Posted Jan 7, 2009 at 12:19 PM
The Mayor's continued practice of appointing people to committees/boards and then not using them troubles me greatly. The reason for having these committees/boards is to offer various levels of expertise, a sometimes new persepective on things, and a direct focus on taxpayer's/citizen's interest in these matters. It is interesting that the person who found out about the event already advertising the Aquatic Center as one of its locations was one of those people on that very committee. We need citizens involved in all levels of government. I believe Mr. Barber has been exactly right in pushing to make this happen. That, shows good leadership and a commitment to involved the public. Keep up the good work Mr. Barber. You, at least, try!
Posted Jan 7, 2009 at 12:27 PM
No mention of the town's new web site most recently promised to be online January 1?
Posted Jan 7, 2009 at 1:09 PM
Yea where the heck is that new website the town promised on 01/01/2009??
According to the blog of Council member Brad Stipes (advancechristiansburg), the public can expect this launch during the month of January. Without his personal commitment, this project would still be sitting on a back burner and probably remain years from being realized.
Posted Jan 7, 2009 at 1:44 PM
The meeting in Richmond. Do Christiansburg taxpayers pick up expenses for spouses (extra vehicles or mileage, double room rates instead of members sharing a room, meals)? That happened in Salem when they went to a resort.
Taxpayers can expect any expenses related to spouses possible attendance being the responsibility of the individual, rather than town residents.
Posted Jan 7, 2009 at 1:50 PM
You note that "documents were made available" referring to the audit report. Didn't Ms. Lindstrom have to actively pursue - and pay for - that? It's not like they had copies on the counter to pick up when you went to pay your water bill.
Correct. Specifically pursued, requested, purchased, scanned and uploaded to the internet courtesy of a neighbor.
Posted Jan 7, 2009 at 2:26 PM
...on the Town in general. It is a shame that it is necessary for citizens to have to step up to the plate on so many of these issuses (way to many to list here) when the Town and its hired employees seem to be unable or unwilling to do the "Right" thing. That "Right" thing is to act in the best interest of the citizens in a legal and open way. There "job" is to represent the wishes of those that put them in their positions, not to (as they so often do) hinder them and go against obvious and valid concerns. It would be a simple thing for them to act that way, yet time after time, they belittle, smirk, roll their eyes, reprimand and generally show disdain for the people that make it possible for them to even be there. Take the Mayor's recent reprimand for example; he could have simply said we are only receiving the RFP tonight and it is not the normal practice to comment on an RFP in this setting, however, I highly encourage you to attend the public hearing on the contract. He could have even added that he had already heard several GOOD ideas of how the contract can be modified, just for good measure. Have you ever been to a store where you got bad service and then asked to see the Manager? When you get the same attitude and bad service from them, did you return for more of the same? The Town may have a monopoly on its current citizens and businesses, but that doesn't mean it has to act the way it does. Good service comes from the top down and the Mayor and Lance need to go to a Customer Service seminar. I'd much rather be treated well than take a few laps in a pool.
Even though there was a motion and a second to set a Public Hearing on the lease, the town's attorney indicated this wasn't necessary. The motion was not withdrawn, tabled or acted upon. The Mayor may have been reminding other speakers as to the purpose of the Public Hearing being relative to bids, with Citizens Hearing that followed a few minutes later (following audit report) being the appropriate place for these comments. And there were plenty more comments about this during that portion of the meeting, as well as concerns expressed by council members, too.
Posted Jan 7, 2009 at 2:32 PM
Wow. The Triathalon race course includes 460 Business (Franklin St). The bike course includes Depot (by pass to interstate) to Mudpike. What times should citizens avoid these areas or know they can't get out of their driveway because the roads are closed for the course? Who is providing the insurance endemnifying the town against any or all losses? Is this something the new Events Committee is coordinating?
Posted Jan 7, 2009 at 3:11 PM
I didn't say we couldn't afford trash collection. What I said was that our family could put that $180 to better use than paying for a service we already take care of ourselves.
Thank you for the clarification, relative to a household which recycles and has minimal trash remaining afterwards. Note 2009-2010 water/sewer and garbage fees have not been set, nor discussions held as to what amount a trash fee would be if it were to become mandatory (unless households could provide evidence of hiring another service or private contractor).
Posted Jan 7, 2009 at 3:35 PM
... of the Mayor and TM a class on Roberts Rules of Order! Too many motions have been left hanging. Too many "concensus" decisions made without the real authority and proper process being done.
Posted Jan 7, 2009 at 4:03 PM
I was the citizen that brought the fact before Council about the Event scheduled for the Aquatic Center and the streets of C'burg. Still working on how this happened and no one on Council knew about it - not even the Town Manager.
Posted Jan 7, 2009 at 4:27 PM
The last time I spoke to Brad Stipes, he told me that the website committee will hold its last meeting Jan. 20 to decide on a good day for the launch, which will occur before the end of the month.
Thanks for the scoop!
Posted Jan 7, 2009 at 8:37 PM
... about that Triathalon being planned. They were at a meeting I was at where it was brought up for consideration.
Posted Jan 7, 2009 at 9:21 PM
I have a question for the citizen who brought attention to the "event" scheduled for the Town. Why do you seem so incredulous about the mayor/TN/council's assertion that they know nothing about this. How exactly do you propose they find out about it every time a private entity prints up some brochures and posts something on the internet. Couldn't anyone, anywhere do this at any time without ever speaking to a town representative? They very clearly stated that this was not a Town sanctioned event and that they knew nothing about it. Do you have some type of information that makes you believe this statement is false or that this is some sort of conspiracy? Second, now that they know, what action do you think should be taken? And on a separate issue, I was in attendance last night as well. The only rude or disrespectful behavior I saw was on the part of the citizens in attendance. I think to say the mayor scolded anyone is a drastic overstatement. When a citizen addressed comments to the council at the inappropriate time during the meeting, no one interrupted or cut her off, despite the fact that it had been very clearly stated only moments earlier that the time for comments would be later. She was allowed to finish her statements and then the mayor politely reminded everyone that the citizen comment portion of the meeting occured later in the agenda and that they were taking bids for use of the aquatic center at the moment. Further, citizens sat in the audience and muttered sarcastic comments throughout the meeting, one person's phone buzzed constantly, prompting her to constantly leave the room causing the door to slam loudly behind her each time. Then, when the public hearings and citizen comments were over, about half those in attendance decided to leave. And rather than doing so quietly and politely they made a great deal of noise and many began to carry on private conversations while still in the room. This made it quite difficult for those of us seated in the back to hear what council was saying for several minutes. If those in attendance can't be respectful enough of others to be quiet when they leave and wait until they are outside before they start talking and making comments, perhaps council should call a brief recess between the comment portion and the remainder of the meeting. I applaud citizen involvement in government as it is crucial to any free society, but I also firmly believe we should adhere to the basic rules of civility in these settings. Is it not hypocritical to demand civility from our elected officials in meetings but not to hold ourselves to the same standard?
Conspiracy? Certainly not. Clearly, what we have here is a failure to communicate. Surely, and hopefully, there are activities being planned (beyond VT Swim & Dive team functions) being lined up for later in the year as it is certain the facility will be completed this year even if a "grand opening" date is not fixed today. Certainly there will be community open houses so the public can come in and view the new pools. Using any one of several internet search engines or visiting a local library, one will find numerous news articles about this facility -- and stories about groups who, along with town residents, have been waiting patiently as the completion date shifted from 2006, to 2007, to 2008 and now late spring of 2009. Would anyone promote an event without some contact with some town employee? Otherwise, wouldn't that be possible fraud and damaging to any organization associated with the published materials? Your recollection of when council provided guidance on which comments would be received when are not in accordance with audio recording of this meeting. You may be more aware of council protocols than other members of the public in attendance. Your points about noise and hearing are well made, indicating both that others who feel their portion of the meeting is concluded depart in a manner respectful to those who remain -- and that there is not reason council members do not each have microphones (a common and relatively inexpensive technology today). This is not court nor church and it is not unexpected people might be speaking to one another in the public seating area (this is typical at other public meetings and not prohibited by anything other than common courtesy to those sitting around us). A brief recess or closing the doors sounds like appropriate options for ensuring orderly progress of council meetings, and unfortunately perhaps, citizens hold their leaders to a higher standard than they may apply to themselves.
Posted Jan 8, 2009 at 11:14 AM
In todays newspaper it says, quote, Ballengee hopes the town can clear up any misconceptions people have, including public criticism in print and online. Well guess what. He and the town manager and council are the ones responsbile for any misconceptions. They wet the bed and are now complaining about being cold.
Posted Jan 8, 2009 at 12:02 PM
Can someone tell me what was SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN during a "public hearing" on "consideration of bids for use of aquatic center." If it's a time for public comments on the one and only bid for use of the aquatic center what did the mayor think was going to happen?
Posted Jan 8, 2009 at 8:27 PM
I just went back and listened to the audio of the meeting posted by Ms. Lindstrom. Very clearly the mayor said let's hold those comments until we get to the portion of the meeting under citizen comments and continue with this public hearing and then asked if there were any other bids for use of the aquatic center. Immediately after that, the lady went to the podium and proceeded to comment on the contract with Virginia Tech. And personally, I still don't think what the mayor said rose anywhere near the level of a scolding. And I don't really care if there is no law or a rule about talking in the audience. There is no law against it in church either,but it is extremely rude behavior to talk during a meeting, particularly when it prevents others from hearing or otherwise participating in the meeting. Personally I think microphones would be a nice touch, but my tax dollars shouldn't have to buy them for no reason other than people lack sufficient manners to comport themselves with civility in a public meeting. Again, public involvement and discourse is great, but basic manners and civility don't diminish the debate, they add to it. Sarcasm and disruptive behavior on the other hand . . .