HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/20/2018 Item 11, Evans
From:Pete Evans <
To:Richard Schmidt
Cc:E-mail Council Website; Johnson, Derek; Keith Gurnee
Subject:Re: Anholm Bikeway Resolution
I'm sending this item to Congalton., maybe another show on our idiot council?
Keith, you remember a few years back when I stumbled into student government. I had to lead some
meetings there, I had never heard of Robert's Rules of Order. Within a month or two I had them down
pat. The childish ignorance of our present and some past councils in this regard is stunning. Nice note
Richard, what a bunch of greedy fools you have to contend with.
Pete
Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
John F. Kennedy
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 12:36 PM, Richard Schmidt <slobuild@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear Council and Mayor,
It is most disheartening to learn, from the voluminous orchestrated bike coalition correspondence in your packet, that
these people truly do lack a sense of decency and fair play and are determined to be sore winners because they didn’t
get 100% of what they demanded.
It would be even more disheartening for the council to buy into their selfishness and distortions by relitigating what you
led all to believe last meeting was a settled issue.
Let me remind you why this item is on your agenda tonight: because the Mayor failed to follow normal parliamentary
procedure by having a clear motion made, seconded, recorded by the clerk, and read back to the council by the clerk
prior to a vote. That’s Robert’s rules of order, which you work under. That’s how in my 40+ years of SLOcity experience
all city meetings were run till very recently. I was shocked, after asking the clerk for a copy of your motion, to find she
didn’t have one. That, too, seems like malfeasance of duty.
The result is staff felt uncertain they had the documentation they needed to support their work, so they have brought
back a resolution reflecting what you voted to do. While one can certainly quibble about some of the resolution’s wording
and details, it quite fully and accurately captures the gist of your directive. Claims to the contrary by the bike people are
nonsense – and the fact they all repeat pretty much the same distortions points to an orchestrated effort to manipulate
the council.
It would send a terrible message to all for you to reopen this controversial matter yet again. Your vote promised
closure. The neighborhood has suffered through years of planning abuse. The resolution you reached last time
was a compromise we must ALL live with – the neighborhood, and even the tiny but loud bike fanatic group.
You need to deal with adopting the resolution, and stop torturing our neighborhood.
Richard Schmidt
1