When I look closely at Park Board process, I see problems: Parliamentary procedure: The discussion at the planning committee on August 3rd is an incoherent free for all of amendments and motions and statements. In the end a motion was passed, but because Chair Fine ran the meeting so poorly there is no record of what happened to the amendments. Problems with the law: There are legal obligations that regulate the conduct of the Board. You can't just make stuff up about a soft approach to following the law. There are requirements for Citizen review, notice, hearings and appeals. What are the chances that the public hearing on August 17 will meet all the legal requirements of the ordinance about what is required for a public hearing?
Problems with the lawyers: No matter what your position about the DeLaSalle proposal- the shared use agreement contract itself is an embarrassingly poor legal document. What kind of legal advice is the Park Board getting when there is no stipulation of actual shared use, no indemnification for mechanics liens and no reference to consistency with Park ordinances, like prevailing wage agreements? And the biggest question-does signing this shared use agreement constitute an obligation that is irreversible meaning that citizen review has no bearing on this process? Thanks, Scott Vreeland Seward Did notice of a public meeting get mailed to a three block surrounding area? REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
