Website Home   or   Forum Home

Riverside Info » About Riverside

11. Elisa
    Member

    Candi ~
    Now that is a shame! What kind of a violation? Surely not a violation of the Open Meetings Act if you are the only one posting. (I wonder if that's why Corbi has been silent recently.) Does Mr. Krone (or whomever is instructing him to find an excuse) realize that you are actually doing a service to the Village by simply responding to our questions and making the residents feel like they are being heard? Wasn't that lack of transparency part of the problem many have with the Board on this issue in the first place?

    [Edit: I just read in another thread that the potential violation would be in the Open Meetings act. This is just a cop-out (in my opinion) if it is true that up to two Trustees can discuss here without it being a "meeting". Candi has been the only one, and to use that as an excuse just solidifies my contention from the beginning - there is a HUGE problem with trusting this board. Boy, what I wouldn't give to know what/who is really behind all of this.]

    Posted Wednesday Jan 17, 2007 17:49 #

12. CandiGrace
    Member

    Elisa - I'll answer your question :) One problem is that I'm posting and other trustees are reading. So, in some sense it's a discussion because of the exchange of ideas - albeit a lopsided one as I'm doing all the talking. But that's probably ok.

    Another problem is that not all residents know about the forum or have access so although this seems pretty public, in reality it's not. So a small group gets the benefit of my discussion which the other trustees are reading. I know that we have many people who read this site but don't necessarily post, just as there are many people who view the board meetings on tv and never comment.

    But in my mind the real problem is transparency to all constituents. Although this web site is 'public' not everyone knows about it or has access to it. So it's not as public as it seems. And when Mike raised the specter of trustee email responses and comments being posted here, it just made it too risky for me to continue actively participating. Because although Mike now realizes that's a bad idea, someone else who hasn't read all the posts could think it's a good idea to post an email response they got from multiple trustees. And suddenly those of us reading are seeing a 'discussion' because we have the input of multiple trustees which may influence our thinking.

    However, as I said in my other posts, I'll be reading. And if I think there is something that needs clearing up, I'll ask Katy to post the factual content. No violation there :)

    Posted Wednesday Jan 17, 2007 18:19 #

13. MikeT
    Member

    Candi, we hardly knew ye! Seriously, thanks so much for being here and for your comments on this forum. Can Katy still come to the forum?

    Do you and the other village board members look at your emails? Is this another way to communicate with you and the rest of the board?

    wait a minute....you cannot answer...me!

    mike

    Posted Wednesday Jan 17, 2007 18:33 #

14. Elisa
    Member

    Candi ~ ok, ok...it was just so helpful to me! Good luck!

    Posted Wednesday Jan 17, 2007 18:43 #

15. corbi328
    Member

    Elisa,

    I am still here and I have been diligently reading and absorbing everyone's thoughts. I haven't been posting because I think I have said my peace. I hope everyone knows my position on the TIF and agrees that I have provided facts and data in addition to opinion to support my position. I am not sure there is much more I can add but rest assured I will post when I see an opportunity to provide a different point of view.

    It is unfortunate that Candi will no longer be able to post here but I think it is an example of how seriously the Village takes the Open Meeting Act requirements. There are other members of the EDC who would like to post here but can't because Mike Sedivy and I have taken the initiative. Just to give you an example of how silly it's getting, myself and two other members of the EDC happened to be taking the same train this morning and we were concerned about sitting together because of the fear that someone might accuse us of violating the law. Like I said, very silly but an indication of the type of litigious society we live in. Unfortunately I am not sure that Mr. Krone's concerns are so unfounded as there have been references or questions about what constitutes Open Meetings Act violations on this very board.

    Posted Wednesday Jan 17, 2007 19:09 #

16. Elisa
    Member

    Charlie -
    I hope you realize that I wasn't being sarcastic - I had truly noticed you had not piped up in some time and that seemed a reasonable explanation. I am, however, frustrated that you and Candi and MikeS and anyone else feels restricted. As I said before, I appreciate the fact that all sides are represented here and I like reading your input, and Candi's and Doug's and Mike's and so on and so on. I think that it is important that this forum represents a true discussion - one that examines all sides. I think that most of what I've read does that. I hope you continue to post when you see fit!

    Posted Wednesday Jan 17, 2007 20:03 #

17. corbi328
    Member

    I didn't sense any sarcasm on your part. I hope my post did not sound flippant. That is one major drawback of e-mails or forum postings, people have a hard time reading between the lines. In my opinion these are poor communication mediums as they often leads to misunderstandings, as evidenced by our exchange..

    Posted Wednesday Jan 17, 2007 20:13 #

18. Elisa
    Member

    I didn't mean to imply that you thought I was sarcastic - nor did I think your reply was flippant. It's just that my husband told me the other day that some of my responses sounded sarcastic when he knew I was being earnest. So every so often I just have to point it out in case there was/would be doubt!

    I think that after reading people's posts for a while that you can tweak out most nuances - so I have found value in this forum. And if there is the appearence of a misunderstanding, people have tended to clarify. So, I think this forum serves its purpose well.

    Posted Wednesday Jan 17, 2007 20:20 #

19. spatny
    Member

    A moral for Riverside:

    John the farmer was in the fertilized egg business. He had several
    hundred young layers (hens), called "pullets" and eight or ten
    roosters, whose job was to fertilize the eggs. The farmer kept
    records and any rooster that didn't perform went into the soup pot
    and was replaced. That took an awful lot of his time so he bought a
    set of tiny bells and attached them to his roosters. Each bell had a
    different tone so John could tell from a distance, which rooster
    was performing. Now he could sit on the porch and fill out an
    efficiency report simply by listening to the bells.

    The farmer's favorite rooster was old Butch, and a very fine
    specimen he was, too. But one particular morning John noticed old
    Butch's bell hadn't rung at all! John went to investigate. The other
    roosters were chasing pullets, bells-a-ringing. The pullets, hearing
    the roosters coming, would run for cover. But to Farmer John's
    amazement, Butch had his bell in his beak so it couldn't ring. He'd
    sneak up on a pullet, do his job and walk on to the next one. John
    was so proud of Butch, he entered him in the Renfrew County Fair and
    Butch became an overnight sensation among the judges. The result...
    The judges not only awarded Butch the No Bell Piece Prize but they
    also awarded him the Pulletsurprise as well.

    Clearly Butch was a politician, or at least a lawyer in the making. Who else but
    one of those could figure out how to win two of the most highly coveted
    awards on our planet by being the best at sneaking up on the populace
    and screwing them when they weren't paying attention!

    Posted Wednesday Jan 17, 2007 20:40 #

20. Catherine
    Member

    CandiGrace: repeated from another string. Re yours:

    The village government's attorney neglected to mention in the "opinion" he rendered at the last meeting that amendments to the Open Meetings Act include chats by Board members via the internet and other means. Perhaps the village attorney should focus on updating you on the full 2007 amendments, as well as the guidelines set forth by IAG Lisa Madigan as to discussions at dinner parties, etc. Furthermore, I do not see how having to passively endure, whether in person or on television, the monologues of the Board, without having ANY opportunity for input, can POSSIBLY be regarded as a more open forum than this. Is the village attorney the attorney for the village, or against the village? I just wonder since we pay his salary. I submit he would have been better employed advising the prompt publication of some back Board meeting minutes as required 7 days after approval and as was implied at the last Board meeting had not yet been done. I will submit his opinion to Lisa Madigan's office for feedback.

    The willingness you have shown to interact with the citizens, CandiGrace, as government is meant to do, has been noted and appreciated by all. We too have our passive readers.

    If the plain English of the Open Meetings Act, a handy summary of which is on Lisa Madigan's website, is too difficult for you to track, Corbi, and you find it so tiresome to abide by the law, you surely cannot rely upon being trusted with planning the future of downtown Riverside. Yet, you show an eerie willingess to understand and comply with - as you understand it - the ins and outs of the government handout law known as the TIF. Please, you're killing me with this stuff. PS. No, I am not being sarcastic. I actually mean what I say.

    Posted Thursday Jan 18, 2007 06:50 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.