tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2498525082522582900.post3665534533197765584..comments2024-03-22T16:02:08.213-05:00Comments on The Wheel: Richardson's Top FortyMark Stegerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02376182294736839659noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2498525082522582900.post-76710215254479966752011-09-22T14:31:18.026-05:002011-09-22T14:31:18.026-05:00I understand that some people will never be satisf...I understand that some people will never be satisfied. I'm more interested in getting the facts to everyone else. There are many residents who hear the allegations of illegal conduct and don't trust them, but don't have the facts to be sure. Besides, not everyone who addresses the city council is an irreconcilable critic. It's just common courtesy, if someone goes to the trouble of addressing the council, for the city to respond to their question or complaint.Mark Stegerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02376182294736839659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2498525082522582900.post-89536972425729213952011-09-22T13:32:28.559-05:002011-09-22T13:32:28.559-05:00I struggle with how to respond to this, Mark. Afte...I struggle with how to respond to this, Mark. After all, I agree that in some cases, a short response might be sufficient...in the case above, the answer could have been as simple as "Hey, dude, go read the Texas Certificates of Obligation Act of 1971(!)".<br /><br />But, honestly, you and I know that in some cases, no answer - no matter how well researched or documented - will satisfy some people...so it's a complete waste of time to even try...how do we draw the line, so that addressing the avalanche of rumors and gossip doesn't affect the ability of the City to be about the people's business...which, after all, is the City's real job?<br /><br />Billmccalpinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02768191960822864278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2498525082522582900.post-81761565081680608742011-09-22T12:38:24.891-05:002011-09-22T12:38:24.891-05:00I don't see the necessity for holding work ses...I don't see the necessity for holding work sessions on every topic raised by visitors during council meetings. But I do think it's important that the city respond in some way. A short written response published a day or two after an issue is raised during the visitors section of council meetings would be very informative for everyone.<br /><br />Now some of the issues raised are serious charges. There is a vocal minority in Richardson who believe the city violates the city charter in certain of its regular behaviors. The city can either ignore these complaints, or it can periodically issue defenses of its behavior, or it can clarify the charter to eliminate any confusion residents have about what it requires. And who knows, maybe a charter commission will recommend changes in how the city operates. I expect these discussions to be heated. But I don't see how the city can avoid them.Mark Stegerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02376182294736839659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2498525082522582900.post-69834755341631768272011-09-22T12:05:32.571-05:002011-09-22T12:05:32.571-05:00"Given the intensity of issues regarding the ..."Given the intensity of issues regarding the charter during the May election (direct election of the mayor, balanced budgets, audits of city accounts, sweeping money between funds, etc.), the city council can't avoid some kind of action on a charter review this term."<br /><br />Hmmmn, there are really two different things at play here...one is to change the charter (which direct election of the mayor would require), but the other is how the charter is to be interpreted. In the latter three examples you mention (balanced budgets, audits of city accounts, sweeping money between funds), the City believes (correctly in my opinion) that it is following the charter, but some residents do not.<br /><br />Laura Maczka brought this point up - how do we address the various accusations, er, statements made in the Visitors Section of meetings? After all, state law clearly FORBIDS the council from answering something raised by a visitor except in the most limited and unsatisfactory way. <br /><br />So her thought was, what if when someone comes up and says "you're violating the charter by selling debt without voter approval)" (which happened last year at a council meeting), can't there be a later worksession in which this item is properly posted on the agenda for review and the City staff presents to the Council (and hence to the public) the City's justification for doing so (state law has allowed it for 40 years). <br /><br />The good news is that this MAY quiet some of the rumors we see running around the City...the bad news is that the council won't have time to respond to every rumor that surfaces here (look at http://www.rumorcheck.org/Richardson_Texas.html for rumors in just the last 2 years, and this is by no means all of them out there), and the moment that the council addresses some rumors and not others, the rumormongers will immediately start denouncing the City for not being responsive and for admitting that it must be guilty of the things that it doesn't respond to.<br /><br />The problem, in the end, is that some people won't be satisfied no matter how much proof you give them. For example, the lawyer who made that false accusation above about violating the charter has never admitted that he was wrong (even though it was obvious even to my tabby cat) or apologized to the council for his mistake...what can you do with that kind of attitude? At some point, the council has to be about doing the public's business, which is why we elected them...at what point will responding to so many rumors simply prevent the council from getting anything done at all? <br /><br />Billmccalpinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02768191960822864278noreply@blogger.com