Don't look now, but "somebody" has requested the April 22 Study Session to now be a "Study/Special Session which includes items 4, 5, 6 & 7.
(See agenda on left column of blog.)
What does this mean? I'll tell you. No votes are taken at a Study Session, whereas, votes can be taken at a "Special Session."
We question why "someone" who can request this change in designation, from "Study" to Study/Special Session believes it is so important, that it requires an 11th hour addition.
To use a cliche'--- "Something here is not kosher."
Without much notice, those residents interested in these "questionable" agenda items may want to change their plans and be in attendance tomorrow night.
37 comments:
Just to clarify: No formal action can be taken at a Study Session; however, the Council can provide general direction to staff, or they can ask that the issue under discussion be placed as an actionable item on a future regular council agenda.
A special session allows (but does not require)the Council to vote on issues. These sessions are usually called to deal with one or two important decisions or issues that might not get a fuller discussion at a regular Council session.
It may appear to some on the Council that they'd prefer special sessions over study sessions so that they can take formal action on whatever issue is under discussion. This may or may not be a good idea if it makes it more difficult for citizens to attend the meetings and have their voices heard.
At study sessions, it is up to the presiding official (usually the Mayor) to decide if anybody may speak to the Council from the floor. In the past, Mayor Loomis has been very accommodating for those who wish to speak. If all study sessions are turned into special sessions, then speakers would have to fill out blue cards, be limited to 3 minutes, etc.
You decide which is better.
b-b, you have drawn a distinction between a Study Session where "no formal action can be taken" and a "special session [which] allows (but does not require) the Council to vote on issues". You make a statement at the end of your post,"you decide which is better", and that, for me, is an excellent point.
However, big question - whereas you have drawn a distinction, it appears that this is being referred to as a "Study/Special Session" thus muddling the meaning of the ['distinct' difference] you describe; so, as a "Study/Special Session", what gives?.
The Council can call a study session to order to discuss an item; thereafter, if they wish to vote on the item, they can adjorn and reconvene as a special session.
In either case, the notice of the meeting must be posted as a "just in case" scenario plays out.
Correction: "in" order to discuss an item
Thanks, b-b; almost immediately after my post I received information relative to this. It is my opinion that this 'call', a non-emergency
application, is no more than a ploy to circumvent public participation.
How many council members are required for a quorum ?
If there is no quorum can they still conduct business?
Just asking.
Perhaps this meeting was called post-haste to avoid confrontation from the police union members.
If something devious comes from this meeting than those responsible for this special meeting must understand they can run but they cannot hide. I wish a couple of council members will not run but go into hiding in 2010.
Simply asked, why the LAST MINUTE change as directed by the Mayor? Could this have been a decision to curtail the participation of the public in public affairs?
Fear/Turtle:
Your play on words...
"I wish a couple of people on the council would not run and go into hiding."
was an touch of psychedelic humor in the middle of a very difficult subject.
Thanks.
Zev, Fear the Turtle & Native Spirit,
The latest item on the agenda, added just under the wire of the 24hr. required notice because of Open Meeting Laws, was added by Latas and Garner regarding the police issue. This was not by Loomis. He added earlier items. Are they, Latas & Garner, who you think are trying a "ploy to circumvent public participation", Zev?
Changing Study Sessions to Special Sessions would allow the Council to vote on items as if it were a Council Meeting. During the budget process this may be a way streamline the final approval of the budget.
I assume the final budget would still be approved at a Council Meeting where public input is permitted.
Prior votes can be undone with a Motion Of Reconsideration' by anyone who voted in the majority.
A quorum is always necessary for a public vote.
I fail to see a conspiracy.
In 2010 there will be an opportunity to replace or reelect the Mayor, Abbott, Carter & Kunisch.
Any good candidates out there?
Deacon, perhaps I just don't get this in full perspective but I will hopefully get some explanation after this meeting, which I cannot attend, is over. The fact is is that the Mayor was the one who called for the designation change; I must ask why? And, if Councilmembers Latas and Garner called for the insertion of the last item at the last minute, then I must find out the reason for that, too.
Do not think, Deacon, that I am a blind 'follower'; I have disagreed with each and every one of the members of this Council at one time or another and have likewise agreed with each at one time or another. In partisan politics I am strongly independent; in local politics I am likewise.
Thanks for the information!
And, Deacon, in answer to your question [are Latas and Garner attempting to circumvent public participation]; perhaps that could be the case OR perhaps they wish not to be flooded with the OVPD and union members and thus their own reasons to take advantage of a late notification. I simply don't know. However, knowing both of these individuals for quite some time, though I can disagree with them on some of their positions, I have never known either Latas or Garner to shy away or hide from the public.
Deacon ought to be a little careful with his astute comments, lest he "blow his cover."
Someone will have to ask the mayor what necessitated this "drastic" action of combining a Study/Special session.
That action, done unilaterally by "Hizhonor," was the impetus of the other additions.
It comes down to having some on the council who will NOT be intimidated by Mr. Loomis, but rather stand up for the people they represent.
The "people" means "all of us"----not just the "special interests."
ok Zev they just want to discriminate against one group of citizens. I guess in the age of tolerance that's ok
Terry---- You know I like you and respect your sense of convictions, but allow me to make an observation.
I don't know of anyone who would be callous enough to want to see any individual lose their job, especially if that individual needs to support a family.
It is not a pleasant thing to be hanging over anyone's head---whether or not tomorrow they may be out of a job.
But----and it's a "big but," we all need to understand the terrible state of the economy. Everyday, thousands of qualified workers in every conceivable type of work, through no fault of their own, are being laid off.
Here in Oro Valley, the police union is doing everything in its power to retain the jobs of their own.
The only issue I have is this.
1) Their means of trying to achieve their goals.
2) The perception that a police officer's job is more important, not to the community, but to their family, than that of a public works employee, a library employee, an administrative employee---and you get the picture.
Ultimately, and sadly, Oro Valley will need to do what municipalities across the country are forced to do---let some people go.
Hopefully, that number will be as minimal as possible---but without any discrimination against of for any group.
I hope I was able to express my views clearly----although, I expect there will be some that will find fault.
So be it!
Art
Your argument is intellectually dishonest. There is a priority of job importance.
That is being displayed by the Unions and the citizens as you like to put it.
I don't work for Oro Valley. I don't know who would be laid off, don't know if they have families etc.
I live here because of the protection we get. Take that away and let crime get a foot hold and none of the other stuff means anything.
Some people on this blog are anti-police they have made that apparent by their outright lies and inuendo regarding OVPD.
I'm tired of fighting people full of anger and spite. I recieved a letter last week that made me sad.
It was from a resident of Sun City. She apologized to me for not supporting me during the election. She said she was angry about Wal-mart but that now she sees that she was misled. She is upset that she voted for people who can't see the difference our police dept has made in this community. She is upset that they would even consider making the Dept. smaller.
It is a terrible thing to realize you've been lied to. This blog helped make that happen.
Terry---- You, my friend are the one that is being mislead.
Always willing to talk to you---one on one, if you wish.
Terry, who is discriminating? If I recall, the OVPD and friends overwhelmed a meeting and in essence discriminated against all those who opposed their agenda. Terry, I stated it when you were running for office and I'll state it again - you don't seem to be able to sort out anything logistically then and you can't seem to do it now. And Terry, you just don't seem to get that we (most of us) are not anti-police, we are anti-crying-games that try to extol one cog in the 'gears' of our Town, and then attempts to 'extort' money away from the rest of the cogs in the 'wheel'.
Terry, I've lived where you haven't; I've experienced what you haven't; I have had friends in law enforcement that I don't think you could ever dream of having. So, Terry, bite your tongue and listen up for a change; you are not as knowledgeable as you might portray yourself. I don't think that you are even trying to understand what we, the people, are talking about. So, you give us one anecdotal story about one lady in Sun City whom you portray as shedding some tears over a 'dwindling' police force; I am quite familiar with the inner workings of Sun City and, to that goopy story of yours, I say, so what.
You are a dedicated and, I believe, a good person, Terry, but you need to wise up to the real world - past, present, and future.
Zev, Terry & Art,
Zev, your level headed responses are appreciated. The OVPD keeps an eye on the modified agendas. I doubt anything will slip by their union.
Art, I also appreciate your comments that didn't have an attack toward anyone. That is the kind of constructive discussion that will bring others to this blog. Eliminate the fear of being attacked and they will come.
I agree with Terry, public safety does have a priority.
Giving up a safe Oro Valley should not be on the table.
I don't like the OVPD 'means to achieve their goals'-Art's term- either. That doesn't mean I support laying off any police.
Losing a job is part of today's economy. I don't think anyone wants to see town employees lose jobs. Families across the nation face this tough reality.
Terry,
I'd like to respond to 2 comments you just made:
(1) Some people on this blog are anti-police they have made that apparent by their outright lies and inuendo regarding OVPD.
I don't know if anyone else lied about any of the stories they told of their encounters with the OVPD, but I did not lie when I told you my story about the hidden 15 mph sign. I have over 30 pages of documentation to prove that I am not lying. You are welcome to stop by my house and peruse the documents and photographs. If you no longer have my e-mail address, you can get it from Art.
(2) I live here because of the protection we get. Take that away and let crime get a foot hold and none of the other stuff means anything.
I AGREE that if crime gets a foothold, none of the other stuff means anything. And I would include "catching speeders" in the category of "other stuff."
With that in mind, can you explain the following?
If the most important thing the OVPD does is to fight crime (with drugs being a part of that) can you explain to me why Chief Sharp's original proposal was to cut the CAT Squad (which focuses on drugs and other crimes) and then moving those officers to PATROL DUTY followed by laying off 6 other patrol duty officers with less seniority?
I assume that patrol duty includes the officers who are assigned to handle speeding violations. If this is correct, then Chief Sharp's original decision sent a message that catching speeders was of a higher priority than dealing with drug-related offenses and other crimes.
Comments?
VC
Question shows a lack of police operation. Police departments must have patrol officers to "triage" incidents. Catching speeders is part of that. When I worked under cover I was told by the people I was investigating to make sure I didn't drive through "Cracker Town" which is one of the street names for Oro Valley.
Foot soldiers like patrol units are Oro Valley's first line of defense. Without them there is no investigation to conduct. I am responsible for eight detectives and know the importance of patrol.
You may look for fault in Cheif Sharp as much as you want but he is recognized as one of the best. You will have trouble finding legitimate fault with his decisions.
Terry,
Well of course my question shows a lack of knowledge of police operation. I've never worked in law enforcement. That's why I asked you to clarify if patrol officers included those who sit behind a cactus with their radar gun catching speeders. And if it did, I asked why Chief Sharp thought that this job took priority over handling crimes and drug offenses.
I know that "police departments must have patrol officers" but why move officers OUT of "crime duty" to "patrol duty" if crime is the most important issue? That was my question. And if "catching speeders is part of that [patrol]" then my impression of the situation was at least partially correct so I'm not sure why you said that my question showed a lack of knowledge.
I understand that patrol units cover more than speeding issues, but moving officers from the CAT squad over to patrol duty gave the impression that drugs/crime were not top priority.
I'm really not looking for fault with Chief Sharp. I would just like to see some consistency. One day I'm told "the Mexican drug cartels are here" and the next day I'm told that we're eliminating the squad that deals with drug-related crimes.
Things that make you go, huh?
Can you at least see how this translates to the lay person?
Terry,
You didn't respond to my offer to look at the documents. May I assume that means that you know I'm not one of the "liars" on this site?
VC
Look out for the chip on your shoulder it's getting bigger:)
I never called you a liar. I actually believe you but one incident does not a whole dept make or court in this case. I just hoped we could get past that ticket some day.
Patrol is not a function where a department can run short. If they do then emergency response suffers and that means people typically suffer. Investigative functions are not as immediate and as a result usually take the hit first.
Tha rationale used typically is we will try to catch them next time but in the intermediate we will keep people safer from physical harm by being able to respond quickly in our patrol functions.
Terry, you seem to have an irrational antagonism towards anyone who might question anything whatsoever relative to the
Police Department(s). You should know me by now, Terry, and thus be aware that I try to be very deliberate in the presentation of my observations. Terry, things are really quite simple:
Due to economic conditions, Oro Valley, like most municipalities within this country, has now and projects for the future, a shortfall within our coffers.
Due to the above, in order to balance the OV budget, cuts in expenditures must be made.
Cuts in expenditures should be made on a case by case basis.
If there is a lack of cooperation
by any department whatsoever, then said department must be TOLD by authority what their contribution to said cuts will be.
The OVPD has been credited with accounting for over 50% of the Town's budget whereas the average for other municipalities in the State of Arizona is approximately 28%.
The Town of Oro Valley has a relatively low crime rate compared to other cities, not just because of the quality of the OVPD, but most probably, in part, because of the demographic of it's population.
The OVPD 'loads' the Town meetings when it feels 'threatened'; the impression given is that said PD is trying to overwhelm and impose rather than inform, empathize, and cooperate in helping to solve a very serious fiscal situation; it appears that the 'bulls' are prompted to speak when we most probably need intellect to advise.
I have met Chief Sharp and I have heard him speak on several occasions; I am impressed with his knowledge as well as his demeanor; he is very amiable, too, and that is a plus. He is in a very difficult position, one in which I would not like to be in.
I, personally, have never had any other feelings but satisfaction from any member of the OVPD that I have personally met or have been exposed to during their individual group deliverences (Sun City Posse for example).
I have little problem that, for the most part, they keep the 'speed' situation under control EXCEPT that, if they were more visible, that would, by it's very 'nature' slow traffic down; as it stands now the impression given is that they are out to trap drivers and THAT is the reputation the OVPD has.
The failing that some of us DO feel however, is that the OVPD has NOT been transparent, has NOT been sensitive to the overall needs of Town, has bounced their budgetary needs around like a basketball, and has simply advanced the mentality of 'me,'me' me'.
That is perception, Terry, it is not 'hate speech'.
As to you personally, I admire your tenacity in defending and supporting the Department, I do not appreciate that you tear into and attempt to denigrate those who are seeking a just resolution to this problematic situation which is exactly what it is. You, yourself, are so one-sided, Terry, that your overall proclamations cloud out virtually any reliable comment you may have.
And, for the record Terry, I was very close to a major county's budget process in North Carolina; from that attachment I learned a lot, perhaps not about much of the technical aspects but VERY much about certain procedural aspects of certain departments ('trick or treat').
So, Terry, if you should get overly immersed in simply PD jargon again, let me assure you, I am, as are many others here, no dummy, and given past histories, you should be well aware of that!
Terry,
I know you never singled me out as being a liar but you did say, "Some people on this blog are anti-police they have made that apparent by their outright lies and inuendo regarding OVPD."
Since I was one of the "people on this blog" who spoke against the OVPD, it is conceivable that you were including me in that group of "liars."
Another blogger on this site DID keep implying that I was lying about the whole thing, so now that I've offered to let you look at the documents, that should send a loud and clear message to ANYONE who doubted my integrity that I am not a liar. We all have our "hot button" issues. Being called a liar is one of mine.
I agree that "one incident does not a whole department make" but many people have offered their stories about their interactions with the OVPD as well, so it's not just one incident. And not all the incidents had to do with speeding violations/speed traps, etc. There seems to be problems on many different levels. Of course, we may never know how many of them are legitimate and how many of them are just perception. But even if ALL of them were perception-based rather than reality-based, I would still think that the OVPD would want to do something to change the perception that people have of them.
"I just hoped we could get past that ticket some day."
I only brought it up again because everyone who told a tale of a less than stellar interaction with the OVPD was either called a liar or it was implied that they were lying. So I decided to prove my accusation by offering up some proof.
And, hey, if 6 officers are laid off, they could use that spare time to remove that chip from my shoulder. It's HUGE and it's going to require at least 6 people to remove it.
See? It will all work out in the end.
I just can not believe the death sprial one ticket has sparked on this blog.
A recent study indicates that 52% of all drivers speed and the other 48% should GET OUT OF THE WAY!!
But if you must know why the Nombe never gets a ticket?
"I went and bought myself a brand new airmobile..
It was custom made and quite a steal..
With its high blown motor
and its
hide-away wings..
you step on the gas and you can hear it sing..
Oh you cant catch me
Oh no you cant catch me..."
B Didley
Zev
Maybe you should move to NC those good ole Southern folk may enjoy your humble pie expertise.
Nombe,
WHO DO YOU LOVE??
Coyote
I wasn't being mean just pointing out the chest pounding and as Art likes to say "Perception" of an egomaniacal posting.
Terry,
yup I know.
I was just having some fun with nombe, he quoted Bo Didley, so figured I would have some fun with a lyric from a Bo Didley song.
Everybody is an expert :)) I know nothing. lol
Oh well you got me with that one!!
Okay, Terry, your last comment to me was totally inane! Not only was it meaningless and off the wall, it certainly reveals more of YOUR lack of perception then it does of my being. Why don't YOU get the chip off YOUR shoulder, Terry, and stop calling other people liars, dishonest, angry, and spiteful; if there is anyone within this stream who displays these character traits, it's you. And you claim righteousness and religious conviction? Ha!
To all of the rest of you, this is the last comment I will make on this stream. Not only has it gone too much awry, but I don't wish to continue debating an empty suit. Thanks for the memories, Terry.
Zev
The silence is appreciated.
Yer so vain you probably think this
Carly Simon
Take that Bo
I never got that involved in local politics until I started attending town council meetings a few years ago. After attending a couple of these meetings with my wife we came away thinking that TP is a bully and needs to go. It was really apparent how arrogrant TP was when he would whisper to Al K. and both would laugh when citizens spoke at council meetings. While we didn't have the same monetary resources as a Vestar (maybe now we do) to throw at a candidate, we mustered enough resources together to accomplish our goal.
While no town council is perfect, the one in place is sure a step up from the previous council. Anyone that becomes a council member has my admiration because they earn a whopping $8,000 a year for all of their hard work and hassals they encounter. It is just when someone becomes a council person sometimes the power goes to their head and it becomes not what they can do for the town but what can the town or developers do for them.
Hey "Turtle"----Thanks for your input. You may want to be prepared to receive the admonishment of those that won't accept your point, but I couldn't agree more.
The only error I think you made, is short-changing the council's remuneration. I believe it's "all the way up" to $9K, with the mayor at $12K.
Post a Comment