Print Page | Close Window

4/5/2011 council meeting

Printed From: MiddletownUSA.com
Category: Middletown City Government
Forum Name: City Council
Forum Description: Discuss individual members and council as a legislative body.
URL: http://www.middletownusa.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3777
Printed Date: May 14 2024 at 9:27pm


Topic: 4/5/2011 council meeting
Posted By: Mike_Presta
Subject: 4/5/2011 council meeting
Date Posted: Apr 06 2011 at 5:08am

Thoughts on last evening’s council meetings:

From a news article about last evening’s city council work session:

“The public safety levy brings in roughly $2 million annually for the police and fire divisions through income taxes. It expires at the end of 2012. While council members have indicated they will likely ask voters to renew that levy, it’s passage is uncertain.

Councilman Josh Laubach said the levy would be a hard sell to residents…”

Darn tootin’ it’ll be a hard sell!!! In fact, City Council has a lot of gall to exclude the great majority of the citizens from the opportunity to watch/listen to the budget discussions by holding them in their cozy semi-secret upstairs NON-council meeting room, and then ask those very same citizens who weren’t good enough to be privy to those discussions to vote for taxes to support deals that may have been made in those meetings!!!

One of the first items on the agenda for the business meeting was: “Transfer Options – Vacant Residential Lot on Main Street” however, during the open part of the meeting, not a word was mentioned about this subject!!! We can only surmise that this was discussed in the semi-secret portion of the meeting. After all, if this was a hallowed S. Main Street lot, we know how picky certain folks are about who is “allowed” to acquire such properties and it would have behooved Mulligan, Kohler, and their buddies to “keep it in the PRISM family” by hook or crook lest some “undesirables” get their hands on it. We should have known that was scheduled for the non-secret portion of the meeting by mistake. They wouldn’t risk talking about this in the open.

Next on the agenda was: “Transfer of Property – Board of Education – Curtis Street”. After a short presentation (without much substance) Councilman Becker opined that it was a “no brainer” to give the property to the School District. No mention was made that this “no brainer” would also be in violation of City Ordinances requiring public bids for the sale of City property valued at over $5,000.00!!!

Next came the “consent agenda”. That’s always the mundane stuff, right??? Nothing interesting there, is there??? Of course not!!! Just as there are never any decisions made or votes taken in executive sessions. Why, that would be illegal, wouldn’t it??? Well, carefully read through the pages and pages and read between the lines and you will find that someone who has been saying for years that the way this and previous councils have been stacking the various boards and commissions has been fraught with conflicts of interest and therefore illegal seems to have been correct!!! Does this mean that our city and its beleaguered treasury is about to be besieged with more lawsuits??? I dunno---maybe they discussed it during their secret sessions???

That’s it for tonight, but in closing let me leave you with these thoughts:

By now I’m sure that some of you are thinking that I’m making too much out of the “semi-secret work sessions” thing. Please trust me that I am not. Remember this: It is the very things that they may be uncomfortable discussing in front of the public that are the most dangerous to be discussed anywhere else!!!



-------------
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012



Replies:
Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Apr 06 2011 at 5:26am
One more thing before I turn in:  During the open discussions about street repairs on South Main Street, no details were discussed.  Does anyone know if Kohler was able to get the more expensive "Olde Tyme" street lamps and imitation cobblestone curbs included on the taxpayers' tab???  Was this discussed during the semi-secret meeting, or is this one of the advantages of having the City Planning Director on the HISTORIC COMMISSION???  (Gee...no conflict of interest there, is there???)

-------------
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012


Posted By: acclaro
Date Posted: Apr 06 2011 at 5:35am
Did a bid go out for the services of Greg Pratt ESQ, acting as Cincinnati State ambassador for the deal downtown, if and when it ever comes about?
 
Also, did a bid go out with the part-tine 1099 use of the employee of MUM that works for the downtown program whatever in the heck they call it, associated with part-time Economic Development?
 
If not, WHY Not?
 


Posted By: TonyB
Date Posted: Apr 06 2011 at 7:04am

Mr Presta - since I attended the "semi -secret" part of the meeting I can report to you that the only two items discussed were the upcoming budget and street repairs. Mr. Kohler was not in attendance upstairs and the street repair discussion upstairs was about Lefferson Rd. I will tell you that I got the sense that 6 of the 7 members seem to like the upstairs informal work session and want to continue them. They did discuss having the meeting taped. 



Posted By: Nick_Kidd
Date Posted: Apr 06 2011 at 10:16am
I believe that taping of the meetings was a main reason for moving the meetings out of Council Chambers. It is hard to deny what you did or said if it is recorded by MTV or by a viewer at home. For example the discussion and vote on having outsiders (carpetbaggers) on committees and boards in direct violation of our Charter. The three attorneys involved in this vote should all resign for violating our charter and should be disbarred for violating their oath of office which requires that they uphold our Charter.

-------------
Government is not the answer to problems, government is the problem.


Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Apr 06 2011 at 3:04pm
Originally posted by TonyB TonyB wrote:

Mr Presta - since I attended the "semi -secret" part of the meeting I can report to you that the only two items discussed were the upcoming budget and street repairs. Mr. Kohler was not in attendance upstairs and the street repair discussion upstairs was about Lefferson Rd. I will tell you that I got the sense that 6 of the 7 members seem to like the upstairs informal work session and want to continue them. They did discuss having the meeting taped. 
Mr. B.:
Since you were in attendance upstairs, can you shed any light on what discussion was too "uncomfortable" to be discussed in City Council Chambers???
 
Also, regardless of what might, or might not, have been discussed, by holding such talks outside the eyes of the general public they invite--even deserve--whatever erroneous speculation about the proceedings as may ensue.


-------------
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012


Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Apr 06 2011 at 3:15pm
One thing is certain:  If they were "too uncomfortable" to discuss the budget in front of ALL of the citizenry, then they damned sure should be "too uncomfortable" to ask that very same citizenry for more tax money to solve any budget woes which they might claim to have found during those discussions.

-------------
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012


Posted By: TonyB
Date Posted: Apr 06 2011 at 3:23pm
Mr. P:
I'd be happy to shed light on that subject except that there is no light to shed. There was nothing in the upstairs meeting that was too uncomfortable; as a matter of fact, the meetings should have been reversed. As far as I can tell, the only embarrassing or uncomfortable moments occured in front of the cameras. If our elected representatives had behaved this way upstairs, they might actually have avoided the embarrassment of the behavior they displayed in Chambers. My real question becomes: are our elected leaders "playing to the camera"?
I agree with you sir, nothing was discussed that could not have been done in Council Chambers and the time spent going from the 4th floor to Council Chambers could have been better and more productively spent.  As I stated, 6 of 7 members seem to prefer the upstairs venue and I don't see that changing. If they do decide to record for later dissemination, it sounds like they intend for a single camera feed. Don't know how effective that will be.
Eroneous speculation will continue about what is happening because there just isn't any real pressure on councilpersons to change it. Right or wrong, it won't change until and unless council sees fit to change it.


Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Apr 06 2011 at 3:36pm
So...the rule seems to be: "Budget scheming upstairs..."Poor- mouthing" and pleads for cash downstairs!"

-------------
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012


Posted By: TonyB
Date Posted: Apr 06 2011 at 3:46pm
Correct summary



Print Page | Close Window