At tonight’s City Council meeting I asked the Council to change its policy on (lack of) preservation of the audio tape of meetings and to preserve the tapes. Wow! Was I asking for the keys to Fort Knox?
Mayor Sager gave a lengthy explanation of the purpose of the tapes. He almost lost me when he said the tapes don’t belong to the City but instead to the City Clerk. Wait just a minute! Doesn’t she work for the City Council? Isn’t she an employee? Or, even if she is an independent contractor, the tapes do belong to the City.
The explanation was that the tapes are for the sole purpose of aiding the City Clerk in preparation of the Minutes. She is a trusted employee. Did I infer otherwise? I mean, just because she didn’t reply to my email asking about availability of the tapes for listening…
There are only certain things that must be included in the Minutes, but the City Clerk can include more, which is exactly what she does and what she should be required to do, even when it exceeds the bare-bones minimum requirements.
As soon as the City Clerk has prepared the Minutes, she destroys the tape. Of course, the Council could decide otherwise. But will it? Mayor Sager spoke at length, expressing his opinion as if he were speaking for the entire Council. Perhaps he was, since they all knew what I was going to ask tonight.
There is no reason not to preserve the tapes, unless the Council doesn’t want an audio record of the meeting preserved. After all, such a tape would prove what was really said.
After the lengthy explanation, the Mayor thanked me for my interest in the City and said that he, the Council and the staff all knew that I had Woodstock’s best interests in mind, or some words to that effect. Thank you, thank you, but I didn’t feel any glow.
And then came the sucker punch. Mayor Sager pointedly – respectfully, he emphasized – requested me to make requests that were reasonable, responsible and legitimate.
When you say that to someone, what you are really saying is, “Your requests have been unreasonable, irresponsible and not legitimate.”
I thought about asking for an additional comment period to inquire whether that was, in fact, what he was really saying. But what was the point?
The City may feel nagged by my requests, many of which I have begun filing under the Freedom of Information Act. And I shall continue to file FOIA requests, whenever appropriate, to uncover information and facts of suspected misdeeds by the City.
I filed one this morning, asking how many tickets and warnings were issued in the new Apple Creek area to drivers for violating the (illegal) 20MPH speed limit. This wasn’t a school speed zone, and it wasn’t a legally-posted construction zone. The developer had put up some signs that were not legal signs, and the police were stopping drivers for speeding. One of the signs was quickly removed; two were still up. I asked (non-FOIA) the Police Department for the information about the number of tickets and warnings and was told to file a FOIA request; and so I did. They could have saved some money by just running the report and informing me of the numbers, but they said I’d have to make a FOIA request. Does this make my request unreasonable, irresponsible and not legitimate?
Every request I’ve made of the City has been reasonable, responsible and legitimate. If someone in the City thinks otherwise, then fill me in. Details, please. And your name and title. I won’t be holding my breath…
You never know who is interested…
3 months ago
2 comments:
Maybe they should also enforce the school zone limits. Ever watch the cops sitting in their cars by the schools watching as people go flying by. I had one idiot fly around me and almost hit a kid as I was only going 20 MPH according to my speedometer. He was of course also chatting away on his cell phone while driving, but don't get me started on that one. I think Mr. Sager, who BTW has a VERY limp hand shake, took lessons from the previous regime on how to avoid getting caught breaking the law. We already know he does favors for his friends.
You should ask them about parking on the grass, or selling cars and other motorized craft on your front lawn. I THOUGHT that was illegal, but the police department says they have no jurisdiction and the building department is closed on the weekends.
I also thought it was illegal to have multiple families living in a single family residence, but evidently not.
Thanks for writing about School Zone speed limits and parking on grass.
Email policedept@woodstockil.gov and request zero-tolerance on the 20MPH school zone speed limit. I too slow down to 20MPH and hold that speed to the end of the Zone, at great risk to the rear bumper of my car, my neck and back.
You're right that it's illegal to park on front lawns, but it's the Code Enforcement Officer, Donovan Day, who gets after them. I think the police department and Donovan actually work together pretty closely. Donovan's is a Monday-Friday job. Maybe the City should spring for a part-time, after-hours Code officer.
I think police officers regularly email Donovan with addresses that are in violation of City Code. If it's not a criminal violation, then Woodstock Police apparently don't have jurisdiction. They could have, but they don't. In other communities, police do handle some code violations. I think it's probably a good idea to keep them separated.
I think our officers are proud of Woodstock and they'd like the junk cleared up, too.
Email Donovan at DDay@woodstockil.gov and let him know of Code violations (cars and boats on front lawns, and many others). He'll check it out and will not release your name.
Post a Comment