This was sent to the paper.

Stacy,

Because you are Bob's daughter, I guess I should expect you to jump to the same conclusions as him before actually listening to what I was saying.

When I was talking about financial dealings between the city and the members of council, I wanted to make it clear that I was not singling anyone out. So, I pointed out the amounts paid to EACH councilman by the city in the past 2 years. Unfortunately, I was immediately interrupted before I could get to my real point by your father and others.

The only purpose in bringing up the subject was to ask them to keep their required disclosure documents current. Your dad and all of the council members certainly have a right to do business with the city. I have no problem with that. None at all. However, the people have a right to fully understand the financial arrangements between their elected officials and the public funds they are responsible for overseeing. That's why the law requires that they have current disclosure forms on file. I simply want them to abide by the law.

They are responsible for knowing the law on this matter.

I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that I want your dad thrown in jail.

I pointed out that when I asked about how these matters are enforced, I was told that I could file suit, or file complaints and have them investigated. I simply investigated them myself and went to the meeting to ask them to comply without going to such drastic means.

I stated at the beginning what my purpose was. I want fair, honest and open government from our council. I want discussions about important city matters conducted in public, instead of behind closed doors. I want them to stop violating their own rules by interfering with city staff. I want them to comply with ALL of the city and state ordinances that they expect us to comply with.

I have not asked for fines.
I have not asked for penalties.
I have not asked for decisions to be overturned.
I have not asked for resignations.
I have not asked for recall petitions.

I ask only for open discussions in public meetings and full disclosure of financial arrangements according to the law. I am offended when they simply thumb their noses at the rules that govern them and expect us to do nothing out of fear.

Your dad should have listened to what I was saying instead of jumping to the conclusion that he did. It wasn't easy standing up there and talking about these things. That's why so few people do it.

Closed Meeting from May 26, 2009

Well, I'm on the agenda for tomorrow night's council meeting. I've got a few questions about open meetings and I hope we can shed some light on the procedure required for closing a meeting to the public.

Here is a video of the May 25, 2009 meeting where they went into closed session. I'm not a lawyer, but that doesn't mean I can't read the law and tell you what I think it means. I think they were clearly in the wrong for the way they have been going about their business behind closed doors. Read the law, and let me know what you think.

Want to read the Open Meeting Statutes?

Sidney's self-appointed Guardian, in an effort to be helpful, says he has posted the entire contents of Nebraska's open meetings law on his site...I was going to comment there, but I changed my mind because I know that it'll get published here.

Mike...contrary to what you state at the beginning of your post, you have not posted the actual open meeting law as displayed in council chambers.

You have copied and pasted word for word, the helpful interpretation provided by Jon Bruning, Nebraska Attorney General, on his site.

Bruning's information is helpful because he gives case law that helps shed light where the law itself can possibly be misunderstood, perhaps by council members thinking that a closed session to hire a new lawyer is somehow legal (just whose reputation were they trying to protect?).

Or perhaps by a council thinking that they can meet to discuss "personnel" without giving the person being discussed the opportunity to have that discussion in the open...in fact, not even inviting that person into the closed meeting.

These were the situations at the closed sessions convened by the Sidney City Council last year. Of course, these facts are not convenient to you, Mike, and I imagine you will discount them, although the videos prove that those are the facts.

Before you start screaming to me to file a complaint, consider that someone would have to pay a lawyer to file this complaint and since council took no action, there is nothing to void or correct. I simply seek to keep them from doing it again, which is clearly their intent from their public statements. Although if a lawyer stepped forward and offered to file the complaint pro-bono, I'd gladly sign it. Why? Because the next time they do it, it would be a second offense and carry possible jail time.

By the way, I'm not just talking about Van Vleet, Weiderspon and Filsinger. Gaston and Hiett may not have always voted no, but they went into the meetings and didn't come out and tell us that the meetings were improper. As they say, ignorance of the law is no defense.

In case you are interested, the actual laws can be read in their entirety on the Nebraska Legislature's site. Go to the Nebraska Legislature site and scroll all the way down to where the law begins at section 84-1408.

Anyway Mike, because you are such a stickler for facts and accuracy, I thought you would want to know all this.

Here's the video from May 12, 2009. Go read the statutes. Go read Bruning's interpretations. Bob wants to protect people's reputations in case he says something that might be misconstrued as negative. The law says he must invite those same people into the meeting with him unless they request an open session. And we have a right to know who they are talking about.

Taxes

Total City of Sidney tax evaluation per $100 in 1998 .325313, total for 2009 .420347. The increase over the past 11 years .095034.

So over 11 years, we had a city tax increase of less than ten cents per $100. The city has grown, so more people are paying tax. Valuation of land back in 1998 was $178,959,068 and current valuation is $372,735,802 total increase of $193,776,734. The maximum that the city could levy is .50 according to the law.

So, the city manager and department heads suggest a budget, but in the end it is our city councilmen who approve that budget. And when we have a tax increase it is our councilmen who approve that.

Over the weekend I came across an old story about taxes. Today I spoke with the author and she has given me permission to link to it.

I just have to ask, how can we say the current city manager/economic development manager is not doing his job?

Public Policy should be Conducted in Public

Nebraska law declares "that the formation of public policy is public business and may not be conducted in secret. Every meeting of a public body shall be open to the public in order that citizens may exercise their democratic privilege of attending and speaking at meetings of public bodies"

Van Vleet declared at the meeting on January 12 that council had ALREADY met twice in closed session to discuss changing the city ordinances regarding city manager and economic development duties. This is a clear violation of the statute, regardless of whether they took any action. In this instance, there was no illegal meeting, rather an illegal use of a closed session. The proof is Van Vleet's own admission from his seat during the council meeting. While the statute allows closed sessions for personnel issues, this is clearly policy, not personnel.

On the subject of illegal meetings, the Nebraska Attorney General has also noted quite a few other disallowed methods for accomplishing the same thing as a face-to-face meeting, including emails, phone calls and the like. This issue is quite difficult to prove unless the 3 councilmen tip their hand and show up to a meeting with a set of documents that the other 2 don't have. My opinion is that they had indeed discussed this policy change by some means prior to the official council meeting and had documents in hand that they were prepared to use in their closed session to amend the ordinance. The law says that you and I have the right to be a part of that discussion. I want to hear the reason why they are making choices.

Don't you think that they should know the open meetings law inside and out so they can abide by it? They point it out at every meeting, but they don't seem to have studied it.

Personnel or Public Policy

Personnel issues, contract negotiations and discussion of lawsuits are allowed behind closed doors by public bodies. Policy changes and the tentative drafting of ordinances is not. When council goes into a closed session to discuss personnel, it is done for the protection of the privacy of the individual. Hard to see how these sessions apply.

Public Perception

At Tuesday night's meeting some council members said the problem with the City Manager/Economic Development is "public perception." The mayor said that the public did not understand why the jobs were combined. Van Vleet said that some people mistakenly believe that Person receives two pay checks for the job. He went on to say that he always corrects this issue with any citizen he speaks with.

Later in the same meeting, when asked by local media, councilmen Van Vleet, Widerspoon and Filsinger each gave a different answer to why they seek to remove Person from his city manager duties. Those answers had nothing to do with public perception. Several people in attendance asked for clarification from these councilmen and none was given. I would have to say public perception is a problem. But not with the city manager, but with the councilmen themselves.

I understand why the job was combined but I also was in attendance back in 1999 when the discussion was had and the decision was made. Fiscal and financial decisions were made for very sound reasons. Current councilmen would like to undo this and create more expenses for the city, possibly resulting in higher taxes for us.

It's obvious from the comments that 3 of the council communicate about these matters outside of the meetings, maybe not all 3 at once, but their discussions and decisions are not taking place in an open environment where the public can have access to their reasons.

The purpose stated for the Nebraska Open Meetings act is "It is hereby declared to be the policy of this state that the formation of public policy is public business and may not be conducted in secret. Every meeting of a public body shall be open to the public in order that citizens may exercise their democratic privilege of attending and speaking at meetings of public bodies, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution of Nebraska, federal statutes, and the Open Meetings Act."

Even if they are careful never to be all 3 in the same place together, the simple fact that they are always in agreement, nearly always silent and the other 2 council members (Gaston and Hiett) are kept unaware of their plans is a violation of the open meeting law in spirit if not in a literal sense.

Even if you take into account the mayor's bumbling and poor grammar in his statement, his intention couldn't be more clear. The matter won't be brought up in an open meeting until after a discussion has already been held.