No video of COW meeting available. Wish there was because there were a couple of issues of interest.
If I get the Council video it will be posted here. The actual business was rather mundane. But it is apparent that they all need to get thicker skin. One of the council members complained that when he was elected he didn't expect the "verbal abuse" from the public and doesn't like it. That's life in big city politics. If you don't like it, resign. Also, after the meeting was over and the public video taping was done, the city clerk was yelling about freedom of speech. Priceless! Wish that was on video.
It's interesting to note that it seems they all are very cognizant of the public taping of these meetings, especially the city clerk. To the best of my knowledge, the city clerk should not address a citizen during the public portion, unless she is specifically asked a question , or, in the case of Hackensack meetings, has the mayor's permission. She jumped down some one's throat about what supposedly happened at the COW. She apparently took offense at something that was said during that meeting.
It seems that at the COW a resident who is very vocal got under their skin. They consider him rude and disruptive. He may not have the best people skills, but neither do they. They really should look in the mirror. When this person said he's on medication, the city attorney thought it was appropriate to say "Apparently not enough". And then he wanted it put on the record that this person needs more medication. What the ... Also when this person was told his 5 minute time was up, he said "A lot of peoples' time is up". One council member apparently took that as a threat and asked that it be put on the record, except he twisted the words. Someone should really should check the minutes of that meeting and see what exactly is on the record.
A small item of interest at the COW is that the "routine" renewal of Bergen Risk as third party administrator was scheduled to be on the 12/8 Council Agenda. Apparently the city attorney had second thoughts about this and informed the city manager that it needed to be advertised on the website. Which it now is, at http://www.hackensack.org/controls/eventview.aspx?MODE=SINGLE&ID=480 BUT with a 12/1 date. Guess it wasn't so routine. Wonder what made them do it correctly this time and why they back dated the notice.
Also at the COW a council member specifically asked that research be done regarding a particular person's attendance at all meetings - whether it be to ban him or have extra security is not clear. And she asked what other meetings he goes to. Apparently, he was in the vicinity of the Shade Tree meeting and someone reported to the council that they were supposedly scared by him. It seems that a family member of one of our leaders is on that board and possibly she is the one who made that request. Sure, have the city attorney research that ... we'll see how that ends up.
Why does this matter? Because if they can target him, they can target any one of us that they do not like. How would you like to have special security at every meeting you attend? Do you want to have to pay for the city attorney to research this and for the special security?
To be clear, I am not saying that this person has model behavior - but he does not appear to be a physical threat to anyone. There are options other than to ban him from meetings or follow him around and antagonize him. Doesn't our council (and our police dept) have anything better to be concerned about?
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The city clerk has shot her mouth off on several occasions, and doesn't seem to understand the parameters of her job. As for the city attorney taking shots at a citizen, he should be the LAST person to do so considering his reputation and performance. I seem to remember a layperson proving him wrong on several occasions at a public meeting. Too bad it can't be an OPRA request to find out how many times he had to take the BAR exam. As for a member of the council feeling "threatened", I suppose they forgot about when Mr Meneses publicly threatened a deputy chief from the HFD. These people are a disgrace, and any complaints they have about how they're being treated is nothing more than pouting at being given their medicine. They wanted to be politicians, they chose to run this city into the toilet so they have nobody to blame but themselves. I'm sure once the lawsuits really kick into high gear, there will be plenty of finger pointing and blamestorming to go around.
I recall that when Meneses was in his one minute mayorship, a citizen asked a question of the mayor. The clerk answered instead. When the citizen said that the question was not directed to the Clerk and that the Mayor had the responsibility to answer, Mr. Meneses said that they allow the city clerk to respond because she was like one of the council. If that is the case, then she should give up her clerkship and accept the same monetary stipend that the council receives. It would save a lot of money in salary and benefits.
On the same note, when the council was elected in 2004, the City attorney began to sit with the city council members rather than in the spot that Mr. Salkin sat in when he was the city attorney. Now Zisa sits with the council and responds as if he were a councilman without the Mayor directing him to answer. Again, I say if he wants to be a councilman, give up the salary and run. This would create more savings particularly since taxpayers are going to be responsible for all of the special attorneys that are being retained with regard to the numerous lawsuits filed by current and former police officers.
Post a Comment