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

Oh, God Where is Judge Larry?

Fourteen men and one woman Brit captured by the Persians
They should release her
Before their women see her
From such a different society
Might influence those women
Into a worldview beyond the one taught

The captured diplomats
Defined by those holding the meeting
Let them go after a dose
Of frontier mentality
To take home
The Code of the West.

So the Persians did what?
Is this the first time a conflict
Has occurred in that estuary?
Provocation or error
Trespassers or hostages?

Show we mercy to the world?
Injustice answered with injustice
To the innocent is self defeating
Our Supreme Commander should listen
To his Generals lest he emulate Pompey.

If indeed England is again
The financial capital of the world
And we are left with our tekkies
To dream up future success for our species
We amass and categorize knowledge

Let Alexandria rise again
Let the glory of Egypt shine
See the new glory of Rome
Tenochitlan and Monte Alban
New York and LA and China

We must share knowledge
Therein lies the trust
Necessary for academic creativity
We owe the world peace
After decades of strife.

Cutoff of Colorado River CAP Water to Arizona

Analysis of: Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead

http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/strategies/news.html

In Stage I Colorado River Shortages:

It appears that the math used to arrive at the shortage assignments differs from case to case, no doubt the result of the 60s agreement that optimistically took responsibility for all shortages on the river unto Arizona.

I now ask what the incentive for all those water users in California to conserve might be? I believe this antiquated agreement that penalizes Arizona water users unduly while cutting no allocations for others leads to profligate development and wastage of water.

As a native Arizonan, I deplore this unfair distribution of water shortage ‘allocations’. This ill-conceived agreement should be renegotiated.

Another problem is the cutting off of agriculture in favor of bedroom communities and ever continuing development is strategically foolish. Agriculture recharges the water table, provides human food and fodder for livestock and is a viable business in Arizona. I know the assumption is that food can be shipped in with less cost than the value of the water used in agriculture, but making sure that the population of Arizona is totally dependent on supplies brought in using fossil fuels is poor future planning. Fossil fuel is not going to ever be cheaper and this policy insures that the people of Arizona will be paying inflated food prices on all foodstuffs. I have a problem with this kind of shortsighted planning. Of course, the developers promote this destructive plan since they can then sop up the last of the Arizona allocation in more homes. As of now, Tucson has over 9,000 housing units for sale at inflated prices.

I do believe that prohibiting further water hookups, cutting water to golf courses and other water saving measures should be required of all communities using Colorado River water before this shortage allocation plan be implemented.

The economic problems generated by a cessation of raw development are real and can be predicted in terms of construction related unemployment. All of the communities using Colorado River water must aim for sustainability in water resources, which will force a lifestyle change among the water users.

I know that the present allocations were assigned during flood times on the Colorado, as corroborated by data from 1500-2000 AD. The ‘new’ average river flow will not sustain the current populations at their level of water use.

I suggest that mandatory conservation and cessation of new water hookups be required of all communities using Colorado River water. A refusal to conserve water and a refusal to deny new water hookups should result in immediate cuts of Colorado River water deliveries. All communities should share in the results of drought conditions.