You are a sensitive Sally. I'd hate to see how you'd react if I wasn't being sarcastic.Originally Posted by Manuel
Get rid of the town supervisor or some other dead weight in the town. I'd rather have more council board members representing me than less. They do cost the taxpayers less, while preserving representation.
The conservative wackos would rather have no power to the people. They are more like what this country fights against.
Make Wally part time, or vote him out if he does not like the American Way!
Private Citizen
That's the best idea I read all day!Get rid of the town supervisor or some other dead weight in the town. I'd rather have more council board members representing me than less. They do cost the taxpayers less, while preserving representation.
The conservative wackos would rather have no power to the people. They are more like what this country fights against.
Make Wally part time, or vote him out if he does not like the American Way!
Another thing that just came to me is that if reduced to 3 the Open Meetings Law would become applicable when any two members meet and discuss public business. I do not believe that the Open Meetings Law is being fully complied with as the board is currently constituted and we are supposed to trust them when there is fewer number of members? I think NOT!
“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson
Maybe it's just stretching the law but......what if TB has phone service which can conference call and talks with DC and VG at the same regarding town business, would it violate the open meeting law ?
A remark should only hurt within it's proportion of what is true.
This sounds familiar....Do you have a favorite political radio talk show host or newspaper columnist ?
Last edited by Spirit of Ebenezer; August 9th, 2008 at 07:48 PM.
A remark should only hurt within it's proportion of what is true.
Like the Receiver of Taxes ?
A remark should only hurt within it's proportion of what is true.
All five members of the WS Town Board are Democrats. They can meet together w/o "Open Meeting" compliance as a Party Caucus, an exemption to the law.
.... you're going to have to trust that your elected leaders will do the right thing, and if not then elect someone else. You waste time on hypotheticals, time better used to select and get elected those people who will serve the community, with intelligence and honesty. Yeah- that's what I said and don't argue the point- get out and find them!
I believe, as we have discussed before, that you read that exemption too broadly. "A literal reading of section 108, as urged by respondent, could effectively preclude the public from any participation whatsoever in a government which is entirely controlled by one political party. Every public meeting dealing with sensitive or controversial issues could be preceded by a "political caucus" which would have no public input, and the public meeting decisions on such issues would be a mere formality. Such interpretation would negate the Legislature's declaration in section 100. The Legislature could not have contemplated such a result by amending section 108 and at the same time preserving section 100. Therefore, it is necessary to determine if section 108 can be reasonably interpreted consistent with the declaration of section 100" Buffalo News, Div. of Berkshire Hathaway, Inc. v. Buffalo Common Council, 154 Misc. 2d 400, 403-404 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1992)
“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson
Based on just those facts I do not believe so. However, if there are certain other facts and context a plausible argument may be made.
“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson
Anyone know the status on the petitioning? If a vald petition is not filed by September 5th the question cannot appear on the ballot in the general election and a special election will have to be heald between 60 and 75 days after it is filed.
“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson
They will be done this week. They got 3x the required amount
Since I walked door to door this past few weeks, I can tell you voters
will pass this without a problem. I collected 100 signatures and was
only turned down by 4 people, who said that basically they don't sign anything.
Residents were happy to sign the petition.
In speaking with Kevin Gaughan, we have close to 4000 signatures.
So if Graber, Megan, Clarke and Bove read this post, save the time and money
in challenging the petitions, it will be on the November ballot.
I would not draw the conclusion that because people willingly signed the petition that they would vote for it. I was not asked to sign it, but if asked I would have signed it because I believe it should go to a vote. However, I will be voting against it and know others who signed the petition that will be voting against it as well.
“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote