70 Point Critique of Questionable "Resolution No:: 07-?"
In the words of Elwood P. Dowd in "Harvey,"
what does AMCD BARBARA BOSANKO "have in mind?"
Her proposed resolution on conduct of meetings seeks to institutionalize Communist Chinese style regimentation. The resolution is filled with rodomontade and anger at First and Ninth Amendment protected activity. Here's the critique to read before going to AMCD tomorrow at 4 PM.
PAGE ONE
Preamble/
1. "Whereas" is unnecessary, antique legalese. Gerunds are preferable to begin resolution clauses. Gerunds make resolutions more readable and accessible to average people, as in United Nations resolutions.
2. What is the unstated assumption or factual premise of "more orderly meetings?"
3. What is meant by the use twice on this page of "Commission of Commissioners?" Is this the result of poor legal drafting or inattentive use of global search and replace features in the drafter's word processing program?
4. It is "St Johns County," not "St. John's." (Three examples on page one.) Shows drafter inattentive to details with which she should be familiar (correct spelling of the name of the District).
Section 1
5. Meetings: Begins with run-on sentence of 62 words. Too long. Rambling and incoherent. Uses excessive words. Compare, E.B. White's "The Elements of Style" ("avoid needless words").
6. Terms "emergency," "special meeting" and "to the extent possible" are not defined and are all subjective.
Section 2 -- CONDUCT OF MEETING
7. Term "applicant" is not defined -- again, this document appears to have been adapted from some other jurisdiction. Which one?
8. Does not provide for sharing agenda and "backup" material with public on website.
SECTION 5 --
9. "Citizen's Participation" is a misspelling, which appears four times in this section -- it should be plural possessive, not singular possessive -- "Citizens".
10. Any "form" required must be approved by the Commissioners, not the Director. Otherwise, there is a standardless delegation to the Director to ask impertinent questions on the form.
11. Requiring citizens to be present at the beginning of the meeting is inflexible and unfriendly. No other local jurisdiction does so. Citizens should be free to request to speak in response to what is said by Commissioners and other citizens. Citizens are not expected to be clairvoyant. Without adequate parking and with meetings that start at 4 PM, it is unreasonable to penalize citizens who might arrive late.
12. Longtime AMCD counsel GEOFFREY DOBSON told me December 14, 2006 that there is no three minute limit under our present rules.
13. Why do we need a three minute limit?
14. What reason is there to suppose that there is any principled reason to set a three minute limit when the County Commission now provides 5 minutes?
15. Three minutes is unfriendly. It is hardly enough time to express one's thoughts about matters of public business.
16. There is no principled reason for changing policies to provide that citizens may speak in public comments only at the beginning or end of the meeting.
17. Carryover sentence at top of page 4 incorrectly uses the word "that" instead of the word "which."
18. No explanation is given for the policy on asking questions. It is unclear whether this is a drafting error, or a desire to squelch public questions. It is unclear whether the limitation on asking questions is intended to be limited to citizens, or also applies to Commissioners.
19. Allowing public debate only before a motion and second are made prohibits the public from commenting on the exact contours of the matter being discussed. It requires the public to have ESP and anticipate what motions and amendments might be offered. The public must have a right to comment on every motion and amendment.
20. The three minute limitation is illogical, has been followed illegally since December 2006, and it is not uniformly enforced now. It is abusive.
21. There is no limitation or prohibition of Commissioners interrupting people and wasting part of their three minutes.
22. Requiring Commissioners to "take final (sic) appropriate action" uses two terms that are vague. If Commissioners move to table, that is a non-final action. The term "appropriate" is vague and meaningless.
SECTION 6 -- DECORUM
23. The terms obscene, vulgar, abusive, disruptive, repetitive, violent, aggressive and boisterous, improper and conduct (VADRVABIC) are undefined and susceptible of unequal enforcement by the Chair, in derogation of First Amendment rights.
24. Each of the nine words VADRVABIC corresponds to shibboleths of the Chair, for which there is no factual basis, as determined by the St. Johns County Sheriff's July 10, 2007 investigation, declining to arrest anyone for supposed disruption.
25. The only disruption has been by the Chair and Mrs. Wampler interrupting, interrogating and intimidating citizens, including asking what they know about mosquito control and whether they made protected reports to law enforcement or visited AMCD's site with them.
26. Speaking of "boisterous," the Chair did not criticize County Commission Chairman Tom Manuel for his boisterous conduct during the July 12 meeting (both before and after he spoke: he was speaking while citizens were trying to hear and take notes on the meeting.
27. The Chair has never commented on abusive behavior by AMCD employees, to including glares, stares and unfriendly nonverbal communication.
28. Yet the Chair has repeatedly stigmatized Commissioners and citizens for expressing their views, for laughing, sighing or expressing views with which the Chair disagrees.
29. The Chair unlawfully called the Sheriff in response to Mr. Girvan's suggestion Commissioners resign if they didn't want to hear about the helicopter savings (approximately $1.4 million in savings) if the District purchased a mosquito-suitable helicopter rather than a luxury Bell Jet Ranger.
30. The Chair does not have the power to violate the First Amendment, with or without a vote.
31. The police department is not named.
32. AMCD cannot create a duty that does not exist.
33. Eviction is for landlords, not government agencies.
34. The use of the word "forcibly" presupposes that AMCD wants physical harm to befall anyone displeasing its Chair.
35. The section presupposes that the police should carry out illegal orders.
36. The section does not indemnify the police from following illegal orders.
37. The section does not make clear that persons violating the First Amendment are acting ultra vires, in violation of their oath of office under Article VI of the Constitution, and that AMCD shall not be held liable for illegal actions taken by the Chair.
38. AMCD's chair is in no position to give orders to anyone.
39. AMCD's chair is in no position to give orders to the Sheriff.
40. The public is not likely to "feel" welcomed, but insulted, by the wording of this section.
41. A "cognitive miser" approach to public participation is contrary to the genius of a free people.
MINUTES
42. The word "an" appears instead of the word "and"
43. No roll call votes are required.
SECTION 8 -- CONFLICTING RESOLUTIONS
44. This section is void for vagueness and badly drafted.
45. No manner of identifying conflicting resolutions is specified.
46. If there are conflicting resolutions, they must be identified and repealed by name and date, rather than impliedly.
SECTION 9 -- SEVERABILITY
47. Drafter presumably meant "affects" instead of "affect."
48. Section could be redrafted, with clearer meaning.
EFFECTIVE DATE
49. No reason is given for making the document effective immediately.
50. The word "said" is verb and obsolete in legal usage -- it is legalese and another example of poor drafting.
GENERAL COMMENTS
51. The document is a declaration of war on public participation and an invitation to participate in civil rights violations and torts in violation of Constitutional rights.
52. The document is unfriendly and hostile in the extreme -- it reads like it was written in anger, by a "cognitive miser" who "knows not that she knows not that she knows not."
53. The document contains over one dozen vague, undefined terms, legalese and cant.
54. The document does not reflect the level of expertise that one expects of an attorney who bills at the rate at which AMCD's attorney bills.
55. Who requested that the document be drafted?
56. The document reads like it was adapted ("blocked and copied") from another government agency. Was it? From which one(s)?
57. What other alternatives were considered, including the null alternative (doing nothing and observing our current policies more rigorously)?
58. How many such documents has AMCD's counsel ever drafted?
59. How many such documents did AMCD's counsel review in drafting it?
60. Who drafted it?
61. Who proof-read it?
62. Who commented on it prior to it being placed in our agenda packet?
63. How much is AMCD being billed for Resolution No:: 07-?"P
64. What is the purpose of the document?
65. Is it intended to inflame an already inflammatory situation and empower the Chair to suppress First and Ninth Amendment rights of the citizens of St. Johns County?
66. Why is there no listing in the Agenda for Commissioners' Comments?
67. Why is there no listing in the Agenda for Commissioners' Questions?
68. Does CHAIR BARBARA BOSANKO intend to chill her fellow Commissioners from ever asking any questions of staff members again, while making them go through her?
69. Does CHAIR BARBARA BOSANKO have any appreciation for First Amendment rights?
70. Was the questionable draft resolution "07-?" drafted in anger, through collaboration of BOSANKO, her husband, estimable former County Attorney DANIEL BOSANKO, and attorneys AUDREY M. HARRIS and CAROLYN B. ANSAY of the law firm of DORAN, WOLFE, ANSAY & KUNDID (HARRIS was present when the Sheriff was called and Sunshine violations held on July 10, 2007) and ANSAY refuses to answer any questions about it.
What do you reckon? Please see more below.
With kindest regards,
Ed Slavin
Box 3084
St. Augustine, FL 32085-3084
904-471-7023
904-471-9918 (fax)
No comments:
Post a Comment