By: Diane Benjamin
Diana Hauman first got a seat on the Council by being hand-picked by Tari Renner to fill a vacancy. She was then elected in 2015.
Every once in a while I’m surprised by Diana, like her objections to Geoffrey Tompkins’s appointment last Monday. At other times, I just want to say: REALLY?
April 12, 2016 Liquor Commission meeting: http://www.cityblm.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=10454
This is the meeting where raising Liquor License Fees and Video Gaming Fees were recommended.
Hauman attended this Liquor commission meeting. She is NOT a member of the commission. She did not speak during public comment. She does have the Mayor’s cell phone number – and she texted him during the meeting:
Maybe I should post Tari’s cell phone number so everybody can text him during meetings!
Every citizen who attended that meeting didn’t have the opportunity to influence the mayor after public comment, but Hauman thought she was entitled to.
Several people saw her playing on her phone and then motion to Renner to check his phone. That’s how we knew a text had been sent.
How often does this go on? Are Council members texting or messaging each other during meetings?
Do they think we don’t see them playing with devices?
Do laws, rules, and common sense only apply to citizens?
Maybe Renner/Hauman need a review of the Open Meetings Act:
(5 ILCS 120/1) (from Ch. 102, par. 41)
Sec. 1. Policy. It is the public policy of this State that public bodies exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business and that the people have a right to be informed as to the conduct of their business. In order that the people shall be informed, the General Assembly finds and declares that it is the intent of this Act to ensure that the actions of public bodies be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.
That means conspiring by text violates the act.
If you don’t want to be the topic of a story here, just follow the law.
Seems to be a pattern developing between these two!
.
.
.
For anyone interested in what the City Code is regarding Public Comment:
Chapter 2 : Section 85 : Public Comment.
http://www.cityblm.org/index.aspx?page=262
The audience is not to engage in discussion with the speaker but somehow Renner and Hauman act as if it is alright for an audience member to exchange private email comments outside of the public comment portion but during an ongoing meeting. The commenter is to act in a respectable manner but the Mayor acts as if he does not have to offer the same consideration. There is to be no discussion or reply from the Council members. The Mayor acts as if he is exempt. It is intolerable that the Mayor responds to a commenter without the opportunity for a rebuttal from the commenter.
As for the Mayoral Open House, answers to questions and resolutions of problems do not occur as a result of attending and voicing concerns. The Open House is an exercise in pontification by the Mayor.
Yeah let’s have Tari’s cell number, lol.