It’s more reasonable than the headline makes it sound. The commissioner pointed out that he’s not in charge of the decision to use Flock cameras and told the group of people who wanted to express their opposition to him anyway to pick one representative who would do so.
I’ve been to meetings where people repeatedly express the same negative opinion of a policy to someone with no control over that policy and I guess that’s what the commissioner wanted to avoid.
he’s not in charge of the decision to use Flock cameras
but that council or whatever it was, do make the rules (local laws, ordinances) for that jurisdiction. they could do something if they wanted to. a simple ordinance prohibiting their use within their boundaries. but they do not, and they had already made up their minds–public input be damned.
Ok so when a dozen people all go to say the same thing, when do the other people get to speak?
36 minutes later. They get 3 minutes each. These elected officials can spend a half fucking hour listening to their citizens.
If a dozen people want to talk about different things, when do the other people get to speak? The subject matter makes zero fucking difference. They get the same time regardless.
I’ve also been to a county meeting like that. The topic at hand was expanding a greenway, but one Karen took up most of the meeting complaining about (what I have to assume is her imagination) people smuggling hookers into the city by canoe.
But he works for the people. It’s not his call to tell the people what they want to talk about. It’s his fucking job to sit there and listen, AND THEN SEE WHAT ELSE HE CAN DO TO HELP.
Because in this moment, the listening IS the help. People need to be heard and it’s his job to listen.
It seems like there’s a problem there. They want an elected body to pass an ordinance against something another independent elected body is already under contract to do.
In my simple brain, so be it. Why not do that?
In my rational brain, having sat through at least 100 council and commission meetings, it’s not that simple and certainly could open the county to legal issues in at least three ways (flock sues county for breach of contract; sheriff sues council for overreach; pro-flock community members sue county for whatever they can think of).
To me, this is a time for the people to play politics. Schedule meetings with these council members individually. Invite them to anti-flock parties. Convince them to be on your anti flock side. If you get one, that one can work on the others from the inside.
By the way, we already have legislation against flock – it’s called the Fourth Amendment.
It’s more reasonable than the headline makes it sound. The commissioner pointed out that he’s not in charge of the decision to use Flock cameras and told the group of people who wanted to express their opposition to him anyway to pick one representative who would do so.
I’ve been to meetings where people repeatedly express the same negative opinion of a policy to someone with no control over that policy and I guess that’s what the commissioner wanted to avoid.
but that council or whatever it was, do make the rules (local laws, ordinances) for that jurisdiction. they could do something if they wanted to. a simple ordinance prohibiting their use within their boundaries. but they do not, and they had already made up their minds–public input be damned.
No, it’s public forum and you get to say what you want regardless. You, as a citizen, shall not be silenced, no matter the topic.
see above
lol, muh freeze peach, US of A number one!!
I wish a mod would delete this, just for the irony. I get why they wouldn’t, given you’re allowed to have frozen peaches or whatever
Ok so when a dozen people all go to say the same thing, when do the other people get to speak? Time is finite.
If a dozen people want to talk about different things, when do the other people get to speak? The subject matter makes zero fucking difference. They get the same time regardless.
I’ve also been to a county meeting like that. The topic at hand was expanding a greenway, but one Karen took up most of the meeting complaining about (what I have to assume is her imagination) people smuggling hookers into the city by canoe.
oh please find us the minutes of this meeting….
That can’t be an efficient way to smuggle.
But he works for the people. It’s not his call to tell the people what they want to talk about. It’s his fucking job to sit there and listen, AND THEN SEE WHAT ELSE HE CAN DO TO HELP.
Because in this moment, the listening IS the help. People need to be heard and it’s his job to listen.
Damn, clickbait headline wins [the attention] yet again…
They want them to pass an ordinance blocking their use. They didn’t approve it, but they have the authority to stop it
It seems like there’s a problem there. They want an elected body to pass an ordinance against something another independent elected body is already under contract to do.
In my simple brain, so be it. Why not do that?
In my rational brain, having sat through at least 100 council and commission meetings, it’s not that simple and certainly could open the county to legal issues in at least three ways (flock sues county for breach of contract; sheriff sues council for overreach; pro-flock community members sue county for whatever they can think of).
To me, this is a time for the people to play politics. Schedule meetings with these council members individually. Invite them to anti-flock parties. Convince them to be on your anti flock side. If you get one, that one can work on the others from the inside.
By the way, we already have legislation against flock – it’s called the Fourth Amendment.