeting as part of "Matters not on the Agenda."
Letter sent to Larry Pope by Hickory City Attorney John Crone
31 comments:
Does that "agenda-only" comment stipulation only pertain to Larry Pope? Your first sentence implies as such.
We shall see. Honestly don't know. Larry was sent a letter by the City Incorporated.
That is a new term I like that delineates between the peeps and the gubment.
The employees of the City are tired of it being run as a Mormon Temple. Just look at things that have been done...the hiring and appointment of a fellow Mormon fresh out of college to an Admin called Assistant to the City Manager....a position that was created just for him. Then appointed as a HEAD and running major departments while the City Manager didnt even look at others with more education and experience. Once the Admin of Assistant to the City Manager position was vacated, the Manager's Office showed in the budget that position dissolved...that is until his secretary with no education was appointed to this position...she is over appointed and professional positions....this position had all kinds of education requirements that she did not meet but rumor is she joined "the church." Ask Mr. Berry if he has ever gone to a City of Hickory place of business to talk to an employee about the Mormon religion. Although Berry was off work and went as a leader in the church, the employee was on the clock. What does that tell us? Is that right? Look and see how many Department Heads have left or are leaving then ask them why. They are sick of his religious beliefs and Mormonism ruining the City. There is so much more this is barely scraping the tip.
Dig deep Hound, dig deep! More to come, I promise.
Hold on Mr. Berry, that easy you ride you had to the top is getting ready to run straight downhill and those holding on to your coat tails can ride it with you!
There are a bunch of us that know what all has been done and how.
How about just publishing the letter so we can judge for ourselves rather than take your implication that it is for all citizens.
You do know that if it is just for Larry, then that is discrimination. If you tell Larry that he can only discuss items on the agenda, but say that everyone else has full 1st amendment privileges then the Federal Government is going to come down on this city like Sasquatch.
so just publish the letter and then we can all decide for ourselves
Letter Posted
The letter does not reflect what you implied. Mr. Larry Pope disrupted the meeting and it looks as though he was finally called out on it. The rules pertain to others but not Mr. Pope?
>>>>Larry Pope has been told by the City of Hickory that he will no longer be allowed to address the Hickory City Council except pertaining to matters on the Agenda.<<<<
How is what I have said not reflective? We will see through the actions the next time Larry addresses the Council. I don't endorse the interruption of the council on May 15th, but I understand it. I was the one that walked down into the well and talked Larry out of pushing this to the point where he was going to be arrested.
That being said I have seen the city accommodate Larry and I have also seen them treat him in a passive aggressive manner. It is what it is.
What Larry has asked for is an audio version of the Agenda and he has asked for voice votes. The city has told him to go to the library and use the Ray Kurzweil reader to scan the material that turns text into voice. I guess a court of law will decide the issue.
Under this letter the City Council is given a very wide latitude to decide what and what isn't consistent with subject material and what is considered wandering from subject material. This letter lays the groundwork to remove Larry whenever they decide to and I think you are pointing to that in your remarks above.
So the questions are who will be given latitude and who will not. If you start pointing to patterns are they going to say that it isn't "consistent with subject material."
I have never heard Larry threaten anyone with anything other than a law suit. And if he slandered anyone believe me they would have already sued him.
The real point of this article is that no one has to address the Council or Citizens in Council chambers. You can do it here or anywhere else where you are afforded the opportunity. You can "wander" and you can decide upon the "subject material" yourself without the threat of censorship.
And you miss the point. The disruption(s) caused by Mr. Pope had repercussions. There are expectations of following the stated rules which Mr. Pope ignored. On this blog, anything goes and that is why it is a blog. I commend you for talking Mr. Pope out of pushing being arrested but I also commend the Mayor for not having him arrested. Looks like he has been allowed way too much latitude in the past. The letter references another meeting? So again, he breaks the rules and then whines about the way he is treated?
And some people will never protest anything so they will never understand people who protest. Sometimes protest is a tool that must be resorted to.
By the way, I understand your point and hope that you understand mine.
I hear you but Mr. Pope has shown his disregard for all procedures and thinks mob rule will change anyone's opinion. It does nothing to change the view that he is unreasonable and thinks himself above the rules of procedure, time after time. I think he should have been sent the letter some time ago. If you are always against something you can't expect to be for much but yourself and your ideas. You seem to advocate the same with your blog language.
I find it highly remarkable and somewhat amusing that Hickory City Council now wishes to play by the rules. But of course, only those rules which they themselves wish to impose on others and certainly not the ones that govern their conduct and deportment.
Larry has spoken out at the Council meetings for years. He has borne the labels of crackpot or crazy during the entire time. As it turns out, what he talks about is quite so absurd or far-fetched as it is purported.
Larry has gotten louder and more obnoxious over the years. Playing by the rules has gotten him how far? He is the only one that has made himself present at Council meetings and shown the nerve to speak counter to the centrist selfish notions held by Council. I see his obnoxiousness as being borne of frustration and years of being scoffed at. And I think as the independent observer can see, some of what Larry has to say isn’t quite so far fetched as it was labeled or made out to be.
One little point that John failed to mention however. Larry may still address Council during the public comment section of the meeting and he may say what he has on his mind. Council can make reasonable rules but those rules have to apply to everybody and a judge’s notion of reasonable might not be the same as Hickory City Councils’.
No, he shouldn’t speak out piecemeal during meetings. But he does have every right to speak in a public forum on matters of public concern when the time rolls around for public comment on the agenda. At that time, Larry may say what’s on his mind and Rudy et al can’t stop it. But Larry does need to wait his turn, since it is patently obvious that they fully intend to spank him with the rulebook.
I would like this mob rule you talk about to be defined. It sure seems ambiguous to me.
Is being an advocate and trying to teach and influence people considered mob rule?
That is what we do here.
LOL! John W Crone III Esquire would have needed to take out a small loan to pay for the postage to send that to the citizens of Burke County addressing the Board of Education in 2009! Over here it's called "Freedom of Speech". The "law enforcement" officials refused to even warn people when they were making so much noise the board could not carry on its business.
Since when can't U.S. citizens make "personal" remarks while addressing a public body? Someone should challenge the City's policy. It has 1st Amendment rights violations written all over it.
There's a fine line between maintaining decorum and failing to respect the rights of Americans. The City of Hickory's public address policy has crossed that line.
p.s. DoGood, rule-playing by politicians is ALWAYS when it's expedient to them, not the people. However, it needs to be pointed out every time so the practice doesn't lose its entertainment value.
"There's a fine line between maintaining decorum and failing to respect the rights of Americans."
Mr. Pope crossed the line so long ago and obviously he had gotten worse, hence the letter. Behavior and consequences. Mr. Pope fails to understand or elects not to so he can continue his platform of "discrimination".
Ya think? Bodies' politic doing things to suit themselves and hiding behind the rules? While that is certainly not a novel concept, the Great State of Hickory has chosen to single out one man as its example of state authority. Now, to play fair, Larry has been speaking at inappropriate times, but the message isn't the issue, its the timing.
It's never wise to turn politics personal. You start saying things that aren't true about people in public forums simply because you happen to disagree with them and that can prove to be costly... for you. Disagreement should never be personal. Nobody is saying you have to love them, but you can at least act like you have some decency and upbringing. Besides, do that just adds to the fact of the other party being a complete ass by not doing so.
The 1st Amendment is not a shooting license to hurl whatever it is that crosses your mind in a public forum. Rules of order are meant to afford everyone a chance to be heard on matters of relevance and concern to all.
But people being people, want their say, not their way. So they talk much, say very little. And by being loud and obnoxious, they think that lends to.
My view is pretty close to Silence's. Larry has crossed the line sometimes but he is one of the very few informed, attentive and courageous people who will speak out. The root of the problem is the high handed, country club governance we have here that is run by a club and the public is included as an afterthought.
Ideas get shuffled around a few insiders, the Council acts before there is any public vetting and discussion. Then when people have either objections or ideas on how to do something better or cheaper the Council stonewalls because they have already committed to it and now they buck up to defend their actions. If they would have a more open, inclusive process up front a lot of mistakes and frustration could be avoided.
The argument made by the Mayor and others about calling them on issues of citizen's concern are good for things that are initiated from citizens. However, this is not a good process for actions initiated by council. The people I've heard from who are upset are not upset about something they want that wasn't addressed, they are upset about something Council has done that they had no opportunity to discuss or influence.
Council does not yet have a good procedure to vet potential projects such as the Hickory Coliseum (aka "the tent") and needs to change how they do business like this. If they would be proactive and open a lot of the acrimony and adversarial postures, such as Larry Pope speaks out on, could be avoided in the first place.
Council members and the Mayor are leaders. It is their responsibility to open up the process and LEAD, NOT DICTATE.
The point, Silence, is that the 1st Amendment gives people the right to be asses and act like they don't have a decent upbringing. If someone comments that a City Council member or Mayor is an idiot, for example, that's a personal opinion (i.e. not slanderous).
It's not a good approach. It's not effective or classy, but it is protected speech and can't legally be regulated (in this country, anyway).
RE:
"The 1st Amendment is not a shooting license to hurl whatever it is that crosses your mind in a public forum. Rules of order are meant to afford everyone a chance to be heard on matters of relevance and concern to all."
Those are arguable statements to the crude & tasteless folks in certain NC counties.
If you'll take a look there Anon, you'll find that speech, under the guise of the 1st Amendment that is plainly likely to cause violent retaliatory response, is not protected. Does that mean that violence must ensue? No, it doesn't. It means that those 'fighting words' could have likely provoked violence and are not protected speech. I realize what opinions are and are not. I also realize that voicing that opinion can get your nose flattened by those same people in certain counties in North Carolina. Sure, you can have all the opinions you want. What you don't you have is the protected right of doing so without consequences; e.g., getting your eyes dotted.
But I'll tell you what. Why don't you walk right up and tell the Mayor he's an idiot and few more things besides; your opinions. Now, quite likely, he's going to ignore you, but lets say he decks you. That assault charge you think you're going to get on him, isn't going to happen. Not because he's who he is, but because you lacked enough sense to keep your opinions to yourself. You have the right to your opinion. You don't have the right to project it onto others.
Yes I read the Hustler opinion. And public officials are a bit more susceptible to criticism than your average Joe and expected to be. But there are limits to everything.
I'm sorry, but I don't see how any court would rule that a citizen who stands at the podium during a public meeting, giving a personal opinionated insult to the Mayor, is likely to elicit a violent response.
But we're not going to decide the issue here. Their policy which stifles free speech could be challenged in court.
No, we aren't going to decide the issue here; fact. "Their policy which stiffles free speech...;" opinion. That too is for a court to decide in finality.
But don't misconstrue, am I in favor of this policy? No. Its existence runs counter to the intent of the State legislature that every local government have a place on the agenda for people to address the governing board.
What the City is insisting on is that their little exercise in democracy not be interrupted until public comment is asked for or it comes to the item on the agenda for public comment. At that point, everyone can take turns letting it fly.
What needs to happen over the ensuing months, just like it did when the LGBT group tried to lease L.P. Franz and got turned down because the City, all of a sudden wanted to use their 'process' that whomever leased the property had to get council approval when no one else was, is to keep track of who and how many people speak out of turn in the meetings and yet, that don't seem to get gaveled down or declared out of order by the Mayor.
The 'leaders' of Hickory have been used to doing things with impunity. They hate and dispise this little spotlight they're basking in the glow of at the moment.
LGBT using LP Frans this year was approved unanimously in their consent agenda. I don't think they (the Council and Mayor) are the bad guys that you always paint them to be. When an issue that didn't follow procedure is brought up-it is fixed. Mick Berry always gets the answers when a citizen asks. I know he has address my concerns timely.
Bring on the Hound dogs!
And when it blew up last year? There was nothing stopping those kind and benevolent folks from following what they had up to that point been doing, and then move forward the right way. That group was denied access by a process that had become common practice. Why hadn't they been following their own rules the entire time?
Bad? I don't recall saying they're bad. Misguided, closed minded, and ignorant perhaps. Being drunk with their own power. Feel free to quote me. The great thing about those things are, they aren't serious character flaws, but can be overcome. Does it all have to be the way I think? Not at all. Nor the way they think. Meet somewhere in the middle. The people aren't the adversaries nor the enemies they are made out to be. Nor are the people that post here the antithesis to those in power as you so gleefully imply. And there's one thing about it. Politicians can be replaced, citizens not so much.
Woof! Woof!
If we had not pushed back on the Pride event and Hickory Alive those events would be long gone with no chance of returning. I'm not here to toot our horn. That is the reason why I don't push our accomplishments. We methodically get mindsets adjusted by shining light on issues such as these and then move forward.
Funny how there were really no differences in the setups following the city's "concerns" over those two events. They made bad decisions and after it was brought to public attention they had to save face.
Eventually there will be other accomplishments, because of the way we bring issues forward. But, it isn't about us. It is about moving this community forward in the realities of the 21st century. If these people want to live in Mayberry, then I suggest they go find it, because that world no longer exists and never really did.
Hee Hee, you are taking credit for the workings of someone else. There are those out there that actually accomplish things without your knowledge or help.
Like I said. I am not taking credit for anything. That is your interpretation. We played a part in the push back from a number of sources. It was not one single source or person that changed minds. The city looked at this issue and thought it was what people wanted and then found out differently.
You can go back to last year and all that surrounded those issues and see what happened. You are the one trying to compartmentalize the issues and not look at the big picture.
Ignorance. Well Crafted.
Post a Comment