Correction to August 1 Citizen Minutes
Comments(1)
There was an error in the complete version of the Citizen Minutes for
August 1, 2006 posted on our website here.
You can see Ms. Conklin’s comment about this correction in the Comments section of the Citizen Minutes.
Printed here is the revised paragraph with the change noted.
Agenda Items
The Council passed an ordinance amending Chapter 1 of Title 9 of the Littleton City Code pertaining to restrictions on minor drivers. This act will bring Littleton in compliance with the new state law. Clark amended the motion by adding language that would include the same language the state has pertaining to the penalties which are fines and community service. Rebecca Kast did not support the amendment saying that the municipal judges should have leeway one way or the other. Amy Conklin said she did not (like – was used incorrectly) mind giving the judges direction and if she had her way they would not be adopting the law at all. Clark explained that this was a contentious issue at the state level and he does not think it is wise to only incorporate a portion of the law into city code. His motion failed on a 3-4 vote with Mulvey and Taylor voting with Clark.
TO: Littleton Examiner
FROM: Carol Brzeczek
SUBJECT: Response to Amy Conklin
Wonderful, I am glad to know that Ms. Conklin is reading the Examiner. I thank her for her contribution to the minutes and apologize for the error. She is correct.
However, Ms. Conklin stated that the minutes I write appear as “official” when I have never made such a claim and neither has the Examiner. That’s why they are called “Citizen Minutes” and not “Official Minutes.” In fact, there are times that I refer the reader to the official minutes on the City’s web site.
Just as the minutes that come before the council for approval, there will be additions, deletions, and corrections. I try very hard to write my minutes accurately and am open to any corrections that are offered. I have witnessed the council rewriting their minutes to include statements that they did not make and refusing to include statements that were made to be included in the written record. That I won’t do!
Ms. Conklin asserts that the minutes I write are “simply Ms. Brzeczek’s opinions.” According to Webster, an opinion “implies a conclusion thought out yet open to dispute.” The minutes are meant to be a true and accurate representation of the actual meeting – I attribute statements to the proper speakers and if I have added anything that did not occur in the meeting I italicize those words. I am not sure how Ms. Conklin comes to her conclusion that the minutes are “simply” my opinions when I am reporting what individual council members say. It defies logic.
I am certain that council would like for me to go away, but there is such positive feedback from the community about the minutes that I almost feel obligated to continue. Citizens are truly interested in what is going on in their local government and they now feel like they are getting the information they want.
Speaking of minutes – Ms. Conklin has referred the readers to the web site and library for copies of the meeting. What Ms. Conklin failed to tell you is:
1.
The only meetings you will see streamed on the Internet and captured in VHS and DVD format at the library are the Regular meetings on the 1st and 3rd Tuesday. (This is a new practice as of August 2006 and I commend the Council for finally spending some of the PEG money cable subscribers provide for this type of service. Until then, if you wanted a DVD of the meeting you had to pay $5.00.)
2.
The Official Minutes are not available on the web site until after they have been approved by Council – a process that can take a minimum of two weeks. (I write mine within 48 hours of the meeting so the information is timelier.)
3.
The Special meetings, where some of the nitty gritty discussion takes place, where decisions are made but not recorded properly, are not available to you on VHS, DVD, or their web site.
4.
The “official minutes” of their Special meetings do not give the reader a thorough representation of what occurred at the meeting. A very recent example is the discussion of going to the voters to ask for a lifting of the TABOR spending cap, aka de-Brucing. Try going to the website to see those minutes – they aren’t there! This is what the minutes actually say about a very serious and lengthy discussion: “Possible TABOR election – Council consensus was to proceed with referring a general de-Brucing question.”
That’s it! If you really want to know who said what during the entire discussion, and who was included in the “consensus” you have to read my minutes, purchase the audiotape from the City or attend the meetings.
So, Ms. Conklin, when the council starts doing their job I might not have to do mine!