2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

Sorry, I don't follow. In one case we are talking about the protecting the rights of a private citizen, and the other has to do with how public monies might be spent. In truth, I can't think of any reason why a local government should be afforded the privilege secret meetings; but I left open the possibility that the city council could have to decide on an issue that did not affect the general public.

posted 4 years, 7 months ago
view in context

I would go a step further and allow the general public into executive sessions, that is, do away with the executive session. Unless the session deals with an issue with a minor, or employee discipline, I don't see why we need our local government to have secret meeting. A secret movement meeting should be limited to issues of national defense, planning for war etc., not a sewer project.

The sewer project is a great example because many Lake Oswego residents felt as if the secret planning was not done in the best interest of the public. The city government wanted to shut down the Lake Oswego Swim Park for the use of the project and only after the decision was made to use the swim park was the public informed. After much public outcry, the city had to back off using the swim park. Had they been more open, would the city not have saved some time and expense by not targeting the swim park to begin with?

If bloggers/the general public, etc. report the truth, why should they not be allowed to do so.


Thanks,
Mark

posted 4 years, 7 months ago
view in context