City representatives choke

The Times published a disturbing account about the actions of some city representatives the other day.

Evidently two city council members were meeting with some citizens in a public hotel restaurant to discuss the arena situation.

A Times reporter and photographer approached the group, whereupon one of the city representatives “rushed to the front desk to request a private area to meet to shield the discussions from the Times”.

Upon reconvening another city representative stood in the doorway to the room “to prohibit the Times from entering”.

The group could be heard “talking about the convention center as a potential site”.

Then a third city representative arrived and used his cell phone to play something “to block out the conversation inside”.

It seems that we have three out of three city representatives that did not realize that all they had to do was adjourn and meet somewhere else.  Instead they have antagonized a reporter and shown us what they think of the public.

Will the Times editor endorse these representatives next time?

And what about the hotel?  Why did the city representative think that she deserved special treatment?  Does she think that she is entitled to special privileges because of her office?  Would one of us get immediate free access to a private room for any reason at all?

We deserve better


10 Responses to City representatives choke

  1. Reality Checker says:

    The truth is that the city officials who participated in that charade aren’t very smart. They really thought they were going to fool the public and that people wouldn’t find out about or see through them gaming the system to circumvent the quorum rule.


  2. mamboman3 says:

    They haven’t a clue about transparency and what meeting with the public means!


  3. I’m going to take a long shot here and bet that at least ONE of the so-called “Representatives” was Niland and then Noe. Niland is just one of the bunch that had SECRET meetings with Foster , Mountain Star Sports and then LIED, sold out the people of El Taxo.. She represents only herself and whatever she can get for HERSELF.. The people that she is SUPPOSED to REPRESENT should recall her. SHE has sold THEM out again for the City Councils arena.


  4. Disgusted says:

    Someone must have called the Times on the carpet. They undermined their good work by running this nauseating, self-serving and self-aggrandizing puff piece by Niland today.


  5. Disgusted says:

    As reported by the Times, the most manipulative aspect of that meeting and the extent to which the reps went to circumvent the law, was that city council reps were shuttled in and out of the meeting, swapping places, at the table so that they could say that technically a quorum was never in the room at one time.

    They got tripped up in their own little game, however. In the video that the Times posted, Niland said that a “majority” of council members were in agreement on what was being discussed. Her words pretty much confirmed their intent. Oscar Mayor almost jumped out of his suit. He quickly tried to walk back her use of the word “majority.” He also went to great extremes to say that all of this reconsideration had nothing to do with the planned recall of Niland. Tolbert stood their glancing around with a silly look on his face.

    If the truth will set you free, maybe the lies and deceit of city council will get some people locked up. Or if nothing else, maybe the Times will will finally realize that one of their favorite city reps is a manipulative, petulant schemer.


  6. Rod Fender says:

    Maybe more recalls are in order.


  7. Isn’t there either a City Ordinance, or a State law that prevents elected officials from discussing City Business outside City Council meetings?


    • JerryK says:

      City Reps usually hold a community meeting in their districts for members of the public to ask questions and sometimes they bring in a city manager to update the group on issues of concern. So, city business is discussed with the public outside of city chambers.

      I think the Open Meeting law (that I had to adhere to when I ran the HCF) pertains to reps or board members meeting together and discussing city business and making decisions. So, maybe this is a case where it was disobeyed? I recall that I would err on the safe side with the law, so even when we attended our annual association meeting, I would post a notice that some members of the board might meet at whatever hotel was the venue but no actions would be taken.

      I refrained from saying it was likely we’d meet over drinks in the bar 🙂


    • Brutus says:

      No, they are free to and encouraged to discuss items in public.

      They are restricted when their group reaches a quorum of council.



Leave a Reply -- you do not have to enter your email address

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: