After a number of community meetings, the Oro Valley Council may well decide the future of the volunteer Development Review Board, (and other Boards & Commissions) at the Sept. 1 meeting.
Mayor Hiremath has made his position abundantly clear. He wants to "axe" the DRB, and probably all other committees of volunteers.
Our good friend Mike Zinkin, who was a past chair person of DRB said he thinks the elimination or minimization of the board would result in less transparency in the development process in Oro Valley, and potentially subject town employees to greater political pressure to grant approvals.
Bill Adler, who has volunteered for many positions in town disagrees. He is quoted in The Explorer as stating he doesn't see transparency as a problem, even if the council adopts changes that would eliminate the board.
We agree with Mike, although we don't think the demise or continuation of any of these boards or commissions will make any difference.
Why?
Because the town council has the last say. As far as transparency, the decisions on any of the issues coming to the council may well be decided behind closed doors in Executive Session, and then a "charade" of a vote will be taken in an open meeting.
That's how it works!
This council consists of a Super Majority that may have reached six members, with Bill Garner being the ONLY one that continues to demonstrate a concern for the people of Oro Valley.
Did we expect anything differently? The answer is -- "No!"
Here's The Explorer article.
http://www.explorernews.com/articles/2010/08/11/news/doc4c62d344c489e855797139.txt
11 comments:
I don't understand the claim that decisions that would have been made by the DRB will now be made in Executive Session.
According to state law, there are seven authorized topics for executive sessions:
1. Personnel (must provide 24 hours written notice to employee).
2. Discussion or consideration of records exempt by law from public inspection.
3. Legal advice – with public body’s own lawyer(s).
4. Discussion or consultation with public body’s lawyer(s) to consider pending or
contemplated litigation, settlement discussions, negotiated contracts.
5. Discuss and instruct its representative regarding labor negotiations.
6. Discuss international, interstate, and tribal negotiations.
7. Discuss the purchase, sale, or lease of real property.
So, the decision to keep or abandon any standing board or commission must be made in open session; likewise, decisions that would have been made by those boards or commission but would now be made by the Council must also take place in open session.
The one thing the volunteer boards do provide for promoting transparency is that fact that they are open meetings. Perhaps the Council wishes to supress even this minimal amount of transparency?
CF-
By law, the Council cannot make these decisions privately; in fact, they can't even talk about them with each other outside of a public meeting.
"Gal"--- I believe both Mr. Fox & I know the Az Statute as it pertains to the open meeting law.
As the days, weeks and months go by, use your "astuteness" and pay close attention to some of the votes by this council.
I'm talking about your last comment about what "can't" be done.
"Shouldn't" and "can't" are not synonymous.
Sorry--I don't understand the insinuation.
Does this mean that if a vote is 4-3, that there was collusion or a violation of the Open Meeting laws, particularly if bloggers here are on the 3 side of the equation?
Not much faith in the Town Attorney, it seems.
Astute Gal et al:
While I prefer the maintaining of the DRB as a body which would include public volunteer participation, the statement that [if the DRB is 'dissolved' as now constituted, relative decisions may/will be made in Executive Sessions] is misleading and without real basis in fact.
I, for one, am strongly in favor of public participation in ALL matters Town. How the current 'trend' plays out remains to be seen. Until I see the realities I just can't accept that our Town is now in the hands of the devil, just because.....
As far as collusion goes, I'll stick with the "duck theory."
Many of us believe with a wealth of circumstantial evidence that collusion took place less than a year ago----with a 4-3 vote of the then sitting council.
So, yes---to me it was more than an "insinuation."
And the town attorney unfortunately is not an investigator.
As far as I'm concerned, the closest we have as an investigator in Oro Valley is our friend John Musolf!
However, Art, simply because one might suspect 'collusion' in one matter does not mean that we must suspect 'collusion' in all other matters with which we might disagree. Yep, one or two times, a group might get away with it, but in continuum, well that could lead to obviousness that the perps wouldn't want 'cause 'recall' would then have some traction.
Let's use our heads, people, a different philosophy of 'doing' Town business most probably exists with the officials and management that we now have, but a dirty little conspiracy, I don't think so.
If those in 'charge' do in fact 'fail' the TOV, there are many courses of action and/or remedies that can be exercised to right those 'wrongs'.'Till then,let the opinions roll but hold up a bit on 'frivolous' accusations.
That sounds fair.
We'll watch and wait---and we'll see what we will see.
As far as "accusations," I don't believe I or anyone else accused anyone now serving, of any wrong doing.
Art, sorry, this was not aimed at you; however, throughout many of the streams here there are many IMPLIED accusations and the 'shoes must fall where they must'.
Thank you for your clarifications, Zev.
It's often very easy to predict the vote outcome of publicly elected bodies, be they town councils, legislatures or Congress. Just because they act predictably doesn't mean that some illegal act took place prior to the vote.
To insinuate otherwise seems to me, at least, to border on paranoia--finding that every vote that goes counter to one's philosophy must be the result of some sort of illegal conspiracy.
Elected bodies often "walk like a duck" because they're predictable, based on their past actions or public statements. That doesn't necessarily make them criminals nor does it absolve them of the suspicion that "they decided it in advance." Arizona's open meeting laws are strict, and while the Town Attorney may not be an investigator, he/she has an ethical and legal responsibility to uphold that law and all other laws of the state.
Post a Comment