UPDATE II (updated): Towards the end of the CRC meeting, chair Hajek mentions they will be discussing emergency appropriations and supplemental appropriations at the next meeting(?), and I am not sure if anyone is bringing a proposal. After I rewatched the meeting it was hard to understand if someone was actually bringing a proposal to the next meeting or not but sounded like there will be a discussion. Sorry about the confusion earlier in the post, THERE IS NOTHING IN WRITING RIGHT NOW, but we will watch for the next agenda. (FF 40:00)
I had a good laugh listening to the CRC meeting today. Mike Zitterich asked a great question about the city attorney and issuing opinions. Lead attorney David P. answered first and basically said the AG has more power. Former AG, Larry Long and CRC member answered next and basically said the AG’s opinion can be thrown out or ignored by the courts.
When former city clerk Owen filed an open meetings violation against the city after she was terminated, David used the defense of an AG’s opinion and the lawyers on the open meetings commission told David then that the opinion is NOT case law and cannot be used as a defense. In fact, I was at the hearing, and they told him TWICE that his defense was flimsy, and he lost.
He learned nothing.
UPDATE: One thing that came to mind when they were having the discussion about litigation transparency, etc., it got me thinking about the Active Transportation Board and why it may have come about. If you look at how it got started there is NO mention of someone nicely asking them to form this board. I have a sneaky feeling the 4,000 ADA violations lawsuit may have something to do with it.
UPDATE III: The Parks board is meeting TWO times on September 20th with a 2 PM meeting with NO agenda or location (I’m sure it is some quasi-executive session about Lenin’s Tomb at the Zoo).