John Musolf raised the issue of Oro Valley misusing the "Consent Agenda" for items that should not be "rubber stamped."
A good friend of ours, and our blog suggests John is not only correct in his assessment, but that Oro Valley is violating the Az Open Meeting Law by its action.
Our friend prefers we not use their name, but here is an excerpt from an email sent to us.
Art
*************************************************************************************
Mr. Musolf comments on Consent Agenda: Oro Valley or any entity cannot have some policy that trumps the Open Meeting Law: Mr. Musolf is exactly correct to challenge this!!
OPEN MEETING LAW
Section 7.5 deals directly with Consent Agenda format:
It reminds everyone that it is used as a "time-saving device when there are certain items on the agenda which are unlikely to generate controversy and are administrative in nature." For example: approving the minutes.
HOWEVER, it goes on, "public bodies must be cautious when using consent agendas. The Arizona Supreme Court has held that taking legal action, including that taken after an executive session, must be preceded by a disclosure of "that amount of information sufficient to apprise the public in attendance of the basic subject matter of the action so that the public may scrutinize the action taken during the meeting...." The court also specifically condemned the practice of voting on matters designated only by number, thereby effectively hiding actions from public examination."
WHEN IN DOUBT IT IS ALWAYS ADVISED choose to direct to public's knowledge and constrained choices. Consent agendas are abused and used often by scoundrels between you and me--I have challenged myself and been proven correct.
I love the OML and it is now required reading before being sworn into office---how it is to be proved without a TEST--some of these people who are so IGNORANT of this law. SHOCKS lil' ol' me!
*************************************************************************************
For those interested:
http://www.casagrandeaz.gov/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=e486e589-d65f-4c92-b8c3-3d80b3be3c4c&groupId=531
Hopefully, our Town Attorney, Tobin Rosen will see fit to offer his insight on this issue. We would appreciate it.
2 comments:
December 1, 2010 Consent Agenda
In the November 17, 2010 Consent Agenda there were 14 consent agenda Items versus 4 regular agenda items.
For the December 1, 2010 Town Meeting, still an excessive 11 Consent Agenda items appear versus 6 regular agenda items. I question whether Item A, B, F, G, and Item K are really routine and noncontroversial.
Item A – Consent Agenda (Coyote Run Report September 2010)
The Town continually loses money on Coyote Run (a worthwhile service) that contributes to our yearly budget deficit.
In my opinion, instead of reporting statistics to be approved shouldn’t the report be a regular agenda item to point out some questions or patterns that could be studied for improvement?
September 2010
1. Passenger demand continues to rise as more seniors register
Will this increase our deficit?
Any suggestions on how to increase revenue from this?
2. Operated 1,153 additional miles or 10.4% more than projected
More miles due to geographic increase/decrease of new or registrants?
3. Farebox revenues are above projected decrease due to anticipated ridership loss that is not occuring
Why are we anticipating ridership loss if more seniors are registering?
4. Requested rides exceeded capacity 11 out of 22 operational days
Is this due to scheduling?
Item B – Consent Agenda (Coyote Run Report October 2010)
In my opinion, instead of reporting statistics to be approved shouldn’t the report be a regular agenda item to point out some questions or patterns that could be studied for improvement?
October 2010 (same questions as September 2010)
1. Passenger demand continues to rise as more seniors register
2. Operated 364 less monthly miles or 3.0% as compared to October 2009
3. Farebox revenues are above projected decrease due to anticipated loss of ridership
4. Requested rides exceeded capacity 12 out of 21 operational days
Item F - Consent Agenda (Operation Stonegarden Program)
Grants for the OVPD appear on a regular basis on the Consent Agenda.
Chief Danny Sharp solicits or receives grants and then asks the council to approve them after the fact. This grant is from Homeland Security for overtime and mileage. There was an Item J on the November 17, 2010 Consent Agenda that OVPD had received a grant from the Governor’s office for public safety hiring. Councilman Bill Garner questioned why the council was not made aware of this grant prior to obtaining it since there was a hiring freeze in effect. Rubber-stamping?
Item G - Consent Agenda (Operation Stonegarden Program)
Again, Chief Danny Sharp soliciting or receiving another grant for Binoculars and Thermo Equipment from Homeland Security and getting them and then asking to council approval after the fact. Rubber-stamping?
Item K - Consent Agenda
Approve the Town Managers Annual Performance Goals
Jerene Watson setting performance goals for herself and wanting immediate council approval. This is routine and noncontroversial?
John Musolf
John--Thanks for spelling out so clearly & concisely the issues that should concern all Oro Valley citizens.
The Super Majority of this council seem to have a propensity to allow the upper echelon staff to dictate policy.
It may be serving their best interests, but what about us;the taxpayers?
Not surprisingly, the average citizen is of little consequence to this group.
Post a Comment