Monday night's meeting was long.
But it was a work session, and that is where issues get hammered out.
There was not a whole lot on the agenda, which made time for commissioners to present topics of their own. They took advantage of it. I left just after 10 p.m. - four and a half hours after it started - and they were going into executive session.
Executive session is a nice word for private meeting. There's nothing illegal about them, and there are times when it's probably a legitimate and good idea. If you were negotiating a contract, for instance, you might tip off the person they were negotiating with and give that party an unfair advantage.
So I don't have too much of a complaint.
I don't think the city commission abuses executive session very much. I just have to get on my soapbox about it every now and then.
The law lists a few reasons that a commission MAY have an executive session. The law never says a commission HAS TO have an executive session.
I have been around commissions and boards and such that were much worse than our local commission. Still, its a good idea to put them on notice occasionally that we're at least paying attention.
Last night was interesting though. There were not any big developments, but there were some previews of coming events that could get interesting.
They put off the economic development policies issue so they could hash it out some more. This will give potential developers at relatively simple means of seeing what is available and how to go about getting it. They are planning a special work session to deal with the policies which are about 50 pages worth of material.
Other issues that came up were the canopy or awning at Mozitti's, the quorum debate, hike and bike trail, chickens in town, preserving buldings and several other things.
One philosophical debate that wove its way through several topics is the idea of having set policies and whether or not to give exceptions.
Some feel that there needs to be set policies that you follow no matter what. When you start giving exceptions, you open the door to more exceptions, and soon you don't have a policy any more. Others feel that you should be able to have some flexibility so that you can meet the need of the moment.
How flexible should your policies be?
If you give an exception to one person, how do you justify denying the next person who asks for an exception?
One's philosophical view here affects many issues.
That issue also comes up at the paper. I feel the fewer set policies you have, the better off you are. When you have policies you should follow them, but at times policies can prevent you from doing the right thing.
Sound policies help make sure everyone is treated the same. At the same time, life is rarely a matter of a simple black and white choice.
There's some fodder for a future post.
What do you all think?
james
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
James,
I think you policies are created to make future decision makers think long and hard about making an exception to the policy. The idea is to not have to make an exception unless absolutely necessary. If a policy has had many exceptions made to it then it is a bad policy and should be looked into for being removed or replaced with something more fitting.
Post a Comment