Search and Categories

Here’s The Scoop ….. “HOT” HISTORY …. 2007 … “HOT” UNDER THE COLLAR …2009 ….

August 8, 2009 by Barbara

“2 HATS” UNDER PRESSURE….

Dear Readers….If there is any doubt as to why this writer will keep up the pressure to rectify the situation we find ourselves in with the current majority on the Commission and the current Administration…a look at the minutes from Jan. 9, 2007 is just one of many glaring reasons why the hypocritical “2 Hats” must be swept out in March 2010…In this post first the past minutes then the last Commission meeting…

THAT WAS THEN…..JANUARY 9, 2007…

page 23…New Bus. item 14 C. Discussion and/or action pertaining to procedures for public comments and Commissioner comments (Mayor Pro Tem Clark)…

Here’s the highlights…….. Comm. Clark brought this up because he felt the Town’s ability to do business “has been severely impaired by the way public and the commissioner comments are applied at Town meetings”…He wanted to cut down the time from 1 -1 1/2hrs. to 30 min. ….Mayor Parker had to stop Comm. Clark because the audience (CIC -2-Hat supporters/ full disclosure including this writer …still under the Kool-aid at the time) were “chuckling…breaking “decorum” …Comm. McIntee stated Mayor Parker was running a “Kangaroo Court”…Mayor Parker said Comm. McIntee needed to learn decorum…Comm. Clark said his plan “would prevent any group from stacking the deck”…He also wanted only residents/taxpayers to be allowed to speak..3 mins/no personal attacks from the dais or the podium…the leftover speakers would be able to speak at the end of the meeting…Comm. Clark wanted Comm. comments moved to the end as well with a 5 minute time limit…Comm. Clark made that motion..Mayor Parker 2nd it…THEN…

“COMMISSIONER SILVERSTONE REMARKED THAT HE FELT LIKE HE WAS HAVING A BAD DREAM AND THAT THE PROPOSED PROCEDURAL CHANGE WOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM IF THERE WAS NOT SO MUCH MISTRUST AND MISCOMMUNICATION, THUS THE TOWN’S PROBLEMS WEREN’T GOING TO GO AWAY BY MAKING THIS ACTION “…He did not think the meeting would be less in time…”COMMISSIONER SILVERSTONE SAID THE MOTION WAS A SLAP IN HIS FACE AS AN AMERICAN.”

“COMMISSIONER MCINTEE DECLARED THIS MOTION A DISGRACE AND A REFLECTION OF THE FACT THAT MAYOR PARKER, VICE MAYOR YANNI AND MAYOR PRO TEM CLARK COULD NOT STAND THE HEAT. ‘

” COMMISSIONER MCINTEE ARGUED THE TOWN’S PEOPLE HAD EVERY RIGHT TO COME UP TO THE PODIUM AND CALL THE COMMISSION ANYTHING THEY WANT.”

“HE WENT ON TO SAY THAT THIS MOTION VIOLATED THESE PEOPLE’S RIGHT.”

“COMMISSIONER MCINTEE CONCLUDED BY SAYING THAT MAYOR PARKER WAS AN EVIL PERSON AND THAT HIS MOTION WAS WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.”

Mayor Parker reprimanded McIntee and reminded him “there were no personal attacks allowed”

“COMMISSIONER MCINTEE CONTINUED BY SAYING THAT IT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO SPEAK OUT AND BE HEARD.”…”He admonished the members of the Comm. that were retired army majors and lawyers by saying “SHAME.”

Comm. Silverstone said he hoped he wasn’t wasting his time by trying to talk to the other Comms….that “he might change his mind by something that was said”..and hoped the other Comm. would do the same.

“COMMISSIONER MCINTEE APOLOGIZED TO MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE FOR THE DAIS AND THE WAY MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION WERE USING THEIR AUTHORITY TO ABUSE THE TOWNSPEOPLE’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND STATED THINGS LIKE THIS ONLY HAPPENED IN TOTALITARIAN REGIMES.”

“HE LAMENTED THAT THE SUPPORTERS OF THIS MOTION WERE NOT EVEN GOING TO HAVE THE COMMON COURTESY TO LET THOSE WHO CAME TO SPEAK HAVE THEIR LAST HURRAH.”

Comm. Clark said Comm. McIntee was the one that was “evil”, Mayor Parker said both Comms. were out of line…no personal attacks.

“COMMISSIONER MCINTEE EMPHASIZED HE THOUGHT MAYOR PARKER WAS TAKING CARE OF EVERYONE BUT THE TOWNSPEOPLE. …He went on to say that’s why there was a recall and made accusations against the majority on the dais meeting at Aruba’s to decide their roles on the dais and “work it out to screw the two new guys.”…Parker, Clark and Yanni said that was a lie…It then veered off into ethics / conflict of interest and the following statements by Vice Mayor Yanni…

“Vice Mayor Yanni remarked that ever since they’ve [McIntee/Silverstone] the Town’s done nothing but argue and fight, but that it was time to put that aside and pursue the business of the Town. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE CIC WAS NOT THE ENTIRE TOWN AND HE HEARD CRISTIE FURTH SAY “OH WE GOT THE TOWN WHERE WE WANT THEM RIGHT NOW.” He encouraged the people in favor of moving on to speak up and express their feelings about the Town and the commissioners who are doing this recalling and backstabbing and lying with the paper.”

Mayor Parker admonished the Editor of the By The Sea Times  and a vote was called for …it was 4-1 McIntee dissenting…Silverstone voted yes to be able to bring it up for reconsideration…

full text….http://www.lauderdalebythesea-fl.gov/town/arc-meetings.htm

THIS IS NOW….July 28, 2009….

Previous post “Prop again DUH!” 8/3/09 scoops cat…. has the exchange from New Bus. item 16 D. where the VM goes after freedom of speech…below are some more statements made by the same “2-Hat” that spoke on Jan 9, 2009….

Comm. Silverstone ” I have a problem with the, the people abusing the right to speak up here. I think we should give 3 minutes period. However they want to use that 3 minutes is up to them because we’re, we’re as a comment was made earlier [by his Fiancee’ prev. post] the Town’s not getting anything done here and it’s getting out of hand and it’s just being used for political agendas and um, it’s affecting the way we’re operating here. It’s getting really embarrassing and out of control and I yield.”

Vice Mayor McIntee ” Um, it’s being abused ah, by one woman in this room presently [this writer] ah, last meeting she was up 5 times and took 18 minutes. I timed it.”

BC- I timed it..I was up for 2nd reading 3 min/ VM Drainage 2 min./ RFP 2 min./ Banners 1 min./ Monument less than 1 min. total 8+ mins….the VM in his Comm. Comments 13 mins./ this writer thought the Comm. allowed all to speak only once on 1 item. no limit on topics. from an earlier round table decision etc…

VM- ” That’s just an abuse if, if it’s election time coming up anybody runs for election can come up on every item it’s off the wall, it’s lost control, the, the Mayor has lost control of the meeting by allowing this to happen.” He went on to say he recalled only one item if not public comments and only 3 minutes…Comm. Dodd agreed with his recollection…

VM- ” I agree with that and it’s been abused completely and the Mayor let it happen time and time again and it’s wrong and it’s one of the reasons meetings have been 6 and 7 hours.”

BC- Willing to bet that a check of the past meetings will show the largest user of time …is the Vice Mayor!….

VM- ” Another problem we have are people coming after the signature sign in sheets are done. They’re taken up by Nikki, she placed them and people are handing her names. That’s wrong.”

The Mayor asked for a point of information to see if that has happened…Nikki said it had…The Town Manger inaudibly spoke about it and the Mayor said she needed to check saying “I wanted to make sure that the truth , that the Vice Mayor is saying something that is factual.”

VM- ” You, you calling me a liar Mayor?”

Mayor- “You tend to bend the truth at times.”

VM- ‘ You tend to go in directions that aren’t always in the right like running these meetings and getting out of control.”

The Manager said it occurred…Nikki affirmed it and said it need not go any further…

BC- at public comments Cristie Furth brought up the previous decision made in 2007…saying this commission had made a concerted effort to make it better…She said “the pendulum has swung”…BUT…should that matter?….

June 9, 2009…public comments Cristie Furth ” felt the audience was controlling the meetings and should be controlled by the Mayor as presiding officer….

The Vice Mayor then went on to his “Gestapo and Nazi members and Storm troopers” diatribe…adding “that’s over the line, that’s decorum. As as a sitting Mayor you have an obligation to control the decorum that’s, that’s not freedom of speech that’s losing the decorum of a meeting and to say somebody up here is a Storm trooper and a Nazi…”…

The Mayor said the Town Atty. wanted to speak…but the Vice Mayor was not done…He went on to speak of a business owner speaking against a “resident” (prev. scoops post Achilles Heel”…going on about all the 2009 imposed rules…no names no personal attacks…

The Town Attorney addressed the freedom of speech issue…with pubic comments…allowing for public to speak at public hearings ..(1st/2nd readings/ Quasi Judicial)…The Vice Mayor was not backing down…

VM- ” And when the Mayor sits there and let that happen and said nothing I was upset. But she let it go on and on and on and that was a step that lost it and complete decorum and any respect I had for the Mayor right there.

The Mayor said the Vice Mayor was “the last person I want to have respect from.”

The Vice Mayor said “well that’s fine Mayor but this is business to run”

The Mayor wanted to move on…but the Vice mayor still wanted a vote and to address whether those who spoke would need to state their addresses…

The Mayor said she could not make that motion…”I don’t make motions Vice Mayor, you do.”

BC- The Mayor could not make a motion…Why?  Because the 2- Hat Commissioners and the candidates decided “we’ll work it out and screw the new Mayor by not allowing her to make motions and not allowing the Town Attorney to sit next to her”…

The Vice Mayor made the motion and Comm. Silverstone 2nd it…it passed “Gang of 3″ -2…

In 2009…Vice Mayor McIntee, Commissioner Silverstone and Commissioner Clottey …”.COULD NOT STAND THE HEAT”. ….It’s time for them to go…

more to come….

Post Division

Here’s The Scoop … 7/28-29/09 LBTS Commission Meeting #3 …Prop Again … DUH!…

August 3, 2009 by Barbara

PRODUCING A CHORUS “LINE”…..FROM THE “GANG OF 3” ON THE DAIS…

(Mel Brooks…The Producers..”Springtime For Hitler http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K08akOt2kuo )

Dear Readers….The Gang giveth and the Gang taketh away……your freedom of speech…your ability to come to the podium and speak to the dais… They cannot  deal with what they themselves dished out with such zeal while in their glory days …..The onslaught of the opposition squarely aimed at them with no end in sight has rocked them to their core…..Their answer is to silence the residents… in order to control the BULLY  pulpit…and use their “Gang of 3” majority vote to turn their backs on what they themselves insisted would never happen when they took over the dais……HYPOCRITES…

At the July 14, 2009 Commission meeting a CIC member and columnist for the Mc-Furth times came forward and called those who came to speak for Scott Gooding “carpetbaggers” and asked the Commission to return to requiring speakers to state their full address….The Mayor in her comments countered the carpetbagger claim and read the names of those who spoke…BUT ….she did put it on the agenda under new business for this meeting to discuss….The Vice Mayor stomped on his past endorsement of policies for open public commentary…signed up or not…resident or not…He must be running scared…..really, really  scared that his days are numbered…As well he should…the writing is on the wall or in this case …from the public speakers computers… such as the one he went after claiming it was NOT freedom of speech…..

PUBLIC COMMENTS…from Resident Scott Sasser…July 28, 2009…

‘I have been unable to attend the last couple of meetings but wanted to express my complete dismay and utter disgust at the firing of Chief Scott Gooding. I pride myself on trying to understand all the aspects of an issue before rendering an opinion and this is no exception. Let me assure you that nothing given thus far substantiates the actions taken to tarnish a good man’s reputation. Senator Joseph Welch said it best in 1954 when he said “ Until this moment I think I have never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness”. I cannot think of a better way of saying just how I feel. You have tarnished that which a man holds most dear to further your own personal gain. This action was clearly taken as a first step in removing the Broward Sheriff’s Office from our town and to feed the narcissism and lust for power of a few evil doers. Those of you who will take the advantage of your 3/2 vote to advance your own personal agenda must take notice that you do so no longer in disguise. You have made your intentions clear and, as one concerned citizen proclaimed, “you have gotten our attention”. You who think you can hide behind the protection of the 3/2 vote do so at your own risk and without regard to the future. If there was ever a doubt to the intentions of you 3/2’ers it was made clear by your utter disregard for the people that came before you and spoke their heart. The icing on the cake was the Town Manager’s complete disregard for any accountability to anyone but the 3/2’ers including the people who live in this town.

Fellow townspeople, in the audience tonight, those watching and those sitting on the dais let it be said that you can no longer feign naivete to what is happening in our town. Nothing less than your safety and freedom are at stake. The boots of totalitarianism can already be heard marching down our streets. The windows are breaking in LBTS. Achtung! Marchello brothers. Achtung! Chief Scott Gooding. Achtung! Broward Sherriff’s Office. The Gestapo is poised and ready to take over the policing of this town. They think their ideology is what is best for you and I and that includes their insatiable lust for power. It has been said that all that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Well I, for one, say no more. The time has come for you to feel the accountability of the people. You will no longer be able to take refuge behind your 3/2 vote. I am here tonight to insist that one of the following need to occur:
1. The immediate re-instatement of Chief Scott Gooding
2. The immediate resignation of the Town Manager as well as each member of the dais except for Stuart Dodd and Mayor Roseanne Minnet

I began with a quote from Senator Welch and I conclude with one as well. “Have you no sense of decency? At long last have you left, no sense of decency?” This is your chance to do the right thing. We patiently sat through your existential discussion regarding rules of etiquette as if it really meant something. Let me tell you, you do not need to know Robert’s Rules you simply need to know the Golden Rule. For those of you who obviously don’t know what this means and certainly did not afford such to Chief Gooding, it says, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. Do the right thing or step aside.’

THE VICE MAYOR’S “BITES OF THE APPLE”….continuation Commission meeting 7/29/09

(The VM began with times up to the podium to speak…signing up to speak….and then freedom of speech)….

VM-“OK, we also have to control when people say that sitting dais members are Gestapo and Nazi members, Storm Troopers. That’s over the line, that’s decorum. As a sitting Mayor you have an obligation to control the decorum. That’s, that’s not freedom of speech. That’s losing decorum of a meeting and to say somebody up here is a Storm Trooper and a Nazi.”

BC- The above brought to mind for this former North Shore of Chicago resident the following recollection …Skokie Ill. VS the Nazi’s right to march…It was front page news and the number one topic for those of us who lived in this area and were Jewish… in dealing with freedom of speech…and the effect of allowing for that right to be for everyone…

Excerpt…

‘It is useful to consider the three primary arguments set forth by Skokie in support of its effort to forbid the march. First, the village argued that the display of the swastika promoted “hatred against persons of Jewish faith or ancestry” and that speech that promotes racial or religious hatred is unprotected by the First Amendment. The courts rightly rejected this argument, not on the ground that the swastika doesn’t promote religious hatred, but on the ground that that is not a reason for suppressing speech. After all, it the Nazis could be prohibited from marching in Skokie because the swastika incites religious hatred, then presumably they couldn’t march anywhere for the same reason, and movies could not show the swastika, and even documentaries could not show the swastika. And if the swastika can be banned on this basis, then what other symbols or ideas can be suppressed for similar reasons. What about movies showing members of the Ku Klux Klan? News accounts showing Palestinians committing suicide bombings in Israel or showing Israelis attacking civilians?

Second, the village argued that the purpose of the marches was to inflict emotional harm on the Jewish residents of Skokie and, especially, on the survivors. Certainly, some residents would be deeply offended, shocked and terrified to see Nazis marching through the streets of Skokie. But they might also be offended, shocked and terrified to know that Schindler’s List was playing at a movie theatre in Skokie, or in Chicago, or in Illinois, and African-Americans might be offended, shocked and terrified to know that the movie Birth of a Nation was playing in a theatre in their town or nation. And so on. Moreover, it is doubtful that the actual intent of the Nazis was to inflict emotional harm on the residents of Skokie. Initially, the Nazis sought to march in a totally different community in Chicago, one with almost no Jewish population. But they were denied a permit. They then decided to march in Skokie in order to get publicity for their grievance. Indeed, the signs they planned to carry in Skokie did not say “Bring Back the Holocaust,” but “White Free Speech” and “Free Speech for the White Man.” Making First Amendment rights turn on judgments about a speaker’s subjective intent is a dangerous business, because intent is very elusive and police, prosecutors and jurors are very prone to attribute evil intentions to those whose views they despise.

Third, the village argued that if the Nazis were permitted to march there would be uncontrollable violence. But is this a reason to suppress speech? Isn’t the obligation of the government to protect the speaker and to control and punish the lawbreakers, rather than to invite those who would silence the speech to use threats of violence to achieve their ends? If the village of Skokie had won on this point, then southern communities who wanted to prosecute civil rights marchers in Selma, Montgomery and Birmingham could equally do so, on the plea that such demonstrations would trigger “uncontrollable violence.” Moreover, once government gives in to such threats of violence it effectively invites a “heckler’s veto,” empowering any group of people who want to silence others to do so simply by threatening to violate the law.

The outcome of the Skokie controversy was one of the truly great victories for the First Amendment in American history. It proved that the rule of law must and can prevail. Because of our profound commitment to the principle of free expression even in the excruciatingly painful circumstances of Skokie more than thirty years ago, we remain today the international symbol of free speech. (Ultimately, a deal was worked out and the Nazis agreed to march in Chicago rather than in Skokie.)

As Justice Louis Brandeis once explained, the Framers of our First Amendment knew “that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones.”  The opening today of the Holocaust Museum and Education Center proves the profound wisdom of the principle that “the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones.”’

full text link…. http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/faculty/2009/04/remembering-the-nazis-in-skokie.html

BC- The Mayor made a point of order that the Town Atty. wanted to speak.

VM- ” Well that’s fine but that’s, that’s a step that is not acceptable, just isn’t acceptable and I took Abrundage (VM’s word) to it. I think it was completely wrong and you let it fly by.”

( The VM went off the freedom of speech topic to discuss Marc Furth…will post later)…

VM-” Town, Town, I have a question for the Town Attorney. If somebody has a discussion about accusing dais members of being members of the Nazi organization, Storm Trooper can we say that’s inappropriate cease and desist?”

Town Atty.- ” I think that’s definitely on the line in terms of what’s at the edge of freedom of speech rights as we I believe advised you previously. The line was…”

VM- ” Was that Town business, accusing the dais of being Nazi members?”

TA- ” That’s what I’m saying, I think it’s approaching the line. In essence the way the law reads people can come to the dais and say that I’m a bad attorney and they can come up with every way they can think of with saying I’m doing a bad job as an attorney, but if they say I beat my dog that’s a personal, it has nothing to do…”

BC- this same example was used by previous Town Atty. Dan Abbott the last time the VM wanted to quiet his opponents….

VM- ” If they said you were a Nazi Storm Trooper would you be upset?”

TA- ” Of course and I understand what you’re saying…”

BC….The Vice Mayor went on…….

VM- ” When the Mayor sits there and let that happen and said nothing I was upset. But she let it go on and on and on and that was a step that I lost it and complete decorum and any respect I had for the Mayor right there.”

Mayor Minnet- ” Oh I’m so happy. You are the last person that I want to have respect from.”

VM- ” Well, that’s fine Mayor, but this is a business to run.”

BC- in the end a vote was taken…All speakers must now say their full addresses when at the podium separating out the resident from the non resident……

It remains to be seen if the “Gang of 3” will attempt to apply “cease and desist” to the next speaker who comes to the “edge of freedom of speech”…

No doubt  ….. it is only a matter of time….UNTIL MARCH 2010!…

more to come….

Post Division

Here’s The Scoop #2…Commission Round Table ….2/3/09…Freedom Of Speech…

February 4, 2009 by Barbara

WHEN LISTENING TO THE “2 HATS” TALK …”FREEDOM OF SPEECH”….

http://s.wsj.net/media/juggle_homealone_art_200v_20080624093136.jpg

Nothing can describe better the absolute  “talking out of both sides of their mouths”..that the Vice Mayor and his BFF Comm. Silverstone displayed when once again talking about freedom of speech…( previous post…scoops LBTS agenda/meetings categories…..1/28/09 Comm. comments…Silverstone)….whether discussing it at the podium or in the press/blogging online…

In their  own words…from the round table…

The Mayor spoke about doing some research online about freedom of speech…that we cannot restrain the public …no matter if they are angry, critical or adverse…that there are documented court cases….

Comm. Silverstone-” As I said at my last Commissioner comments (see previous post) a democracy does not work without freedom of speech pure and simple. It’s a two way road. The purpose of having these meetings is primarily to conduct the Town’s business. The freedom of speech could be exercised anytime at all. If somebody has a complaint about something they could always call me or e-mail me. A good example of that was the tennis courts vote issue, freedom of speech was taken and I made, I responded to everything I got and AH it worked out really well. That’s how it’s supposed to work.

BC- HUH?…responding to a petition…or a coordinated effort to maintain 2 tennis courts as a “private club”…is freedom of speech and “That’s how it’s supposed to work.”…there is nothing to say to this type of assertion…except HUH?…

CS- “Now if somebody’s gonna abuse the freedom of speech then go out there and attack somebody because you have personal issues that’s not UM going forward with what we’re suppose to be doing here as far as running the town or running the business of the Town, and it’s a two way street like I said if somebody’s gonna attack me then I have freedom of speech to respond to that , could go back and forth forever. And I think that gets out of place. So we do have to have some guidelines to to to keep to to to keep that so we can get the Town business done. And I think that’s important to do that. But, freedom of speech there’s no question about it.”

Comm. Clottey spoke to say that people have the right to say what they want….going on to add that the Vice Mayor should have allowed Louis Marchellos and Bob Fleishman speak at a recent meeting where he shut them down…at public comments…

Vice Mayor-” I think you have the right to respond to that right after they’re done. That’s where you have to draw the line. If somebody’s gonna attack then I think whoever’s attacked has the right to respond.”

BC-pay attention to this next statement…because this writer was denied at a meeting last month along with others…HMMM…..

VM-” We attack somebody in the audience they should have the right to come up and talk. Same difference.”

The Mayor did not agree…

VM-” Where is my freedom of speech, rights or hers or yours if somebody is gonna attack them the Commissioner they’re attacking should have the right to respond right after the three minutes and say okay he made an attack and here’s my response. If we attack somebody in the audience that person should have the right to come up and say that’s a bad attack you shouldn’t be doing that. I have no problem with that, that’s fair.”

Comm. Dodd said the person in the audience should be able to respond immediately without delay…

VM-” After that Commissioner is done with his comment and I think the same right should be with our Commissioners if somebody comes up to public comments and talks to you and says you’re a “slimy limey” (interesting choice to use for an example…aimed at Dodd)…okay, you should have the right to get up and say, but, personal attacks can take a lot of different languages and if the Commissioner feels he’s being personally attacked he has the right to defend himself that’s just the same thing as the citizens.”

The Mayor disagreed along with Comm. Clottey and Dodd…

VM-” How do you make that decision? But if the Commissioner feels he’s been personally attacked he should have the right to respond. You’ve got to stop personal attacks at the podium or expect a response.”

The Mayor brought up the previous Commission and what they endured in attacks…remaining quiet…

VM-” They responded….Yanni responded a few times.”

The Mayor , Comm. Dodd and Clottey disagreed…adding  responses came at Commissioner comments…

BC- Being the recipient of some of the Yanni responses, it was at Comm. comments…and it was the then-Comm. McIntee that tried to tell him he should not be doing that…along with the numerous times he sought to silence remarks form the former Mayor…pesky history…..and videos…OOPS!…

VM- ” I think the Commissioner who is being attacked should have the right if he feels it’s an , over the line attack to respond. I just think it’s the same thing as a citizen or you’re denying him his rights.”

The Mayor again spoke of freedom of speech…

VM- ” On both sides.”(and the responding to Comm. Clottey on using Commissioner comments to respond)……”But that’s not immediate, not immediate.”

Comm. Clottey wanted to know”what is a public attack …because you mention somebody by name or may reference an incident and everybody knows who’s involved, we need clarification”

The Mayor said she couldn’t make that decision, it was subjective…

VM-” Let’s take Fleishman’s example, Fleishman went from McIntee to McIntee’sa bully, that’s a personal attack.”

Comm. Clottey felt he had a right to say that…

VM- ” I think I have a right to respond. He has the right to say it but I have should have the right to respond.”

The Mayor spoke of the courts and getting the Town Attorney’s opinion…

Comm. Clottey -” If Mr Fleishman has said you’re a thief and you’re a jailbird that’s one thing because that can be some type of fact, but if you say somebody’s a bully or ignorant that’s his opinion and he has the right to express his opinion.”

CS- ” Still dealing with the Town’s business though.”

VM-” Town meetings are Town business. Where does that fall under the Town business?”

Comm. Dodd spoke of being respectful…able to disagree and the right to express that…

VM-” Didn’t give them the right for personal attacks , that’s pretty clear, we decided from day one no personal attacks, no need for personal attacks.”

CS-” Put it on the agenda , take a vote, then move forward. I’ll go whatever way the vote goes.”

VM-” Personal attacks are not, there’s no place in Town business for it in the Town meetings. Do we agree on that?”

CS-” Theoretically, I do.”

The Mayor again spoke of interpretation of what constitutes a personal attack…

VM-” That’s what we have to make a decision on this, we call for a point of order.”

The Mayor and others agreed that a vote would be taken to decide.

VM-” That’s fine, that’s fair.”

Comm. Dodd said to ask the Town Attorney, Comm. Clottey and the Mayor agreed….

VM-” I don’t think we should put him on the spot.”

BC- WHAT?…don’t put the Town Attorney on the spot?…Come on…that’s what he’s there for…of course the VM could be thinking if it’s left to a vote of the dais…his chances are better to be able to respond!….

VM- seeing that it was indeed going to the attorney…” Maybe we should direct the Town Attorney to give a presentation before public comments, this is considered a personal attack, act accordingly.”

BC- 2 things…see if VM called the Town Attorney on this before Mr Abbott speaks on the dais…and make sure Mr Abbott informs the dais the same rules apply to them!…

Freedom of Information was discussed later in the meeting after Comm. Clottey spoke of public records…what the speaker from the Friday Jan. 30th FLOCities seminar on conflict informed her and Peanuts Wick about contractors to the town and what constitutes public/private information…

BC- Boy… the VM ears perked up on this one….thinking her words gave the VFD a”pass” in public records request”…that is until she and the others decided to give this to the Town Attorney to give an opinion on…

Commissioner Silverstone….in all his glory …said the following…Chavez would be proud….

” Let’s talk about the real issue here,  the real issues not the transfer of information. It goes back to freedom of information, transparency, it’s what is done with that information after the person gets it AH unfortunately some people have gotten information and they spin it a different way for, I believe the Volunteer Fire Department works specifically with the Town so everything should be open. I don’t have problems with that at all, but I do have a problem when the information put out to the public and that’s a dangerous thing because once the public reads something they’re gonna remember the last thing they read. They haven’t heard the other side of the story. Whatever they’re gonna be left with a certain impression. I think you said it best it’s a reflected up there and that’s unfortunate. But we have a case in Town where somebody’s using a private blog as a public blog and then you can always change what you consider freedom of the press and freedom of speech but then when your caught up in it you say it’s just my opinion, but you’re putting it out there like a fact and then when you’re using data from that you got from the Volunteer Fire Department , whatever entity you use and you use that maliciously that’s a problem and I think that’s wrong. But again, with freedom of speech you can’t really control that and that’s unfortunate because it’s public, it becomes public knowledge and public information and that’s where it gets dangerous and that’s all I have.”

BC- Where to begin.. Comm.Silverstone  is for freedom of speech…but finds it unfortunate..and dangerous when it becomes public knowledge?…He speaks of a private blog that becomes public…HUH?…This writer on this blog gives the source of all that is not opinion…and the readers may link to, request a copy from this writer…or put in their own request to the VFD/other entity themselves to verify…

Controlling freedom of speech…so that it is not dangerous…Commissioner…is like HMMM..a dictatorship!…

Perhaps what is  really unfortunate…really dangerous…and really gets  to you and your BFF the VM …is the information really is out there …and you might be really be held accountable…RIGHT?…

It get’s uncomfortable being under the spot light after flying under the radar for so long…we all get that!…But, get used to it, it’s not going away….

Comm. Clottey had the last word…on this…”There is more than one blog out there, there are three that I know of. So when somebody says it’s on the blog which of the three are you talking about. There’s probably a lot more.”

BC- Right on Comm. Clottey …for the “2-Hats” are fully involved and participating “anonymously” in the other two!…

ONLINE…..FREEDOM OF SPEECH…..

‘Unfortunately, many situations arise in which citizens are silenced because of the content of their speech or because they have disagreed previously with a government official. This raises the specter of censorship. Government officials may not silence speech because it criticizes them. They may not open a “public comment” period up to other topics and then carefully pick and choose which topics they want to hear. They may not even silence someone because they consider him a gadfly or a troublemaker.’

……………………………………………………………………………………………………..

‘Courts have also been wary of laws, rules or regulations that prohibit criticism or personal attacks against government officials.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………….

‘Conclusion
When a government decides to offer a “public comment” period at an open meeting, it provides that citizens may exercise their First Amendment rights. Government officials can limit comments to the relevant subject matter, control disruptive or overly repetitive speakers and impose reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on speech. However, when government officials create a public-comment forum, they have created a limited public forum in which greater free-speech protections apply. The government may not silence speakers on the basis of their viewpoint or the content of their speech. The government must treat similarly situated speakers similarly. In essence, the government must live up to the values embodied in the First Amendment.’

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/personal/topic.aspx?topic=speaking_meetings

BC-Forget a recall…we need a coup!…(definition…A quick, brilliant, and highly successful act; a triumph; A coup d’état; By extension, a takeover of one group by another)tongue in cheek readers…think of candidates…for 2010…

more to come….

Post Division