Sunday, July 14, 2013

Hello, this is another request submitted and one can only guess what the reply was.....


7-01-13
PETITION FOR DISCUSSION
ACCORDING TO STANDING COMMISSION ORDER, CITIZENS MAY PETITION THE COMMISSION TO HAVE ITEMS PLACED INTO THE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION.  THE FOLLOWING IS A MATTER WHICH NEEDS DISCUSSION IN OPEN CHAMBERS:
THE COMMISSIONS CONTINUED FUNDING OF A "GRANT" PROGRAM BENEFITTING ONLY SPECIAL ROADS DISTRICTS THRU THE "FRANKLIN COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE".
IF THE COMMISSION ELECTS NOT TO BRING THIS ISSUE TO THE PUBLIC'S ATTENTION, THEN THE REASON AND THE VOTE SHOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE.  THIS IS OPEN GOVERNMENT AT ITS CORE DEFINITION.
THANK YOU........                                                                      ERIC REICHERT


Their reply was: Re: your subject of Special Road Districts.
There will be no discussion regarding said subject as there is no identified issue from any Citizen, Municipality, or Official.

Hello, below is the inquiry and the reply was that the Commission would not testify.  No reasoning or explanation was given.....


7-01-13
SUBJECT: UTILITY REQUEST BEFORE THE PSC COMMITTEE
HELLO, WILL FRANKLIN COUNTY SUBMIT TESTIMONY IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED REQUEST BY A UTILITY TO BE PROVIDED WITH A C&N PERMIT FOR A LANDFILL IN FRANKLIN COUNTY?  IT WOULD SEEM THAT SUCH A GRANTED PERMIT WOULD CONTRAMAND SOME OF THE STIPULATIONS FOR SAID LANDFILL,  THEREBY NEGATING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED LAND USE REGULATIONS AS PROMULGATED.
IF NO, THEN JUSTIFY SAID DECISION IN WRITING WITH THE VOTE OF THE COMMISSION. SAID ACTION WOULD BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST OF OPEN AND TRANSPARENT.
 THANK YOU................................................ERIC REICHERT
                                                                                   CITIZEN,TAXPAYER,ELECTOR

Hello, concerning my post about the Commission addressing clarifications of public statements in PUBLIC, they have decided to deny my request for discussion on the matter.  They have stated that if somebody wants a clarification, etc, one can meet with them AFTER the Commission meetings about any statements they have made.  Essentially, they wish to do this OUT OF THE PUBLIC.

Therefore, moving forward, the Commission will be approached for clarifications with a WITNESS present..  What else can the Public do when the Commission refuses to be Open and Transparent, their pet "motto"?
I thought I would post that Pacific is appointing a Special Prosecutor for one case pending before the Municipal Court.  One wonders if this Special Prosecutor will be remunerated from the City Attorney's account or if the City of Pacific will have to pay additional revenue out for this Special Prosecutor?????

Wednesday, July 03, 2013

commission denying 1st amendment rights

7-02-13
SUBJECT:  DISCUSSION TOPIC
ON 4-23-13 A DISCUSSION TOPIC WAS SUBMITTED TO BE ADDRESSED AT A COUNTY COMMISSION MEETING, AS PER EXISTING COMMISSION ORDER.  AS OF THIS DATE, NOTHING HAS BEEN FORTHCOMING, NOT EVEN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SAID DISCUSSION TOPIC.

THEREFORE, I RESUBMIT THIS TOPIC: THAT AT EVERY COMMISSION MEETING THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO ASK FOR CLARIFICATIONS, ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, ETC, CONCERNING PUBLIC COMMENTS MADE BY ELECTED/APPOINTED EMPLOYEES IN PRINT, TELEVISION OR RADIO.

IF COMMISSION ELECTS TO NOT BRING THIS MATTER FORWARD, THEN THE REASONING BEHIND THE DECISION, AND THE VOTE ON THE DECISION NEEDS TO BE MADE PUBLIC.
THANK YOU........                                                    ERIC REICHERT