Comments by speakingup

Page 1 of 2 | Next

On Our view: Council should end Harwigs gatherings (anonymous)
March 26, 2008 at 5:36 p.m.
Suggest removal

I can't comment on Steve's previous council meeting illegally (I haven't heard anything about it, other than on these blogs), but I have heard that Cari (while on Planning Commission) went out drinking with developers during the application process. Her ethics were questioned, but she saw no problem with it. I guess we can't expect the leopard to change its spots. I'm keeping my eyes and ears open.

On Council’s Harwigs habit (anonymous)
March 24, 2008 at 5:13 p.m.
Suggest removal

Hunterdog- I for one am not deluded; I do believe these folks do business without us around, and I don't like it. If Kevin Nearney sues the Council, I'll be right there with him. I know a few other folks that feel the same way.

If we, the citizens start to take action, the Council may start to take us seriously!

On Council’s Harwigs habit (anonymous)
March 24, 2008 at 1:57 p.m.
Suggest removal

The Colorado Sunshine Law generally requires that any state or local governmental body that meets to discuss public business or to take formal action do so in meetings that are open to the public. Under the law (§ 24-6402, C.R.S.), “meeting” refers to any kind of gathering, convened to discuss public business, whether in person, by telephone, electronically, or by other means of communication. Electronic mail messages can be considered “meetings” under the statute.

While the statute makes allowances for chance meetings or social occasions where public business is not the central purpose of the meeting, I believe these kind of social occasions apply to the community events that the Council members are so often invited to. Those types of social events are indeed public and not conducive to the discussion of Council business.

But gathering after meetings at a location were very little public is present, is indeed conducive to the discussion of Council business. I'm especially concerned because Cari has so often shown up at meetings with prewritten motions, has argued against public comment, and by her comments seems to have little regard for even the appearance of following the law. This council has also frequently had discussions on items that are not on the public agenda. Without a concerned citizen or two to hold them to legal standards this council might have even voted on items that the public never heard about. By and large they seem to act as if they are above the law.

These acts of hubris really concern me and I'm not sure we can afford to let this attitude continue. Thank you, Steve for sticking up for the average citizen!

On Bank feels ‘betrayed’ (anonymous)
February 26, 2008 at 2:31 p.m.
Suggest removal

One wonders how these women justified their behavior to themselves. Sunday's article stated that Angela justified the embezzled bonuses that she gave to her coworkers and herself by perceiving them as being underpaid. Though we will never really know, I wonder how these two convinced themselves that what they were doing was okay?

On Nerney camps outside pub (anonymous)
February 22, 2008 at 2:34 p.m.
Suggest removal

Justice, I agree with Honey, you seem to be referring to a different story. You might want to fill us in on what you're talking about.

It seems that many of you aren't recognizing that a liquor license is a privilege not a right. Having a good moral character and being not guilty of a crime may be two different things. I have to assume that the council believed that Nerney was not of good moral character. To me, his present behavior seems to support their view of him.

On Council, Lanning air concerns (anonymous)
February 21, 2008 at 12:18 p.m.
Suggest removal

God forbid we learn from the past and move forward! I dunno, there seems to be something disturbing about the arrogance this council is exhibiting.

On Brenner formalizes candidacy (anonymous)
January 15, 2008 at 12:29 p.m.
Suggest removal

ijustlookhi, I think Ken's far from perfect, but he's a decent guy nonetheless and I do believe his heart is in the right place. He is very knowledgeable and has fought hard for the Western slope. He's a vocal supporter for water rights and water and air quality. The negative comments about perks aren't justifiable. His style of governing may not have been a great match for Steamboat, but I think it might serve him and us well on the Front Range. I think he will get things done.

I don't always agree with Ken, but I support his views more than I support Al White's.

On Iron Horse decision planned (anonymous)
January 8, 2008 at 1:06 p.m.
Suggest removal

It seems as if you've forgotten that we didn't like the past Council's habit of micromanaging and doing the work of our paid city staff. If I read this article correctly, Cari is going beyond even what Towny did when he got involved in creating his fee in lieu numbers. Personally, I want our council focusing on policy and goals not the every day work our staff is supposed to do. Also, from what I hear, Cari is making staff run around to do her bidding the same way Ken use to.

As far as housing issues go, I've read your complaints and agree with some of them. But what are we supposed to do? The way this new Council is on the fast track to approve annexation, I doubt that they're going to focus much on affordable housing out in 700.

Let's see, micromanagement, overusing staff, second thinking decisions that have been made, and not focusing on goals and policy… It seems as if nothing much has changed, despite all the promises!

On Our View: Wish list for 2008 (anonymous)
January 2, 2008 at 10:52 a.m.
Suggest removal

sbvor - get over it!

On Quinn faces conflicts (anonymous)
December 6, 2007 at 6:21 p.m.
Suggest removal

What are you talking about? What does this have to do with Quinn or the council and conflicts of interest?

Page 1 of 2 | Next



Explore Steamboat

Find local businesses:

Advertisement

Happenings

Today's events

Search events

Advertisement

Advertisement