There has been much discussion today regarding some of the happenings at last night's meeting, and I wanted touch on some of that in this post.
First, regarding the sign-in sheet: I'm not sure what the reason was for having the sign-in sheet; however, the very nature of having a sign-in sheet goes against the public policy reasons of the Iowa Open Meetings Law. Therefore, it does not matter if there is a good reason or a bad reason for the sign-in sheet. Iowa Code 21.2(3) states that an open session means a meeting to which all members of the public have access. City Council meetings are considered an open session under 21.3. Some may argue that this does not literally prohibit a sign-in sheet. True, but the mentality behind the sign-in sheet cannot be sign-in or you are not allowed in the meeting. This would be in direct conflict with 21.2(3) of saying that all members of the public have access. Therefore, you do not have to sign the sign-in sheet if there is another sign-in at a city council meeting in the future.
Regarding the added building permit last night. Yes, the statute does say tentative agenda, but I would point everyone to http://www.iowaleague.org/Downloads/Resources/Publications/OpenMeetings2005.pdf
Look to page 5. "The council shall provide 24 hours notice to the public on what will be discussed at the meeting. If an item is added to the agenda less than 24 hours prior to a meeting or at a meeting, the public may contend that proper notice was not given."
Regarding public records: Everyone has a right to examine a public record and to publish or otherwise disseminate a public record or the information contained in the public record, unless otherwise provided for by law. Iowa Code 22.2
The Iowa Attorney General has issued an advisory regarding the request of public records:
http://www.iowa.gov/government/ag/sunshine_advisories/2008/advisory%20-%20final%20-%2008April%20-%20Record%20Request%20Golden%20Rules.pdf
The Two Golden Rules (as in the advisory):
1. The reason a requester wants the record is irrelevant.
2. The identity of the requester usually is irrelevant. (Officials should not ask for identification, unless there is a lawful reason to do so.)
Therefore, if someone wants a copy of a public record, he or she does not have to fill out a request to receive this public record unless there is a very good legal reason.
Thank You D.O. for all the work you do.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, you guys are this upset because the Methodist church didn't get their application for a fence in at the deadline and the council--out of courtesy and respect--voted to add it to the agenda. Yes--you "can" contend that proper notice wasn't given--but WHY? What is the point, other than to cause unnecessary problems? We are a small town and I think we can be civil and kind and practical--and not nit pick over a church fence! If you would put as much energy into solving a REAL problem as you have into finding out if you can protest the addition of a building permit to the agenda, my goodness, how many problems could we solve????
ReplyDeleteThe problem with adding the permit to the agenda is that it goes against the rules and procedures for conducting an open session of the city council. You seem to infer that because Dayton is a small town we can start skirting the laws. The open laws apply to all open sessions of governmental bodies.
ReplyDeleteYes, it is very nice that the council decided to give the church some leeway; however, the open meetings law are intended to give everyone open access to the meetings, the rationale, and the decisions of the government body. If we start skirting these formal procedures, we start heading down a slippery slope.
Therefore, the real nit picking is with relation to the process of adding the permit to the agenda and not the church fence itself. Please read the Iowa League link I posted (Pg. 5, last hypothetical) to see what should have been done for this permit.
It's OK to question the works of governing bodies, and their procedures.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is in Dayton, we don't have a building commissioner, or a planning and zoning commission. With a building commissioner, or zoning commission, you can go in file for your building permit and get it OKed in a few days. But here in order to be legal and get a building permit you have to wait until the regular monthly council meeting.
If you're working with a contractor, you're at the mercy of the contractors schcedule. What I'm getting at is, if the contractor only has an opening now, or six months down the road, you're going to want him to get on your project ASAP. So, in Dayton we need to give permit applicants a little leeway, and get their permits OKed as fast as possible.
Maybe everyone that is raising such a stink about the permit,(which had no problems or concerns involved)being added to the agenda, should look at it through your own eyes. What if it was you that was trying to get a fence up, or a garage put up, or an adddition started, would you want to wait. Honestly I don't think so. We need to start being real and honest with ourselves and each other. We're all friends here, so, lighten up.
Is it really necessary to use all caps, that is considered yelling. And to use all of the question marks and exclammations? I understand what D.O. is saying. Once you start doing these things that are not following the rules, it is very hard to stop doing them. At some point you will be asked to do this again and again. I think it is nice that the Methodist Church is getting a new fence. Point being, once you start making changes for anyone you have to continue this for everyone. Get a grip, this is about following rules and adhering to the law.
ReplyDeleteI didn't want to say this but if all of these little procedures and laws have been broken, how many other things have happened. It's always easier to tell the truth and follow the law.
I believe one of the reason's the rules should be adhered to is because, what if someone asked for a building permit that was really going to affect your property and it was added at the last minute and you could not go and discuss it and it was approved. I feel this would upset some people.
ReplyDeleteActually, if only selected words are all cap and not the entire sentence, it is considered emphasis and not yelling. Not sure what problem you have with questions marks, but I'll try to limit my usage. Once again--nit picky. Seems to me that people that are this concerned with non-consequential things might need to get a hobby, get a job, get something that has more meaning than punctuation and syntax.
ReplyDeleteI do have a job and I have many hobbies. I have many more things in my life that are meaningful. More than this blog and the Dayton City Council and any committees I may be on. I just think that caps and extra questions marks make things sound like anger. I agree I may have been nit picking and I will not do this again.
ReplyDeleteOK. Everyone take a deep breath and repeat after me. ommmmmmm.
ReplyDeleteThere now that we are all calm and centered in life.
To answer a question from post 12:10. There are building codes concerning property lines, obstruction of other property, ETC. in place in the ordinances. So, the clerk and the council will look at the building permit and the drawing of the project, and determine if it meets with the regulations set forth in the city code.
That said.
Maybe we should all take a break from this blog, seems people are getting over emotional. We're forgeting what this (the blog) is all about. It's about voicing your opinion, your views, and your beliefs. It's not personal, so don't take it, or make it that way.
If we want people to really think about our views, we need to convince rather than conflict. As the saying goes
"to attract bees, use honey, not vinegar" (I've always wanted to use that saying somewhere!)
Where were all these concerns 12-15 years ago, and before, when building permits were applyed for after the project was complete. If you own adjacent property and you see a project you're concerned about, all you have to do is contact the city clerk, he will make sure the concern is looked into. So there IS recourse even after the permit is issued. You just can't wait until the project is done, then say I don't like where that is or how it looks.
ReplyDeleteI just understand why everyone is being so anal about everything.
I do agree with the statement that you "attract more bees with honey than with vinegar", I think that we can continue blogging but maybe count to three before we write certain things. A blog helps get feels and emotions out. Thank you for your answer regarding building permits.
ReplyDeleteCORRECTION:
ReplyDeleteShould be
I DON'T understand why everyone is being so anal about everything.
I just counted to three. I just have one question. What is wrong with following policies and procedures and laws? Doesn't it make it easier in the long run? I am not being "anal" just wanting things done correctly.
ReplyDeleteIt's fine to have things done correctly. But, everyones definition of correct varies. That's the legal system in a nut shell. Interpretation.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure that the city clerk checked to BE SURE that it was legal to add the building permit to the agenda. I've worked with him quite a bit over the years on many different things. And if he has questions about the legality of something he will find out. And if the permit was questionable, he wouldn't have added it.
Come on Ladies and Gentlemen, hopefully we teach our children to take responsibility for our actions and not to shift the blame, and it O.K. to break the law in Dayton, because we are a little town. And also look at me, I can do it. Great job Parents!
ReplyDeleteSo I'm a bad parent or I had bad parents because I don't agree with you? Did you read any of the posts above about not getting personal. Don't be a JERK!!!
ReplyDeleteOkay, back to the posts. The whole point is not whether we are nit picking over the church fence, but just following the rules. Someone said 12-15 years ago things were built and then a permit issued. That was either not following the rules or they didn't exist. I tend to believe the former. As a neighbor of someone who wanted to build something that might interfere with your property you would want the right to challenge the permit. Putting something on the agenda just before a meeting does not give you that opportunity. I understand that most times it makes no difference in the outcome, but where would that stop. For some things you need a waiver from a neighbor to build. As in if you are too close to a property line. If for some reason these little things are allowed then what is next? No I am not accusing, just making a statement. Hey, it's Friday night. Enjoy the weekend.
ReplyDeleteSo, everyone still keeping the same opinions that this blog isn't getting out of control?
ReplyDeleteThere is only 1 golden rule I am familiar with; Do onto others as you have others do onto you.
I always thought the golden rule was: Do unto others before they do unto you. So why doth thou think this blog is getting out of control? I think it is good that we can talk to each other without knowing the id of who is irritating each other. Keeps persoanl feelings out of it. Dayton Taxpayer and myself seem to have differing views, which is okay by me. Keep up the good work Dayton Observer.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHow is this blog getting out of control? I frequent more blogs then I should and have seen a few out of control blogs. This blog, I don't believe, is even close to out of control. People stating their opposing opinions and have healthy disagreements is not out of control in my book.
ReplyDeleteAlso found a few more golden rules (lol): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule
Sorry about the delete, I suck at typing.
"I always thought the golden rule was: Do unto others before they do unto you." That was priceless. I couldn't have asked for a better response had I scripted it for you myself.
ReplyDeleteHealthy disagreement does not include calling each other JERKS, bad parents or anal. Nothing about today's posts has been healthy or fall under any reasonable definition of constructive debate.
Dayton Flyer: I enjoyed reading your Golden Rules.
ReplyDeleteSam Adams I agree with you.
Dayton Taxpayer: The Golden Rule that D.O. was refering to was written by the Attorney General of Iowa Tom Miller.
I have blogged today and did not call anyone anal or JERKS or bad parents. When you blog you can expect some of this but you don't need to do it yourself. Maybe this is healthy maybe these emotions need to come out as it has been building.
This blog has not caused these emotions they started along time ago in the DR. When people have disagreements they become angry and that is what we were seeing today. Sometimes it's good to get that anger out of your system. I just don't understand why a simple discussion such as today has raised so much anger. I have to wonder if there is more to the emotions.
Have you ever blogged on any sports blogs? They are so much worse than this and in the end they usually end up agreeing or agreeing to disagree. There are many worse blogs in the political arena. I have been on some of these blogs and have blogged on some and have chosen not to on others.
This is the greatest sight since sliced bread. Keep up the good work.
ReplyDeleteHappy Easter to all.
ReplyDeleteI agree The Dayton Observer is great thanks to all, to D.O. and to all that blog.
Ibelieveinthetruth