OPEN MEETING LAW VIOLATIONS

It appears that the Tucson City Council has violated the Open Meeting Law during the study session of April 4, 2007.

My reasons for thinking this are:

The memorandum ‘Presentation Regarding a Proposed Public/Private Partnership for a Downtown Hotel, Convention Center and Arena (Ward 1) dated April 4, 2007 refers to an Attachment: Memorandum from Council member Ibarra dated March 28th, 2007, which names a different proposal than the proposal accepted and assigned as described on the ‘Administrative Action Report and Summary April 4, 2007’, which passes for the absence of minutes, as described by a city employee. Evidently the Norville proposal was the designated agenda item as detailed in the Ibarra Memo, but the proposal voted upon was evidently presented at the meeting and voted upon without prior notification of the populace that this proposal would be even mentioned, much less voted upon.

Now I really don’t have a dog in this fight, but I do respect and admire Arizona’s Open Meeting Law and would be suitably distraught if Boss Tweed appeared among us.

It looks like passing items not on the agenda during a study session is a violation and not having minutes is a violation. If the argument that the agenda item is broad in scope and that the other proposal fits in, then I must remind you that the title refers to ‘a proposed’ not ‘proposals’, which would tend to eliminate more than one presentation. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I always thought a study session was not the time for voting. What happened to the old idea that a proposal is presented at one meeting and voted upon at another?

I remain uneasy about the idea that this ‘item was properly agendized and voted on during the Study Session Meeting. (e mail RE: city council minutes 4/13/07). What is agendizing? The published ‘administrative action report and summary’ does not resemble the agenda, memorandum, and attachment presented to the public.

Perhaps if the populace had known that the ‘new arena a described by the CS&L study’ would be a meeting topic, more people would have attended. Evidence of secrecy and violations of the Open Meeting Law should be investigated.

Exercise your voting rights and vote against secrecy in government.

Rio Nuevo Corruption

Dear Ms. Trasoff:

You must be aware of the demise of the old Indian Village by now, the relocation of the proprietor’s goods to a smaller store in La Placita, owned by a deal making developer who managed to acquire the Indian Village building and oust the long time successful business. A temporary move to La Placita and then back again to the now Rio Nuevoed building a la the Fox theater, would be fair to this business. If a developer thinks that another ‘upscale’ restaurant would generate more interest than a genuine Indian trade goods store dating from the small town days, I suppose you might be a fool to follow his advice. So renovate the old building that is not piped or vented for restaurant use back into the glorious store that does attract tourists and hotel guests out for a stroll. Think about what Tucson has been.

Are you aware that many Indian artists make a living selling work to outlets like the Indian Village? Tucson could be an Indian cultural center again and tourists would love it and goods and services would sell. Let your developer locate his blah restaurant somewhere else, like the talk o the town again or something else instructive instead of destructive to an established business with clientele.

I would like a copy of the original agreement with Mr. Bourne concerning this $100 giveaway.

Dorothy Prater Niemi