The Minutes of the September 13, 2007, Woodstock Plan Commission meeting have finally been posted on the City’s website. This was the meeting when the Commission considered the duck issue and recommended to the City Council that they consider a Special Use Ordinance allowing the ducks.
There was considerable disagreement among the members of the Commission, which is healthy for a community. It appears that they really considered the request before approving it.
A member of the Commission told me yesterday that the Commission had not approved the contingency involving approval by the homeowners’ association, so I was especially anxious to read the Minutes. On October 19 I had written to a City staff member, asking when the Minutes of the September 13 P.C. meeting would be posted. She replied on October 22 and the Minutes were posted this week (a full month after the P.C. met and well after the City Council approved the Special Use Ordinance).
The Minutes do reflect inclusion of the contingency about the necessary approval of the homeowners’ association.
At the October 2nd City Council meeting the Special Use Ordinance was approved, including three strict contingencies [and specifically the one that does not permit the ducks until (and unless) the homeowners’ association approves them (and legally changes the Covenants)]. The owner of the ducks agreed, and it was revealed before the end of the meeting that the ducks were actually already back on her property.
And then the Mayor had the gall to subvert all that the Plan Commission and the City Council had just enacted by stating that it was the “intent of this Council” to take no further interest in the ducks; meaning no legal enforcement…
This question remains. Since there was no discussion in public during the Council meeting that no further legal action would be taken regarding the ducks, just how did the “intent” of the (entire) Council form? Was there discussion before the City Council met? Did Council members discuss approving the Special Use Ordinance in violation of the Open Meetings Act? Did they decide on their “intent” out of public view and hearing? Just how and when did the City Council, as a Council – a group, arrive at its decision not to enforce the new law it had just passed?
Or did the Mayor, on his own, speak “for” the Council and state it was their intent without first gaining their consent?
If this is the case, why has not one City Council member spoken up to object to the Mayor’s, in effect, ordering the City Manager, Community Development and Code Enforcement Officer not to enforce a new law on the City’s books?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
the problem with illegal ducks is that nobody can convince them to work for minimum wage for a landscaping service or restaurant.
Hey, watch out with those duck-ist comments! Would a duck have to stick its neck out to prove its right to work in the U.S.A.?
What if its Social Security Number didn't match its name? Jenny? Bean?
A friend in California tried to go by one name, Mitchell, and the Social Security Administration made him use a first initial, which he did but without a period. What did Cher do?
Post a Comment