 |
 MontagueMA.net Turners Falls, Montague Center, Millers Falls, Montague City, Lake Pleasant and beyond! This is Montague, MA!
|
 |
Solarize Montague!
Gauges by MassCEC
Local & US Politics
Churches & Spiritual
Montague Common Hall
Churches & Spiritual
Showing 10 | Next 10 | Display 50, 100 at a time | View by Threads
- Wed, May 2, 2012, 11:16 P
Open Meeting Violation on Montaguema??
Jeff wrote:
"In the long term we need to establish a clear rule that the chair is required to entertain motions like this"
Fact is, clear rules already exist, and if you want to be taken seriously as a commentator on legal issues and the School Committee, you better take the time to learn what the rules already are. Just because you can't be bothered to learn them or choose to ignore them, doesn't mean they aren't there.
MJL
- Wed, May 2, 2012, 11:11 P
Open Meeting Violation on Montaguema??
try reading the law, Jeff.
MJL
- Wed, May 2, 2012, 6:51 P
Open Meeting Violation on Montaguema??
Taffy
Just what do you hope to accomplish.
- Wed, May 2, 2012, 5:38 P
Open Meeting Violation on Montaguema??
Yes, it is now my responsibility to appeal with the AG office in order to move things forward. If not, it becomes a moot point because of the SC's vote for no remedial action.
- Mon, Apr 30, 2012, 12:38 P
Open Meeting Violation on Montaguema??
A lot of organizations incorporate by reference Robert's Rules of Order to include all sorts of procedural rules just for cases like this. Check to see if Roberts is part of the bylaws and if so reference that book for proper course of action. Roberts is usually superceded by the local bylaws in cases the bylaws mention procedures otherwise Roberts is the standard.
Hope this helps someone.
- Mon, Apr 30, 2012, 12:00 P
Open Meeting Violation on Montaguema??
So the school committee decided to kick the ball upstairs. That is, send the Open Meeting Law complaint on to the Attorney General's office. I spoke to the AG's office and it is a bit unclear to me whether it is Taffy's responsibility to appeal the school committee's (non) decision. Maybe Taffy knows more about that.
There was also a blow-up re whether the chair - who was the one of the targets of the complaint - should continue to chair the meeting. The blow up of course was on television and in the newspapers. It of course encourages those who argue vaguely that "there are a lot of problems over there." I basically agree but exactly are we supposed to do when the feeling on the committee is that the chair should yield but the chair will not entertain a motion or allow discussion to that effect??
I did not get involved because i was also a target of the complaint but exactly what are committee members supposed to do in that situation? In the long term we need to establish a clear rule that the chair is required to entertain motions like this and is the servant of the committee. Yet I am not a great believer in a bunch of rules and regulations for the committee. They should not be necessary (what other committee needs them??) and lead to a party line mentality.
- Thu, Apr 26, 2012, 7:44 A
Open Meeting Violation on Montaguema??
I am in total agreement Jeff. I hope the AG does get involved. The complaint epitomizes ego centric interpretation of a simple and clear statute.
As an outside observer to the school committe's wranglings...ego does seem to be heavily weighted in their discussions.
Just my opinion
- Mon, Apr 23, 2012, 10:36 P
Open Meeting Violation on Montaguema??
I agree with Paul that we the voters deserve the oppurtunity to hear how elected members are thinking and how they base their descions. As long as privledged information is not posted it should be okay. I did not see any discusions between members about items that had not already been voted on.
I also do not see the problem of allowing citizens to voice their opinions of the elected person's opinions so the elected person can know how some of the voting public thinks.
A law suit is a waste of my the tax payers money when there is no injury has befallen anybody by the action. Proper step would to ask the committee for censure of alleged member violations. Going directly to lawsuit is to extreme. How could the outcome of a lawsuit benefit the people of Montague? The court is to redress wrongs when other channels have been exhausted not the first.
- Mon, Apr 23, 2012, 10:28 P
Open Meeting Violation on Montaguema??
Not only that, Jeff, but how the hell are we, the voters, supposed to decide how to vote in the upcoming elections if members who are running for office are not allowed to discuss what happens at meetings? Is it because the size of the School Committee is so small that any discussion involving more than one member is considered an unposted meeting? If that's the case, then lets expand the Committee to a dozen members or more so free speech rights are restored to its members. It boggles my mind that Taffy (sorry, don't know her last name) can find anything wrong with you or Mike L or anyone else on the Committee discussing his or her views in a public forum. Ridiculous. Such a colossal waste of everyone's time.
- Mon, Apr 23, 2012, 8:35 A
Open Meeting Violation on Montaguema??
Just to let everyone know, Taffy has filed a complaint with the school committee arguing that my posts on this corkboard - as well as those of MikeL - violate the open meeting law. The argument I assume is that posts or discussions by members of a committee re committee matters might be seen or discussed by a quorum of the committee, thus constituting "deliberation" which can only take place at an unposted meeting.
Personally I think this is ridiculous.. a total violation of my democratic rights. It means that a law designed to create transparency etc is being used to suppress public discussion. Will I be prohibited from writing opinions in the Montague Reporter next???
However part of me would like to see the committee and the AG office find us in violation. The open meeting law as currently interpreted is extremely undemocratic and needs to be reviewed in the courts in the context of the first amendment. The problem is not only internet posts but the suppression of opinions or information over email, an unworkable definition of "serial conversations" which makes it difficult to discuss policy issues outside of a posted meeting etc.
This is primarily not the result of the law itself, which does not deal with any of these issues explicitly. It is the result of the legal community attached to the law which IMHO has spun completely out of control. They have expanded the definition of "deliberation" to the point where the law prohibits normal democratic and professional behavior.. Neither the lawyers who enforce the law nor the legislators who wrote it nor the newspaper editors who lobby for these provisions have to abide by them.
They shouldn't and neither should we.
