[Vision2020] Process

[J Ford]

Apparently there are some people out there who refuse to understand what the 
"process" or what the City Council meeting was all about.

In particular, as noted by Mr. Huskey, the BOA and the recent City meeting 
issues were between Mr. Curly and the City representative, Joel Plaskon.  
The NSA folks were in the audience but were NOT the main topic of discussion 
- Mr. Plaskon's error in judgment was.  The BOA had the responsibility to 
discuss and decide whether or not Mr. Plaskon made the correct/incorrect 
decision regarding NSA; look at their agenda for that meeting and you will 
see it listed as an appeal by Mr. Curly against the decision by Mr. Plaskon. 
  BOA reviewed the issue and determined that Mr. Plaskon had made an 
incorrect decision.  It was then appealed to the City Council by NSA and 
THEY HAD OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THEIR CASE regarding the DECISION of BOA.

The City had the responsibility to decide if that BOA decision was correct, 
not if NSA were to be removed.  There is a fine line of difference, but 
none-the-less, visible. The Council members, in a vote of 4 - 2, decided the 
DECISION of BOA was the correct one and that Joel Plaskon's decision was 
incorrect.  THAT was what was on the minds of the Council members and THAT 
is what was discussed.

NSA was given an opportunity to discuss their reason(s) for believing Mr. 
Plaskon's decision should stand; they spent that time whining and 
complaining about Mr. Curly and his clients and did not present anything to 
do with what the records of the BOA hearings contained.  The audience was 
shown how the process DOES work.  In fact, the Council members spent a bit 
of time conferring with Mr. Fife regarding the legality of this or that.

As far as the allegation that "it is a violation of due process to limit the 
defense to 15 minutes" is concerned - IF you truly felt that way, you/NSA do 
have recourse; go to a City Council meeting and make a pitch to have the 
ordinance changed!  This system of running meetings,( which, BTW, is 
employed by many, many other councils, boards, organizations, etc, world 
wide,) is perfectly within reason.  It is a way to be able to control not 
the flow of information but rather the taking over of a meeting by one party 
or the other.  IF a person refuses to use their time prudently that is THEIR 
problem, not the problem of the council, board, etc.

I think that this continued fussing over if the process was followed or not 
is moot and is being presented by the wrong person.  Where is Greg Dickison? 
  Where is Doug Wilson?  Where is Roy Atwood?  Why are they depending on a 
"disinterested", non-member to complain for them, especially considering his 
apparent lack of understanding of the process and the parties who truly are 
involved?

J  ;)

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now! 
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/