The Commercial Appeal gives us a good idea of the flavor of the BMA meeting
Monday night when it discusses the mayor’s nomination to the IDB Board—Dave
Klevan. This harkens back to the good old days when this blog focused mostly on tracking Commercial Appeal articles.
In her comments in Citizens to be Heard, Sarah Freeman noted that that putting the vote into the consent agenda of a BMA meeting did not legally constitute a nomination. The City should have been well prepared for that, as I had noted that point in my first blog post about this issue. Had the administration been smart about this they could have discovered this well before the meeting. Instead, they were forced to take a five minute break in the middle of the meeting to consult with the City Attorney, who agreed with Ms. Freeman. The nomination was made Monday night, and the vote was put off until the next BMA meeting.
Here is a clip of Ms. Freeman speaking on the issue and the actions that ensued.
So far Ms. Freeman is batting 1000 as a watchdog in 2017. Prior to the previous BMA meeting she discovered the City had not communicated key parts of the proposed zoning ordinance changes to elected officials, and the agenda was changed at the last minute in the executive session prior to the meeting.
Other parts of the discussion had to do with the nomination itself, and the dates of the applications.
In the following clip, Alderman Barzizza extolls the many virtues of the candidate who actually got her application in by the deadline--Janet Geyer.
Dean Massey points out all the errors and inconsistencies in the process of making the nomination. There was public notice of all commission and board positions, and the public notice included the opening on the IDB. That public notice listed an application deadline of November 30. Was that a sham? Here is Clay Bailey’s take on this from Outside the Loop in the Commercial Appeal:
In her comments in Citizens to be Heard, Sarah Freeman noted that that putting the vote into the consent agenda of a BMA meeting did not legally constitute a nomination. The City should have been well prepared for that, as I had noted that point in my first blog post about this issue. Had the administration been smart about this they could have discovered this well before the meeting. Instead, they were forced to take a five minute break in the middle of the meeting to consult with the City Attorney, who agreed with Ms. Freeman. The nomination was made Monday night, and the vote was put off until the next BMA meeting.
Here is a clip of Ms. Freeman speaking on the issue and the actions that ensued.
So far Ms. Freeman is batting 1000 as a watchdog in 2017. Prior to the previous BMA meeting she discovered the City had not communicated key parts of the proposed zoning ordinance changes to elected officials, and the agenda was changed at the last minute in the executive session prior to the meeting.
Other parts of the discussion had to do with the nomination itself, and the dates of the applications.
In the following clip, Alderman Barzizza extolls the many virtues of the candidate who actually got her application in by the deadline--Janet Geyer.
Dean Massey points out all the errors and inconsistencies in the process of making the nomination. There was public notice of all commission and board positions, and the public notice included the opening on the IDB. That public notice listed an application deadline of November 30. Was that a sham? Here is Clay Bailey’s take on this from Outside the Loop in the Commercial Appeal:
Here are clips from the meeting:
Dean Massey makes a convincing case that the opening on the IDB Board was held specifically for Mr. Klevan. Mr. Klevan could not have legally been able to serve in this position as a sitting alderman.
Here is an abbreviated timeline.
I find the December 12 entry particularly interesting.
Mayor Palazzolo gets in his two cents worth about Mr. Klevan as he makes his formal nomination. He makes no attempt to compare his credentials those of Ms. Geyer. Since this is the position vacated by Greg Marcom, I am wondering if this position isn't the consolation prize for a favored alderman candidate who loses an election. He also explains that applications deadlines are squishy.....or something.
Dean Massey makes a convincing case that the opening on the IDB Board was held specifically for Mr. Klevan. Mr. Klevan could not have legally been able to serve in this position as a sitting alderman.
Here is an abbreviated timeline.
Mayor Palazzolo gets in his two cents worth about Mr. Klevan as he makes his formal nomination. He makes no attempt to compare his credentials those of Ms. Geyer. Since this is the position vacated by Greg Marcom, I am wondering if this position isn't the consolation prize for a favored alderman candidate who loses an election. He also explains that applications deadlines are squishy.....or something.
No comments:
Post a Comment