So we have to go through a Council Member to get an item removed from the Consent Agenda and if they don't agree, then it won't be pulled from the Consent Agenda. Again, what do these people have against citizens having a voice. They state that they are worried about the process being abused over petty issues. We are upset because this Council has consented to allowing the City Manager to abuse the Consent Agenda process and way to go Hickory Daily Record for once again toting the city's water without asking a freaking critical question. The HDR continually shows in the end whose side they are on.
From Harry Hipps: The "fix" they have articulated is that you can talk to a council member before the meetings if you want something removed from the consent agenda. They are supposed to hang out in the lobby or in chambers to listen to citizens prior to going in to conduct business. The problems are: 1) the council member may be disinterested and not inclined to support the citizen's request, 2) the council member has no time to research the concern or reflect on any new facts or perspectives that may come to light, 3) the conversation with the council member is informal and is not publicly recorded which doesn't allow for other citizens learning of the concern and is wide open for a misinterpretation or denial of the private conversation held, 4) the citizen still doesn't have the opportunity to voice their concern and would probably do so more passionately and comprehensively than the council member who just had something dropped in their lap, and finally, 5) the members probably have a consensus position already and it would be an uphill climb to stop and reverse an immanent action.
Again, we see the control freak mentality. Citizens can't vote and we're just asking to comment. The power of the vote still rests with the council members and they really want to act without question. The abusing of the process argument is a straw man. Yes, it could happen, but they could restrict the abusers time or even call them out of order and have them removed from the podium. I don't see this happening often, though there is the possibility it could happen. Which begs the question: Should we risk the occasional outburst to increase public participation? My answer: yes.
Sad sad sad. But it befuddles me that they are so scared of losing control. Once again Rudy promises better and we get worse. And this man ran unopposed.
The Hound: If it is such a bad thing for the people of Hickory to have a voice within their governance and the only governmental process that is afforded is through the directives of an established Commissar with no checks and balances, then we no longer live under the established principles in which this nation was founded. Although I have no voice in any matters related to our governance and the people of Hickory have shown an unwillingness to take ownership of their personal role in the format of Republican Democracy, I would like to suggest that we do away with the outdated and unrecognized creed of the Pledge of Allegiance. Liberty and Justice for all - what kind of fantasy world is that?
Who are we pledging to anyway? Honestly, the real pledge should be to serve oneself and those who can personally enrich us. That is what we have seen in this country. I won't stand for this Anthem, but I think many would be more comfortable with its theme. Its not the words. Its the attitude.
And this is cynical, but it comes from frustration in dealing with By Hook or By Crook Governance.
