Dear Editor:
(The following is a letter to Council President Ravi Bhalla and Mayor Dawn Zimmer)
The Board of Directors of People for Open Government (POG) invited you, and any council colleagues you chose, to meet with us in a public forum to discuss problems with the way the City Council conducts its business. In reply, you have said that, instead of such a meeting, POG should send you a list of remedies to the problems we have identified. POG expects the City Council and city administration to be willing to meet with citizen groups on public issues. Such meetings would foster the accountable and transparent government to which POG is dedicated. Inasmuch as you are unwilling or unavailable to meet with us, this letter will inform you of our thinking.
POG’s main concern is with the difficulty for the public of obtaining information about Council agenda items in a timely way.
1. The practice of allowing late items to be added to the agenda means that often the public, as well as council members themselves, can not read the material in time to prepare a careful response.
2. The absence of complete supporting documentation for agenda items on the city website has the same effect as the above; the lack of information about resolutions and ordinances that are to be acted upon at the meeting effectively denies the public the opportunity for informed commentary.
3. Judging from comments by council members at council meetings, the council committees do not meet in a regular way. Again, the result is a lack of information.
4. Resolutions to be acted on that night will be brought to the council meeting and handed around to members, rather than passed through the agenda and/or committee process. These appear at the last minute without affording either council or public a chance for informed comment.
As for POG’s remedy, we ask that, at a minimum, the council follow its own rules as set forth in the Resolution Adopting New Rules of Procedures for the City Council of the City of Hoboken, adopted by the City Council Feb. 18, 2009.
Article IV provides that all reports, communications, resolutions, ordinances, contract documents, or other matters to be submitted to the council, shall be delivered to the City Clerk by 4 p.m. on the Thursday preceding each regular Wednesday council meeting. Further, the City Clerk shall make the agenda available to the public as well as council members and city officials no later than 4 p.m. on the Friday prior to the Wednesday meeting. Exceptions shall be items of an urgent nature, and…shall have the written approval of the mayor before presentation to the council. The council should adhere to these procedures and deadlines in order for the public to be properly informed in a timely way about council business.
We use the expression “at a minimum” above because we think there were other steps the council could take in addressing these issues. You have said that the council recognizes that there are difficulties with its present operations and that it is considering changes to its procedures. We look forward to learning about your proposals.
Regards,
Alice Crozier,
President, for the POG Board
Ann Crozier has repeatedly been viewed as compromised and POG is no longer can be viewd as apolitical.
That undermines the very foundation of POG.
The letter was intended simply to be a letter, and should not have been published as a "gotcha" attack. I thought the intention was only to have it sent to the proper people involved, and several of us were under the impression that is what the POG Board had agreed upon. There clearly are other motivations at work by Alice here.
I strongly feel that it's disrespectful and counter-productive to conduct business in this manner, and I will not be a part of a group that stoops to such tactics.
A once highly respected organization has become seen as little more than another front organization for the Masons by many in Hoboken.
1. We have a mechanism for members of the public like the individuals who comprise POG to meet with Council members in a public forum to discuss public issues. The mechanism is called a City Council meeting. Why does POG feel that it is entitled to some kind of customized venue for the airing of the grievances of the individuals who comprise its board.
2. Please provide a list of the late items that have been added to the agenda over the past 3 years that have given rise to your concern. Specifically, clarify whether your concern relates to late items proposed by Council members, by the administration or both. Please ensure to include in your example instances of abuses by both the administration and by council members, unless you feel that that the issue relates to only one or the other body.
3. In the interest of transparency, please provide the following information about yourself and your organization:
a) The size of POG's current paid ($25 per) membership.
b) The names of the Board members, together with a list of political contributions made by each board member since 2007 and the campaigns for which each Board member has volunteered during that time. It has been reported that Ms. Crozier was one of a very small group of 5 or so committed volunteers assisting the Mason 2009 Mayoral campaign on a daily basis. Please confirm whether this is accurate.
4. You say "we use the expression “at a minimum” above because we think there were other steps the council could take in addressing these issues."
This gives rise to two questions.
First - what "step" are you actually suggesting in your letter? I have read your letter several times and haven't found any actual "step" suggested. There is only an unsubstantiated claim that existing Council rules aren't being followed sufficiently to your liking without so much as a single "for instance." You do not even suggest a "step" of any kind other than an exhortation to "follow the rules" which you appear to believe are perfectly adequate as written since you suggest no changes.
Second - are the "additional steps" a secret like Nixon's secret plan to end the Vietnam War? Please provide the details of those "additional steps" so that both the public and the City Council can evaluate them as part of the public process you support.
This would achieve the following:
-Better, more thoughtful and researched replies.
-Shorter, less contentious meetings.
-Higher overall public confidence in our processes.
-Much better use of the directors' time since they are on the taxpayer's dime.
Does POG have any interest in that?