Comments about ‘Private city meetings in Highland criticized’

Informal get togethers...? Bull. They can go to Lamb's or the park... There is a new thing out there to help communicate... it's called email.

Crack down on closed door meetings!

The constitution was written behind closed doors.

The law was recently changed to allow the mayor to visit with 2 council members. It is legal and ethical. These are not deliberations but getting to know you and whats on your mind about happenings in the city. The city administrator being there is also suggestive of nonsecrecy. It makes no sense to be critical and Mrs. Schramm to have a holier than thou attitude. What is more wrong.....these little meetings or the entire council riding and visiting on front runner, on a canyon picnic, a holiday dinner. Which can be done, the key here "NO city deliberations, policy or legislating is being done. People, don't you have better things to do, complaing or print. It sounds like a publicity stunt for Kathryn, that is working.....just spell cathryn Shram, correct and we have no problem.

The Legislature has closed door caucuses for the majority of its members, where major decisions that affect us all are made daily. It is wrong and should stop, but since they make the laws, they have a double standard and they do what ever they want. It's time for change we can believe in Utah!

If you knew anything about Schramm, you would not be surprised about anything she does. She received more votes than other candidates not because of her popularity, but because of her stand on a single issue. She consistently votes against others just to be obstinate. It is obvious she hates the Mayor yet he treats her with respect and courtesy.

The Mayor is doing a great service in meeting with other council members. Schramm is the only one that has stormed out, never to return. She needs to get over herself and remember she serves the citizens, not her own self-interests.

"Once get behind closed doors. then you let your hair hang down" Charlie Rich Get it Jonathan?

Ever occurr to you Jonathan that those folks may be more right than wrong that voted for her?

"The most dangerous government is that close to home" Cicero

Open up! Why can't the public see what you look like with your hair down? If you wanted to be a member of a private club you should never have run for political office.

Please do not equate change in Utah transparency laws with "Change we can believe in." With all of the cronies put federal it office, their conflict of interests, the tax cheating, and on and on, "Change we can believe in" has been a farce.

What an interesting standard. One wonders if she holds the same standard for contact with her fellow council members - only in an open meeting. One also wonders if she limits her contact with members of the city administration or even with constituents to just within the confines of an open meeting. To this eye, it appears she is straining at gnats.

public means public,

"Open up! Why can't the public see what you look like with your hair down?"

The problem is that we don't know what they are doing behind closed doors or whether all of the meetings are a benign "get together."

This makes it be easy for the Mayor to conduct City business behind closed doors with a handful of the council who are conspiring with the Mayor to set an agenda and exchange votes.

Meet with Councilman A and B - For Show
Meet with Councilman A and C - For Show
Meet with Councilman A and D - For Show
Meet with Councilman A and E - For Show
Meet with Councilman B and C - Conspiracy
Meet with Councilman B and D - Conspiracy
Meet with Councilman B and E - Conspiracy
Meet with Councilman C and D - Conspiracy
Meet with Councilman C and E - Conspiracy
Meet with Councilman D and E - Conspiracy

If councilman A is not privy to the conspiracy then as you can see over 60% of all the private meetings could easily be to conspire to keep 1 or more members from knowing what is really going on and there would be absolutely no knowing.

evensteven,

"What an interesting standard. One wonders if she holds the same standard for contact with her fellow council members - only in an open meeting."

She isn't holding private meetings with them even if she's meeting with them in a hallway for a chat or to grab a bite to eat and it would be difficult to conspire while meeting with only one person at a time.

"One also wonders if she limits her contact with members of the city administration or even with constituents to just within the confines of an open meeting."

She doesn't have to limit her contact with her constituents to open meetings. She isn't meeting with those who can vote on the same issue as she would.

The issue here is that a private exchange could easily occur between the Mayor and as many as 4 members of the council where they trade votes and set the council agenda behind closed doors and she would have no way of knowing even if she attended at least one meeting a month with each of the others present since only two are present at any given time. All votes could be predetermined.

Let me see if I understand this right, Schramm calls the newspaper to complain that the mayor and the other four council members are doing meetings that are suspected to be illegal which are not illegal. These are also the people with whom she often finds herself at odds? I am to believe that all four of the other council members are trying to hid something and that Schramm is the only one with morals or integrity here? I know all five council members and believe they are good, honest people with high integrity. Unfortunately my respect for one of them has dropped considerably.

And it doesn't matter how they conspire as less than a quorum. You can conspire and caucus all you want. The only thing that matters is the decision made by a quorum in a public meeting. They can do all the lobbying and communicating they want in smaller numbers behind closed doors, and constituents can communicate with them outside of meetings, also. It's called being a representative, gathering all data, etc, and it is part of the job to talk to others and be informed. It's crazy to thing that information can only be presented during public meetings. that would be a judicial (or quasi-judicial) body, and a city council is a legislative body. This article is a farce, but it's easy to sound sensational with an uniformed public. do us a favor and paint a correct picture!

The meetings are secret, they are sacred, duh!!

Some folks like the intrigue, but I want all deliberations of my elected officials in the open for all of us to see what they are up to. That is the intent of the law.

Also, to "oh come on now": any meetings of a quorum, including rides, walks, etc., are to be open to the public, and must be noticed to the public by law. What are you pretending to protect? certainly not their private lives, because they are elected officials, and their lives are not private so long as they are. They are fully accountable to us, the citizens that elected them. --Forget Billy Clinton, and the definition of what "is" is. We are still protected by the Constitution, and the sooner we ferret out the hidden things of darkness, the sooner we can have our republic back.