by: Diane Benjamin
Last Monday the Bloomington City Council held another executive session. An Addendum to the stated purpose of the meeting, evaluating David Hales, appeared on the City website:
The code session listed is the section of the Open Meetings Act Law that permits them to discuss the item in a closed session:
(11) Litigation, when an action against, affecting or |
||
|
So, the only thing the public is allowed to know is that litigation either has been filed, is pending, probable or imminent.
Transparency obviously isn’t important here. Aren’t citizens allowed to know if the City is being sued or if the City filed a suit? Do they really think this information is going to be a secret for long? Do they really think the people paying the bills aren’t allowed to know? Has any local press reported this? So much for the government watchdogs!
What say you Mayor Transparency? Evidently the rubber stamp 7 are making it very easy for the City to do whatever they want without regard to the best interests of the public.
.
.
.
Diane, I emailed Tari Renner ( not mentioning any names ) asking Tari If he done a survey on downtown hotels in the USA that went bankrupt, and about if State Farm pulls out of Bloomington ,what effect that might have an a downtown hotel ? It will be interesting on his reply Bill
This is the perfect reason why voters should examine agendas before they vote. Renner wants a hotel and nothing is going to stop him, especially when the Council does whatever they are told.
Not sure if city council knows exactly what “open ” meeting means or even what “freedom of information” means, foreign words like freedom and open need to be explained to the lawyers and city council members over and over again.
Working on it!
Diane, I recieved this from Fazzini, What a joke !! Bill
received what?