Steve Cross wrote:
> It is the pet theory of the author that when the government contracts
> with any organization, then that organization becomes government and
> is subject to all the laws regulating government. The reader might
> want to hear the argument of someone other than a non-lawyer about why
> there is any basis other than wishful thinking for that conclusion.
>
> Steve Cross
> Prospect Park
>
>
This is the crux of the issue, because the NRP contracted organizations
are more than just "contractors" with the government. Particular
governmental functions have been delegated to them, and they appear to
flex wide-ranging powers, including approval of zoning variances,
approval of purchases of MCDA land, distribution of public funds, etc.
At what point do they become political subdivisions, subject to the
minimal due process concerns, open meeting laws, data practices, that
traditionally accompany government action? I'm not sure if this question
has been answered in the past, but it does need to be determined today.
As an additional aside, I must provide a bit more context to an earlier
post in which I indicated that the Ventura Village chair appears not to
support membership in the organization for homeless individuals. To be
fair, at least two board members did not support such a restriction and
asked that the proposed bylaws be changed to figure out a way to assure
participation rights to the homeless. I did not intend by my post to
imply that EVERYONE in the VV organization opposes participation rights
for the homeless, just that particular leaders and those that drafted
the proposed bylaw changes do.
Gregory Luce
North Phillips
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
