By: Diane Benjamin
If you FAILED to watch Public Comment in Part 1, go there now: https://blnnews.com/2019/10/08/the-normal-circus-last-night-part-1/
Stan Nord pulled both the minutes and expenditures from the Omnibus Agenda. Stan’s first problem with the minutes is that they do not reflect Koos allowed a speaker to talk about an item not on the agenda. Koos later cut off Marc Tiritilli for the same “violation” of Town policy.
Koos asked for a motion to amend the minutes not realizing Stan already made that motion. He was corrected, then Karyn seconded the motion. During discussion Karyn mentioned at the last meeting they discussed the same and the Council voted down having minutes that actually reflect what happened during the meeting. She claimed she spoke to the Attorney General and was told the minutes should reflect what took place at the meeting. 2:26:40 – Koos states it was discussed at the last meeting. He expected people to watch the video instead of reading the minutes.
Question Mayor: How do people know their was a conflict if the only information is generic minutes? Why would they watch the video if the minutes do not reflect what really happened?
Kevin McCarthy claimed the minutes shouldn’t editorialize. How is stating facts an editorial Kevin? Koos did allow a comment for an item not on the agenda and then stopped another comment about an item not on the agenda! That is FACT, not an editorial.
Stan stated the minutes as written re-write history. He further explained that if citizens choose to speak to the Council he will fight for their right to have their comments accurately reflected for the record. See 2:30:00. His comment went over Koos’ head.
Kathleen Lorenz defended the City Clerk. Of course her comments were a slap at Stan and Karyn. I wonder if that comment will make the minutes?
Of course the Council voted 5-2 against Stan’s correction.
More re-writing history:
Karyn had a problem with this paragraph in the minutes:
Stan did not request “removal”, he mentions the Working Group was discussing it. Correction of the spelling of “oversight” was approved, the Council voted 5-2 to allow the Clerk’s “re-write of history”. There will be more on this in Part 3.
Stan pulled the expenditures to discuss the Town’s purchasing policy. Koos attempted to shut him down at 2:35:00. Stan’s questioning has been a topic for months – the purchasing of Town street signs. I have old emails where he has questioned these purchases before. He did state he talked to a local vendor who could provide the exact same signs for 39% less. Since the Town has failed to research alternatives, Stan did.
Kathleen Lorenz (2:41:00) stated she would not be comfortable buying from this local vendor since Stan had talked to them. She accused Stan of unethical behavior and compromising the entire Council. What local businesses are you associated with Kathleen? Any of them local Rotary members? Maybe buying local should be totally banned since somebody on the Council has likely talked business with most of them! Why is the Town using the services of Nathan Hinch at Mueller, Reece & Hinch, LLC? Isn’t Pam husband the REECE? Is that unethical too Kathleen?
Stan wouldn’t have to do the staff’s work if they did it! Reece claims they are following procurement policy. (2:40:00) If identical signs can be bought locally for much less, why isn’t the Town doing it?
Stan also asked about the $4,000 piece of artwork. He asked if the purchase policy was complied with. Reece claimed she didn’t know but it probably was.
A FOIA will be filed.
Part 3 next: Connect Transit!