Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Hickory City Council Meeting - January 15, 2013 - Video Presentation
The following is a video presentation of the Hickory, NC City Council Meeting of January 15, 2012. The most relevant topics of this meeting:
Special Presentation - Business Well Crafted Award to Hickory Chair
Public Hearing regarding Amendments to Articles, 2, 6, 7, 9, and 10 of the City's Land Development Code.
Departmental Report involving contracts for the Construction of the Hickory-Catawba Wastewater Treatment Facility Upgrade and Expansion.
Departmental Report involving Sub-Committee of Hickory City Council Recommendations to "Decide the language for getting citizens input at the beginning of the meeting." This conversation get rather contentious with the Mayor accusing Alder Fox and Attorney John Crone of going behind his back and tricking him about the scope of the subcommittee in relation to the proceedings from the previous day - January 14, 2013.
Citizen Comments related to the Citizen Input issue by Cliff Moone and Thom Shell
Monday, January 14, 2013
Hickory Subcommittee on Citizen Input Meeting - January 14, 2013
Earlier Today I put this meeting out without context. The meeting began around 9:30am, this morning (January 14, 2012). This Subcommittee of City Council was formed to create language related to Citizen Input at City Council meetings.
As many of you know, this all began over issues related to the Swimming Pools and the structure built on Union Square where citizens felt that they weren't getting a fair hearing and the ambiguous nature of the Agenda and some of the proceedings that took place caused a lot of frustration.
About a year ago, Cliff Moone noticed what the cover page of the City Council Agenda stated and we waited for the moment in time to present itself to be able to utilize the process and thus empower the citizenry. That process allowed citizens to pull items from the Consent Agenda. We felt the Consent Agenda had been being utilized to circumvent public hearing processes.
Cliff and I had conversations with Rebecca Inglefield and at the City Council Meeting of May 1, 2012, she addressed the City Council and had items removed from the Consent Agenda. The City Council moved to close that process at the following City Council Meeting of May 15, 2012.
All of this point-counterpoint was a large part of the discussion related to the Referendum on Ward Specific Voting. Proponents and Opponents came to an understanding that Citizens should be heard before public policy and spending issues are voted upon. Joe Brannock, as the leader of the CEG's referendum drive, espoused 5 proposals to move us closer towards a more representative City Council and Number 1 on the Agenda is moving the time for citizens requesting to be heard to the top of the agenda at City council meetings.
Following back and forth discussions in public and behind the scenes, the Mayor moved to head off some of the discussions that were taking place by making a proposal at the October 2, 2012 City Council meeting to allow Citizen Input before votes take place, but he did not want to formally place it on the Agenda and he wanted it to be done through a motion process. The back and forth continued, because there was no structure or flow to this process. And that is what has brought us to where we are today.
The bottom line is that if the recommendations of Alders Fox and Patton go through tomorrow night at the Council meeting, then we have achieved what we wanted thanks to these ladies and Alderman Lail for initiating the process to form this subcommittee and Alderman Meisner for supporting the motion and process to move toward formalizing this structure.
The Mayor wanted to maintain the motion system that he implemented a couple months ago and this was rejected. Alder Fox moved to have all "Citizen Input" placed as item 4 on the Agenda, along with the current 3 minute structure. Both Fox and Patton want stricter administration of the 3 minute policy, but they both stated that it is not their intent to summarily cut people off. It is about respecting the rules and the process. Alder Patton made an amendment to allow "Other Comment" at the end of the meetings to allow citizens who have a "Burning Desire" to address anything that has gone on during the meeting.
When the ladies did this, the Mayor tried to say they were out of order, because the time issues and such was not a directive of the Council from the previous meeting. Alder Patton pointed that it was under the purview of the ordinance. When the Mayor saw that he wasn't going to get his way, he said that he wasn't going to participate, quit the committee and physically got up and walked over and sat on the front row and participated no further.
This was high drama and pretty darned good entertainment for the few of us who were there. I hope you will take the time to watch this video and if you can be at council tomorrow night. We need to help the Council guide this issue to its conclusion and thank them for settling this once and for all. We can put the grandstanding, demagoguery, and hyperbole behind us. That doesn't mean that we can't have opinions, but the marriage of trust, representation, direction, initiative, guidance, and structure are what it is going to take to get this community moving forward again.
As many of you know, this all began over issues related to the Swimming Pools and the structure built on Union Square where citizens felt that they weren't getting a fair hearing and the ambiguous nature of the Agenda and some of the proceedings that took place caused a lot of frustration.
About a year ago, Cliff Moone noticed what the cover page of the City Council Agenda stated and we waited for the moment in time to present itself to be able to utilize the process and thus empower the citizenry. That process allowed citizens to pull items from the Consent Agenda. We felt the Consent Agenda had been being utilized to circumvent public hearing processes.
Cliff and I had conversations with Rebecca Inglefield and at the City Council Meeting of May 1, 2012, she addressed the City Council and had items removed from the Consent Agenda. The City Council moved to close that process at the following City Council Meeting of May 15, 2012.
All of this point-counterpoint was a large part of the discussion related to the Referendum on Ward Specific Voting. Proponents and Opponents came to an understanding that Citizens should be heard before public policy and spending issues are voted upon. Joe Brannock, as the leader of the CEG's referendum drive, espoused 5 proposals to move us closer towards a more representative City Council and Number 1 on the Agenda is moving the time for citizens requesting to be heard to the top of the agenda at City council meetings.
Following back and forth discussions in public and behind the scenes, the Mayor moved to head off some of the discussions that were taking place by making a proposal at the October 2, 2012 City Council meeting to allow Citizen Input before votes take place, but he did not want to formally place it on the Agenda and he wanted it to be done through a motion process. The back and forth continued, because there was no structure or flow to this process. And that is what has brought us to where we are today.
The bottom line is that if the recommendations of Alders Fox and Patton go through tomorrow night at the Council meeting, then we have achieved what we wanted thanks to these ladies and Alderman Lail for initiating the process to form this subcommittee and Alderman Meisner for supporting the motion and process to move toward formalizing this structure.
The Mayor wanted to maintain the motion system that he implemented a couple months ago and this was rejected. Alder Fox moved to have all "Citizen Input" placed as item 4 on the Agenda, along with the current 3 minute structure. Both Fox and Patton want stricter administration of the 3 minute policy, but they both stated that it is not their intent to summarily cut people off. It is about respecting the rules and the process. Alder Patton made an amendment to allow "Other Comment" at the end of the meetings to allow citizens who have a "Burning Desire" to address anything that has gone on during the meeting.
When the ladies did this, the Mayor tried to say they were out of order, because the time issues and such was not a directive of the Council from the previous meeting. Alder Patton pointed that it was under the purview of the ordinance. When the Mayor saw that he wasn't going to get his way, he said that he wasn't going to participate, quit the committee and physically got up and walked over and sat on the front row and participated no further.
This was high drama and pretty darned good entertainment for the few of us who were there. I hope you will take the time to watch this video and if you can be at council tomorrow night. We need to help the Council guide this issue to its conclusion and thank them for settling this once and for all. We can put the grandstanding, demagoguery, and hyperbole behind us. That doesn't mean that we can't have opinions, but the marriage of trust, representation, direction, initiative, guidance, and structure are what it is going to take to get this community moving forward again.
Sunday, January 13, 2013
Economic Stories of Relevance in Today's World -- January 13, 2013
Duke Energy to file for another rate increase - WRAL (Raleigh, NC) - January 8, 2013 -
Are generics really the same as branded drugs? - Fortune through USA Today - Katherine Eban - January 10, 2013 - Consumers are told that generics are just like their name-brand counterparts. More medical professionals are starting to say that's not the case. In October the Food and Drug Administration took a highly unusual step: It declared that a generic drug it had previously approved -- a version of the popular antidepressant Wellbutrin -- was not in fact "bioequivalent" to the name-brand version. The FDA withdrew its approval. The federal action shook the business. Teva Pharmaceuticals (TEVA), which marketed the generic in question, has stopped selling it, and other companies are now testing their versions of Wellbutrin at the FDA's request. The episode is bringing momentum to a movement that has been quietly building among many doctors and medical societies that are increasingly willing to ask a question that borders on heresy: Are generics really identical to the branded products they are meant to replicate? To a surprising degree, they say, the answer is no. If you're a layperson, this is the way you probably think of generics: They're the exact same products in different packaging; generics companies can sell such medications for a fraction of the cost of the originals because they don't have to spend huge sums on drug development and marketing. That apparent miracle explains why more than 80% of all U.S. prescriptions dispensed in 2012 were generic. Using nonbranded medications saved Americans $193 billion this past year, according to the Generic Pharmaceutical Association. But generic drugs diverge from the originals far more than most of us believe. For starters, it's not as if the maker of the original pharmaceutical hands over its manufacturing blueprint when its patent runs out or is challenged. The patent reveals the components, but it doesn't explain how to make the drug. In reality, manufacturing a generic requires reverse engineering, and the result is an approximation rather than a duplicate of the original. The FDA's rules effectively acknowledge that. The agency's definition of bioequivalence is surprisingly broad: A generic's maximum concentration of active ingredient in the blood must not fall more than 20% below or 25% above that of the brand name. This means a potential range of 45%, by that measure, among generics labeled as being the same. There are other differences. The generic must contain the same active ingredient as the original. But the additional ingredients, known as excipients, can be different and are often of lower quality. Those differences can affect what's called bioavailability -- the amount of drug that could potentially be absorbed into the bloodstream. As the American Heart Association recently noted, "Some additives traditionally thought to be inert, such as alcohol sugars, cyclodextrans, and polysorbate-80, may alter a drug's dissolution, thereby impacting its bioavailability."
Another infographic — this one from Onlinecolleges — explaining the systematic destruction of America’s middle class.
Look at the numbers below. You don't stand a chance of retiring. Many of us were told that the older generations would retire or at least semi-retire and this would create the room we needed for career advancement and climbing the economic ladder. We were taught that working hard would create opportunity. Well, we have subsequently learned that it is a Dog Eat Dog World and in order to advance you just might have to take out Mom and Pop. Working hard won't guarantee anything, but not working hard guarantees failure. The Rat race will get you nowhere and is nothing but a big lie perpetuated by those in control. You have to think outside the box in order to get ahead. That is the definition of ingenuity, entrepreneurialism, innovation, and SURVIVAL.
ABIOTIC OIL
GASTONIA, N.C. — Duke Energy Corp. has told North Carolina utility regulators that it will ask for another rate increase soon. The Gaston Gazette reported (http://bit.ly/WHL6cP ) that Duke late last week filed notice with the North Carolina Utilities Commission that it will file for another rate increase early next month. The request comes less than a year after regulators approved a 7 percent increase for Duke. Duke representatives have said for months the company plans to apply for an increase to pay for maintenance and upgrades to its systems. Attorney General Roy Cooper has been fighting the increase that was approved last January. The North Carolina Supreme Court heard arguments on the challenge in November. Duke had originally requested a 17 percent increase but agreed to the 7.2 percent figure early last year. Cooper said Tuesday that he has "real concerns" about the rate increases, which he said produce double-digit profit margins for the company. "We believe that the Utilities Commission should have to look at the effect of the profit margin on consumers when considering that profit margin," he said. "We're going to continue to argue this. We're arguing it now in the Progress Energy rate increase. We'll argue it in the next one. Of course, we'll have to wait and see what the North Carolina Supreme Court says." Progress Energy, which Duke acquired in July, filed last fall for a 12 percent rate increase, which the company said was its first request for higher rates since 1987.
Are generics really the same as branded drugs? - Fortune through USA Today - Katherine Eban - January 10, 2013 - Consumers are told that generics are just like their name-brand counterparts. More medical professionals are starting to say that's not the case. In October the Food and Drug Administration took a highly unusual step: It declared that a generic drug it had previously approved -- a version of the popular antidepressant Wellbutrin -- was not in fact "bioequivalent" to the name-brand version. The FDA withdrew its approval. The federal action shook the business. Teva Pharmaceuticals (TEVA), which marketed the generic in question, has stopped selling it, and other companies are now testing their versions of Wellbutrin at the FDA's request. The episode is bringing momentum to a movement that has been quietly building among many doctors and medical societies that are increasingly willing to ask a question that borders on heresy: Are generics really identical to the branded products they are meant to replicate? To a surprising degree, they say, the answer is no. If you're a layperson, this is the way you probably think of generics: They're the exact same products in different packaging; generics companies can sell such medications for a fraction of the cost of the originals because they don't have to spend huge sums on drug development and marketing. That apparent miracle explains why more than 80% of all U.S. prescriptions dispensed in 2012 were generic. Using nonbranded medications saved Americans $193 billion this past year, according to the Generic Pharmaceutical Association. But generic drugs diverge from the originals far more than most of us believe. For starters, it's not as if the maker of the original pharmaceutical hands over its manufacturing blueprint when its patent runs out or is challenged. The patent reveals the components, but it doesn't explain how to make the drug. In reality, manufacturing a generic requires reverse engineering, and the result is an approximation rather than a duplicate of the original. The FDA's rules effectively acknowledge that. The agency's definition of bioequivalence is surprisingly broad: A generic's maximum concentration of active ingredient in the blood must not fall more than 20% below or 25% above that of the brand name. This means a potential range of 45%, by that measure, among generics labeled as being the same. There are other differences. The generic must contain the same active ingredient as the original. But the additional ingredients, known as excipients, can be different and are often of lower quality. Those differences can affect what's called bioavailability -- the amount of drug that could potentially be absorbed into the bloodstream. As the American Heart Association recently noted, "Some additives traditionally thought to be inert, such as alcohol sugars, cyclodextrans, and polysorbate-80, may alter a drug's dissolution, thereby impacting its bioavailability."
Another infographic — this one from Onlinecolleges — explaining the systematic destruction of America’s middle class.
Look at the numbers below. You don't stand a chance of retiring. Many of us were told that the older generations would retire or at least semi-retire and this would create the room we needed for career advancement and climbing the economic ladder. We were taught that working hard would create opportunity. Well, we have subsequently learned that it is a Dog Eat Dog World and in order to advance you just might have to take out Mom and Pop. Working hard won't guarantee anything, but not working hard guarantees failure. The Rat race will get you nowhere and is nothing but a big lie perpetuated by those in control. You have to think outside the box in order to get ahead. That is the definition of ingenuity, entrepreneurialism, innovation, and SURVIVAL.
ABIOTIC OIL
Saturday, January 12, 2013
Citizens input at City Council Meetings - Meeting at 9:30am - Monday January 14, 2012
Departmental Report for the City Council Meeting on January 15, 2012
Sub-Committee of Hickory City Council Recommendations to “Decide the language for getting citizens input at the beginning of the meeting.”
*** The meeting on Monday Morning at 9:30am is a public meeting.
Newsletter about the City Council meeting of January 2, 2013 - (Departmental Report) - SUBCOMMITTEE ON CITIZEN INPUT AT THE BEGINNING OF MEETINGS - At it’s December 18, 2012 meeting, City Council established a subcommittee of Mayor Wright, Alderwoman Fox and Alderwoman Patton to “Decide the language for getting citizens input at the beginning of the meeting.” As a duly appointed subcommittee of its members, the meetings will be advertised and open to the public. Council can discuss the process of the subcommittee and establish a time and location for its first meeting.
Newsletter about the City Council meeting of December 18, 2012 - Cliff Moone spoke once again about the process that has been instituted in relation to allowing Citizens to be heard before votes are taken in relation to second readings, Consent Agenda Items, and Departmental Reports.At the end of the meeting Council voted affirmatively to form a subcommittee to formally put this process, allowing Citizens to be Heard before votes are taken, on the Agenda.
Newsletter about the City Council meeting of October 2, 2012 - Addendum on the CEG proposals - Proposal introduced by the Mayor outside of the constructs of the agenda
Newsletter about the City Council meeting of November 20, 2012 - Cliff Moone addressed the issue of Citizens being allowed the question items on the agenda at the beginning of the meeting. He discussed what occurred at the October 2, 2012 meeting.
Newsletter about the City Council meeting of December 4, 2012 - Cliff Moone addresses the City Council about the Council's new policy odf making a motion to allow citizen's to address the City Council about items on the Agenda. Cliff and all members of the Citizens for Equity in Government feel that the Council is proverbially flying by the seat of their pants on this. Second they are not following proper protocol, because this is nowhere to be found on the Public Agenda, so technically it is a matter not on the Agenda and should by statute come at the end of the meeting after Citizens Requesting to Be Heard, which takes us back to square one. Hickory Inc. wants to say what's the big deal and we agree. Since it isn't a big deal, then formally put in on the agenda and quit with the ruse.
Sub-Committee of Hickory City Council Recommendations to “Decide the language for getting citizens input at the beginning of the meeting.”
*** The meeting on Monday Morning at 9:30am is a public meeting.
Newsletter about the City Council meeting of January 2, 2013 - (Departmental Report) - SUBCOMMITTEE ON CITIZEN INPUT AT THE BEGINNING OF MEETINGS - At it’s December 18, 2012 meeting, City Council established a subcommittee of Mayor Wright, Alderwoman Fox and Alderwoman Patton to “Decide the language for getting citizens input at the beginning of the meeting.” As a duly appointed subcommittee of its members, the meetings will be advertised and open to the public. Council can discuss the process of the subcommittee and establish a time and location for its first meeting.
Newsletter about the City Council meeting of December 18, 2012 - Cliff Moone spoke once again about the process that has been instituted in relation to allowing Citizens to be heard before votes are taken in relation to second readings, Consent Agenda Items, and Departmental Reports.At the end of the meeting Council voted affirmatively to form a subcommittee to formally put this process, allowing Citizens to be Heard before votes are taken, on the Agenda.
Newsletter about the City Council meeting of October 2, 2012 - Addendum on the CEG proposals - Proposal introduced by the Mayor outside of the constructs of the agenda
Newsletter about the City Council meeting of November 20, 2012 - Cliff Moone addressed the issue of Citizens being allowed the question items on the agenda at the beginning of the meeting. He discussed what occurred at the October 2, 2012 meeting.
Newsletter about the City Council meeting of December 4, 2012 - Cliff Moone addresses the City Council about the Council's new policy odf making a motion to allow citizen's to address the City Council about items on the Agenda. Cliff and all members of the Citizens for Equity in Government feel that the Council is proverbially flying by the seat of their pants on this. Second they are not following proper protocol, because this is nowhere to be found on the Public Agenda, so technically it is a matter not on the Agenda and should by statute come at the end of the meeting after Citizens Requesting to Be Heard, which takes us back to square one. Hickory Inc. wants to say what's the big deal and we agree. Since it isn't a big deal, then formally put in on the agenda and quit with the ruse.
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)