Change... Not the kind that jingles...

I wanted to let this one simmer for a few days and take in the comments to see where this headed. As usual, most of the spouting off without thinking occurred on the Times site (and Keith’s blog, even though it is assumed at this point).

The best justification of the changes seems to be from Alderman Frink’s blog. I think the Times wrote a pretty fair article here, and they point out all angles of the issue. But is this really news? Changing the schedule of meetings seems like a relatively mundane act. The article does flag one issue for me anyway, that Hamerlinck and Ambrose are probably going to be the aldermen this round that don’t think before they speak. Can someone explain to me why the public should set the dates and times of the city council meetings? I think the 8th Ward Alderman Mike Matson is right, the previous scheduling was confusing.

Every Wednesday there are meetings, one day a week. This schedule to me makes sense, and the comment about the fact that there is more time between the committee meetings and the council meetings, might actually help aldermen that don’t do their homework. Meyer was a good example of this, constantly asking questions that could have been answered before the meetings, and Hamerlinck is right behind him evidenced by falsely claiming that the council knew little to nothing about the Promise. Since Hamerlinck and Ambrose don’t seem to have much time to do any homework, one would think that they would be happy to have more time to get things done.

Now on to the bulls**t about eliminating the public’s voice. For the illiterate people that cannot read an entire article, it only says that it’s being moved to the end of the meeting. This is certainly smarter than anything concerning the schedule. For anyone that has had to sit through a rant by Suzie Bell, it makes going to a meeting for an actual purpose actually tolerable. The council can actually tend to business, get comments on actual action items, then move on to the open mic night. As far as televising it or not, I see Gluba’s point, that removing it from the TV may slow some open mic night people who may just want to see themselves talk, however, if the Times quotes a citizen during that or the comments actually contain something that is valid and reasonable, I would want to be able to watch it and listen to what was said.
Keith has managed to rear his schizophrenic head and post a comment on his blog: Move "to a recess" is a fancy expression for eliminate. Dictatorships always move to restrict public input rather than deal with its own incompetence.” Since Gluba has managed to appoint people to the committees, I’m not sure where the delusion of eliminate comes from, and since public input is not being eliminated, just moved, I’m again not sure how there is a move to restrict it. Keith again is reading between the lines, or reading hallucinations, along with a bunch of other complainers that apparently have nothing better to do. In addition to that, what are these people going to do on Thursdays now? I heard rumor there may be a game of Blues Clues at Keith’s.