[Vision2020] CORRECTION: RE: Moscow City Council's Megaload Discussion

[Saundra Lund]

In my initial post yesterday (see a snip below), I referred to Steed's
motion & to what was subsequently approved by the Council as a Resolution.
While I still believe that's a correct characterization of the *initial*
wording by Steed, it was brought to my grateful attention by an offlist
correspondent that it wasn't *passed* as a Resolution.

There was 30-45 second amendment made by Steed to his motion almost 3 hours
into the meeting (for those interested, you can find it starting at about
2:51:34 on the video available from the City's Web site) than changed
Steed's, "Be it resolved that the Moscow City Council" language to something
like, "As of this date, it is the position of the Moscow City Council . . .
"

I'm not sure how I missed those few seconds, but given the time in the
meeting it happened, assign responsibility to my kitties, who become pretty
distractingly attention-seeking around the time of their last meal of the
day  :-)  [As a completely unrelated aside, for those interested in birds,
there was an absolutely wonderful presentation at the opening of the meeting
about Moscow's vaux swift population & migration well worth watching!]

In the interests of accuracy, I wanted to get this correction out to avoid
any confusion my post may have caused.

Personally, I'm not convinced that a rose -- or manure, for that matter --
by any other name doesn't still smell the same, but the amendment *does*
change Steed's Resolution from a Resolution to something else.



Saundra Lund
Moscow, ID

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do
nothing.
~ Edmund Burke



-----Original Message-----
From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
On Behalf Of Saundra Lund
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 9:01 AM
To: 'Sue Hovey'; 'Moscow Vision 2020'
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Moscow City Council's Megaload Discussion

Sue, I think another point or two or three are perhaps still worthy of
discussion.

For instance, why did we have two (highly paid) City administrative staff --
both attorneys, BTW -- advising Council members & our Mayor drastically
different on procedure?  Did either of those attorney-administrators
consider Idaho's Open Meeting Law, which trumps Robert's Rules, or was it
only Robert's Rules that was cared about?

Additionally, since according to City Supervisor Gary Riedner it's the
policy of the Council that Resolutions are included in the Council packet,
why wasn't Steed's?  IOW, what was the emergency nature Steed's Resolution
such that it didn't see the public light of day and wasn't included in the
packet prior to being sprung at the meeting . . . and why did other Council
members support such a drastic deviation?

<snip>