Five items to suggest that the City hasn’t yet learned the importance of communications and transparency:
Posted to the Nfld News at 7 pm yesterday: City may have violated Open Meetings Law. “Five City Council members have now confirmed that they met individually with the city administrator to discuss withholding tax reimbursements from Waterford Township, an apparent violation of state Open Meetings Law.” - Wed. Nfld News: Fighting words arise over 30-year-old annexation agreement: “The city’s decision to review the agreement at next Tuesday’s city council meeting is “unethical,” since it doesn’t provide enough time for Waterford to weigh its legal options, Dudley said after discussing the issue with city officials at the township’s regular meeting on Monday night.”
- Managing Editor Suzy Rook in her Writer’s Block column: Jim Pokorney says he didn’t intend to say the News acted unethically. “During a discussion of an apparent “security breach” at City Hall in which the newspaper ended up with a document the city administrator says he asked staff and council members not to share, Pokorney said we should have given the document back to its rightful owner.”
- Jane McWilliams observer report: “There are yet unanswered questions about whether and how the staff got direction to request the memorandum, as there has been, to the knowledge of the League observer, no recent public discussion about the matter.”
- Council Betsey Buckheit’s blog post, What I’m still learning: "Have staff overstepped their authority? Yes, I believe they have. Why have they done this? Because the Council (and previous Councils – this is an entrenched cultural problem, not a one time error) has allowed it to happen. Transparency in the workings of city government is paramount. The council has failed to make clear that anything that smacks of secrecy, or strategic withholding of information, and or non-public process are all unacceptable.
KYMN news update yesterday:
With respect to the mayor’s opinion, she is side stepping or conflating the base issue. This is a ridiculous “spin’ to put on a problem that is far more serious than leaks to the newspaper, which I might add, have been presumed to have been occurring since the conflicts of the previous administration.
The basic and far more troublesome issue is that of the City Administrator having even ‘sequential’ meetings with councilors to advance a policy decision… a policy decision which degrades the fragile relationship Northfield maintains with its neighboring townships.
All of this speaks of an arrogance that cannot be tolerated in a community that expects more of both its elected officials and staff.
But, “make no mistake ” as our primary politician and governmental leader says … Not all of the council is “in” on this or in agreement, but councilors who are ‘obstreperous” get phone calls at home from their highest level employee…
Those councilors who want to clear these issues up, must be supported by public comment. Do not condemn them all, but listen to what they say… and if they say it, hold them to their words.
Did I miss something?
Can’t City Council members meet with the City Administrator serially? I thought the concern was councilmembers deciding issues without public discussion.
So what if a memo is attorney-client privileged? The client doesn’t have to keep it privileged; only the lawyer has to. If a public official wants to leak information to the media, so what?
David,
Interesting questions. I guess different lawyers have different opinions on the open meeting law.
And then we wonder why it is so difficult to get anyone to serve on commissions? Seems like if you are in any way connected with city government, you about have to consult legal council to determine where you can go to the bathroom.
Serial meetings are a violation of the open meeting law. period.
Mark Anfinson is the authority, in this state, on this law… he also advises the League of Minnesota Cities, and the newspaper ‘s professional assn.
Policy decisions are not to be made in serial meetings and out of the public eye.
Everyone can make mistakes; the question is: will these misadventures be owned up to, apologized for, or will the spin continue?
David: of course the City administrator may meet with councilors, when it is for information delivery,… but not to come to a conclusion which results in a policy action. that’s the difference; the spin is all about the leak; the leak is not the basic issue.
By the way… for those who have not read Councilor Buckheit’s latest blog post on this and related matters of transparency, you need to read it , and appreciate the courage it takes to be the first Councilor to acknowledge ,a serious problem of governance.
Adults acknowledge, correct , and move on with good intentions… that’s what C. Buckheit has done. Thank you, Ms. Councilor.
My concern is not only with the possibility that Joel and the council may have engaged in some questionable decision-making procedures. I am troubled also by the “privileged and confidential” designation of Hood’s analysis and opinion. What is that all about? If it was prepared at the behest of the council to be presented to the Waterford board, why wouldn’t it be considered a public document? Did the councilors see it before Monday? If so, doesn’t that make it a public information?
Finally, I think it was very inappropriate for such a provocative document to be conveyed to the township folks without explicit public sanction by the council. In addition to transparency, we should expect accountability from our elected officials. Moreover, how can we possibly expect Waterford to cooperate with us if we treat them so heavy handedly?
The kindest spin I can put on all this is that the staff is so beset by so many issues (budget, safety center/library financing, annexations, assembling documents for the Lansing investigation, etc.), that they resorted to expediency rather than prudence.
For those who are interested, MN Open Meeting Law is here:
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=13D
In addition, the mystery poster fairandbalanced over on the News site quoted from the following legislative research paper on the subject:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/14619997/Minnesota-Laws
It says on the subject:
However, the footnote in the same reference states:
I guess it all comes down to what was discussed when Joel met with the various councilpersons.
The law firm of Flaherty & Hood is known for aggressive action against townships in annexation matters on behalf of cities all across the state. Now that this firm has begun work for the City as of Jan. 1, am I surprised at the move against townships, starting with Waterford, in recent days and the charge of violation of open meeting law? Not really.
Let’s hope this serves as a wake-up call for the Mayor and Council to see to it that city business is conducted in the light of day and that staff and legal counsel are held to a higher standard. Time will tell.
The reason that serial meetings are against the law is that they obscure the absolute for decision making in the public eye, except for the few named exclusions which permit a closed meeting.
The council did NOT give direction to the Administrator in their public meeting to develop a legal position and present it to the Waterford Town Board…
***Think about it folks… if that direction had been given in the public meeting, there would have been no need for these non-public meetings with councilors on this policy issue… would there? ***
Kiffi: This is an excellent point. There should have been a public decision to conduct this business, even if the business could have been conducted privately. We need to remember that our new legal counsel has neither the institutional experience nor practical wisdom of our previous counsel.
Patrick: “fairandbalanced” (NFNews troll) is always selective in the information he/she/it provides.
I suggest you read Betsey Buckheit’s blog as to whether there was an infraction or not.
Kiffi,
Many people are selective in the information they present.
The paper that F&B referenced was a legislative analyst’s paper -- generally about as good as it gets for a brief and fairly reliable summary of the law.
I’m just acknowledging the source that brought the reference to my attention.
Kiffi,
Many people are selective in the information they present.
The paper that F&B referenced was a legislative analyst’s paper -- generally about as good as it gets for a brief and fairly reliable summary of the law.
I’m just acknowledging the source that brought the reference to my attention.
Patrick: a legislative analyst’s opinion is yes, ” about as good as it gets for a brief and fairly reliable summary of the law” AS IT APPLIES TO THE PARTICULAR CASE BEING ANALYZED.
Since you seem to put some faith in some anonymous opinions, read “dapa2″‘s reply to “f and b”.
… and please read Councilor Buckheit’s blog. Isn’t she your council rep?
No, Betsey is not my councilperson. I am happy to report that Jim Pokorney is my council representative.
I have read dapa2′s post (and responded to it). I have not read all of his linked materials, because I have done so in the past, and I have found that he generally relies on pretty unreliable sources. For good examples, check out any of his voluminous references on the subject of global warming.
If you look at the paper I referenced, you will see that it is not an analysis of a single case, but a summary of MN Open Records law generally.
At some point, I will read Betsey’s blog. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. However, I find that I need a better understanding of the law generally before I’ll be better able to make sense of this case in particular.
Oh, and Joey’s waking up now. Bye bye.
Kiffi,
I have now read Betsey’s blog. However, I don’t see anything she has written there which directly addresses “whether there was an infraction or not” -- if by “infraction” you mean “violation of the Open Meetings Law.”
All I see is a vague statement:
Indeed, it’s hard to tell what exactly she is referring to. Perhaps she will clarify her remarks at a later date.
Link: http://betseybuckheit.wordpress.com/
Great. Can we all agree that when you go to a city council meeting it appears that all of the council has previously come to a decision, fail to fully discuss these decisions in the meetings, and then take votes that appear to be premature for everyone involved (becuase how could they have come to a conclusion unless they had previously met secretly and pre-decided their decision?). That seems to be the dilema of all public-elected-authorities (not just Northfield). Woo-hoo. This complaint will never go away until the City Council can get it through their heads that they have a responsibility to the citizens to fully discuss every issue--including discussing how much they discussed it before they got to the meeting. Instead, the city administrator and city council seem to work in concert to circumvent the open meeting laws. In all cities. Maybe they learned this from Dick Cheney or maybe it is part of our cynical political situation, but it is what it is.
How about questioning the original agreement with Waterford. This agreement was entered into by a previous council and is unfairly beneficial to Waterford and absolutely prejudicial to Northfield. It is resonable for the Northfield administration and the Northfield city council to question why they should be working to keep Northfield taxpayers bound to such a one-sided agreement.
Second, what about a general discussion of annexation? One of the problems facing county governments is dealing with residential (and comercial/industrial) growth in the townships--townships whose governance was originated and based on an agricultural society requiring residential restriction in order to preserve farming. Municipalities, on the other hand, are endowed under state law with the ability to govern residential development and monitor and regulate residential and commercial/industrial development.
Look at Bridgewater--which enacted municipality-like structure (zoning and planning) in order to restrict industrial development due to the failure of the county and state to regulate that development.
Waterford is unincorporated yet has substantial residential growth. Some years ago Northfield foolishly entered into an unfavorable agreement. Well, even this non-lawyer can tell you that you can’t enter into an illegal contract--and for Northfield to pay Waterford for property taxes forever seems pretty hinky to me. Frankly, Waterford was a big greedy in their blackmail on the original agreement, and it is their due to deal with that greed now.
I have every sympathy with Waterford residents to want to control development in their neighborhood. Incorporate and govern, then.
Jane,
Want to join me, and post your thoughts on the annexation agreement over here:
“Does the Waterford Township annexation agreement need to be revised?”
http://locallygrownnorthfield.org/post/3604/
I agree that the Waterford annexation agreement needs to be fixed, but I’m pretty sure that the “who said what to whom, and when?” discussion will dominate in this thread. Heck, just compare the two titles.
Jane, your portrayal of Waterford as the “big greedy” I find appalling. Waterford Township has already been reduced to a fragment of what it once was by land grabs by Northfield, including the waste treatment plant. That was about 1971. When they were hesitant to release 20 acres to Northfield for Sheldahl in 1980 without getting something in return, who could blame them?
It was a good compromise, supported by the State Legislature. Certainly Mayor Arnie Nelson thought so at the time. The first tax payment Waterford got was very small. Now it’s up to something over $3000/yr as I understand it. Northfield gets the larger tax share on it by far and should be satisfied.
All Dakota Cty townships have their own zoning, coordinated with the County. Bridgewater is first to do p&z in Rice County. We, too, are tired of bad decisions by the County. We exercised our right to local control provided by state law.
We did not have our own zoning when the annexation agreement w/Dundas was passed and this led to some confusion when it came to issuing permits on property on borders of Dundas (Annexation Reserve District), but this has been worked out.
I am pleased and thankful that my township supervisors chose to do their zoning, with the support of the large majority of our residents.
Kiffi, I’ve also removed your comment about the anonymous commenters on the Northfield News website. I’ve asked you several times to stop doing this, that it’s not a concern of ours here.
Patrick, I’ve removed your comment since it was attached to Kiffi’s.
For others, Patrick linked to her comment to Jon Denison, which I’ve also removed.
Griff- Feel free to remove mine, also. It really doesn’t mean anything without the other comments, and you did exactly what I thought you should with those. Thanks for a great job of moderating.
Thanks, John. DONE.
Griff: As previously stated, In My Opinion, you do not understand the nature of an “ad hominem” comment. It is not possible to make an “ad hominem” “attack” on an anonymous commenter.There is no possibility of defamation to a anonymous entity.
The fact that you don’t “like” comments about the administrative structure of the NFNews website might be considered irrelevant to any pertinent issue except for your personal preference, since you regularly make critical personal evaluations of both that and the City Website.
Kiffi, Jon Denison may be anonymous on the Nlfd News site but he’s not anonymous over on the EDA thread where you addressed him. Ad Hominem attack? I don’t know. My main concern is that it poisons any hope of having a discussion about the EDA’s situation with someone who’s in a relevant leadership position… and sends a signal to the rest of LG readers, especially other councilors and community leaders, that if they make a comment here, they’re likewise opening themselves up to that type of comment.
As for your comments about the anonymous commenters on the Nfld News website, I’ve told you before: If and when one of us blogs about that policy, then you can chime in. Until then, don’t bring it up. My sandbox, my rule.
Kiffi,
For the record, there is no evidence that Jon Denison posts on Nfld News -- anonymous or otherwise.
Actually, that should’ve read “Griff,…” not “Kiffi.”
Nfld News: Waterford investigating council’s meetings.
See the PDF of the letter from the Waterford attorney posted to the City’s website.
Joel Walinski’s unhappy with the Nfld News, as evidenced by his wording in this week’s Friday Memo:
Is it in a separate PDF? It doesn’t seem to be in the memo itself, and it would be interesting to see his explanation of his meetings with the individual councilpersons.
Patrick, yep, it’s in a separate PDF:
http://www.ci.northfield.mn.us/assets/0/011510-Memo-on-Open-Meeting-Law-Requirments-011410.pdf
Thanks.
Mr. Hood’s account of the meetings in the “Relevant Facts” section, if accurate, would not seem to violate the open meeting law.
If they differ on what transpired at the various one-on-one meetings, perhaps Ms. Buckheit or some other councilperson could offer some other account. Otherwise, I assume we’ll never know.
Still, as I said in the EDA thread, “I would hope that the Council can follow both the spirit as well as the letter of the law.” Even if Joel/Mr. Hood’s account is accurate it could be certain to create suspicion among some city observers, the same matter could’ve been better discussed in a work session, and then relayed to Waterford before meeting in a regular council session to make the decision.
KYMN news blog: ‘Morning Show’ with Jeff Johnson | Northfield Mayor Mary Rossing discusses Waterford agreement, council work session.
Nfld News has an updated version of: Meetings may have broken state law.
John Dudley appears to be upset with BOTH the process and the content, so Joel’s attempt at relationship-building appears to not have worked.
In the same Nld News article:
Jessica’s comment echoes that of Jane McWilliams which I noted above: “There are yet unanswered questions about whether and how the staff got direction to request the memorandum, as there has been, to the knowledge of the League observer, no recent public discussion about the matter.”
I’m wondering, if Joel did this on his own, what could have been the motivation? Why the urgency?
Councillor Betsey Buckheit wrote a blog post today, addressing both the procedural issue and the joint agreement:
http://betseybuckheit.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/transparency-clarified/
Since Mr. Walinski says new city attorney Hood gave him the go -ahead to hold meetings with the councilors, and since it is stated that Councilor Denison was the first councilor to meet in Walinski’s office on Jan 4, the first business day of the year… it would seem appropriate to note the times of Mr. Denison’s conference with Mr. Walinski, and Attny Hoods’s advice to Mr. Walinski.
Since the council meeting of Jan 4 was the beginning of this issue, and was NOT the source of council direction to Mr. Walinski, the date/paper trail would seem to be relevant.
Thanks Tracy. Betsey, in her new posting, shows some good insight into both the matter of importance here: how to be more open in discussions going forward, and the importance of readdressing the Waterford agreement.
In looking at what Mr. Laugen linked to (on Ms. Buckheit’s blog), the is difference in legality is between one-way information communication and two-way responses to that information. That is an interesting dilema in this day and age of nearly instant communications. The other question I have is why the information communicated to the councilors could not have been communicated to the Waterford board at the same time?
I skimmed through the pdf of the Hood document on open meeting law provided by Griff (comment 21.2 above). I am not impressed, given that Hood has been caught in violations of open meeting law at other locations. Naturally he will defend himself to the best of his ability.
City wants closed-door meeting with Wilson Township officials
http://www.winonapost.com/stock/functions/VDG_Pub/detail.php?choice=7549&home_page=1&archives=
I gave the Mayor and some Council members fair warning of what hiring this firm could mean before they approved the contract. They saw fit to ignore it.
I will be waiting to see if the Council votes to deny Waterford its annual tax (something in the range of $3000) on Tuesday night, thereby opening up action by Atty Hood to have the whole annexation agreement of 1981 set aside. Or do the right thing for the good of all and drop it. What will they value more--this small amount of tax or the goodwill of the people?
Stephanie: I don’t agree with you very often. But, this is one time I do agree.
This is a 28 years old annexation agreement. We don’t need secret meetings and attorney’s advice to sit down with our neighbors and talk.
With regard to the attorneys, most of the town, including the Chamber, gave the Council plenty of warning.
Stephanie,
They will also weigh the value of the ability (or lack thereof) to annex in the future.
[...] to complain that city staff and Council members have failed at transparency (see the News and Locally Grown and more Locally Grown) let’s see what we could have done [...]
If Northfield is successful in saving $3000/yearly by stopping payments to Waterford, how many years will it take to make up for the impending loss of thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees? What a clumsy way to deal with one’s neighbors.
[...] moved to abrogate their annexation agreement with the township of Waterford. A story in LocallyGrownNorthfield offers some interesting background on the recent decision. Couple that with 2008 “Operation [...]
Can anyone decipher why there appeared to be urgency for Joel and Brian to delve into this issue and attend the Waterford meeting prior to it being discussed at a Council work session or meeting?
Griff: No. Betsey’s blog isn’t any help either.
Griff: I think you should inquire of the relevant parties, i.e. Mr Walinski and Mr. O’Connell, rather than encourage speculation.
If you ask them directly maybe they will not be hesitant to comment here, as opposed to having speculation about their motives.
Yes, Griff, what’s the rush. I heard you ask that of Council member Erica Zweifel in the LG interview on KYMN at 6 pm. We in Bridgewater Township have been wondering why Northfield staff have have been in such a hurry to process the Gill/Prawer annexation also.
Since the Waterford issue is coming to a vote (whether to cancel the payment of the $3000 tax) tomorrow night, Jan. 19, the vote on the Bridgewater annexation has been postponed to the Feb. 2 Council meeting. What?? It’s scheduled for caucus night? How can this be? Most township residents will be at their party caucus.
Eric Zweifel did not believe it, when I called her today. She said she had specifically asked that there not be a meeting on caucus night.
[...] it doesn't mean, what it might mean By Tracy Davis, on January 19th, 2010 There’s been another local fracas recently referencing Minnesota’s Open Meeting Law. I thought I’d take a crack at [...]
Today’s Nfld News: Council agrees to wait on Waterford discussion.
Regardless of the thorough discussion at last night’s council meeting on the two internal issues surrounding the Waterford bigger annexation document issue, there are still some ‘holes’.
First of all , let me state , with great emphasis, that the council was very genuine in its desire to straighten out what had become a murky mess.
Councilor Buckheit asked for a discussion just on the process surrounding Attny Hood’s memo, and its presentation to the Waterford Town Board. That discussion was far ranging, and very well intentioned.
However, there is one big discrepancy in my mind, as I watched the meeting and listened carefully. The attorney’s POV is definitely that the entire annexation agreement with Waterford is “null and void”.
But the primary issue, as brought forth, was the cessation of reimbursement payments (for Tax loss) to Waterford.
A question was repeatedly asked, by councilors and public, of how ‘tied’ together the two parts of this agreement are; i.e., if the council discontinues making the payments, is the entire agreement negated?
It would seem so although the attorney did not, I felt answer that as clearly…I may be mistaken… but instead kept saying that in his opinion, the entire agreement was null and void by its own structure anyway.
So… although the council voted to have a 30 day period for Waterford and their attorneys to respond… the larger issue of the entire agreement still looms large.
My two bits:
Council seemed oblivious to the increasingly negative effect their discussion was having on the audience. Atty Hood said the annexation agreement was nul and void and had been for years. Council members, including Betsy Buckheit (also an attorney), took his word for it. I still believe the agreement is grandfathered in. I hope Waterford gets a good attorney opinion.
Don McGee, Northfield resident who ran for Zweifel’s seat, said “Amen to those at the mic (Waterford group).” He said just because something is legal does not make it right. As for illegal meetings, people are offended. Won’t legal fees exceed the $3000 annual tax? I say, ” Don’t just table it, BURN IT.” Meaning the atty memo. People broke out clapping.
I don’t think it was reported in the News, but Jessica White Peterson, President of the Northfield League of Women Voters, made a statement at the council meeting Tuesday night about transparency. Find it at: http://lwvnorthfieldmn.org/
Jane, can that statement of Jessica’s be put into it’s own blog post so that it’s linkable? If not, can I put it in a comment here in it’s entirety so that it’s not lost when the LWV home page changes?
For others, Jane’s Observer’s Report of the Tuesday council meeting is at:
http://lwvnorthfieldmn.org/weblog/post/2076/
Sure -- post it as a comment -- with attribution! I’ll suggest to the LWV webmaster that she put the link in my post, should the statement disappear from the home page.
Jessica Peterson’s statement read at the 01/19/10 City Council meeting:
“Trying to be good neighbors seems to have bitten the city in the backside …” -- Nfld News managing editor Suzy Rook
http://northfieldnews.com/news.php?viewStory=51321
Hmmm, where have I seen that metaphor used recently?
Did the Waterford supervisors violate the Open Meeting Law this week? Suzy Rook says they may have:
In reply to # 43… How interesting that the NFNews is all a-Twitter about Northfield possibly violating the OML, and criticizes a councilor, Jim Pokorney, who said at the council meeting “Why didn’t they just give it back?” (referring to the leaked memo from city hall, and simultaneously showing a grand oblivion to the essence of ‘news’)…
But then… rather than carrying through any investigative journalism, editorial opinions…or otherwise informative news posture… jumps right back onto the city bandwagon!
In reply to #44 … Maybe the Waterford Twp supervisors ‘noticed’ the NF Council meeting at which they all appeared as an emergency meeting; seems reasonable… if anyone’s still being reasonable.
Someone should tell S Rook to do the math. A body of three has a quorum in two … therefore an unannounced meeting of Supervisors that is NOT illegal (vis a vis the Open Meting Law) would be a meeting of ONE!
Hmm. Only the seriously disturbed would have a problem prevailing with those numbers and, it does not require a large facility.
Don’t we all do that frequently; In the bathroom, walking in the woods mumbling to ourselves? You get my point.
But Rook’s point is, interesting. She should ask the News’ Open Meeting guru to ferret out an acceptable answer.
The EDA Executive Committee handles it by small groups meeting unannounced with their leader (for many that’s the staff Eco. Dev. Dpt. Executive Director). So, Is initiative formed-up in these situations that of the Executive Committee? Or staff -- or some convenient combination? No one knows where actions coming from those meetings starts. Seems to end in shouting match, according to the N News, or a rubber-stamp vote.
I was surprised at what Ms. Rook posted on the website suggesting Waterford may be in violation of Open Meeting Law. I hope you all saw the Liz Messner response:
By: Liz on 1/23/10
As one of those Supervisors, I would like to point out that a notice was posted at our Town Hall on Saturday, Jan. 16th regarding this meeting. It stated that all Supervisors would be attending the City Council meeting on Tues. Jan 19th, 2010 and may meet afterwards to discuss it. Township are allowed to post a notice in a public place 3 days prior to holding or attending a meeting where one or more supervisors may attend. At our annual meeting each March, the Town Hall is designated as that public place.
Liz Messner
Waterford Supervisor
good for Waterford!
I hope they have also posted a notice that they will be attending the Council’s goal setting session (retreat) at the Hospital Board room on Tuesday night., to listen to that discussion.
Will Waterford be one of the News’s new ‘targets’?
Kiffi, if township residents popped in on a “goal setting” Council retreat Tuesday night, I’m afraid it might put a damper on things. But thanks for the invitation.
As for the troubles the Council is experiencing, one has to remember that five of the seven Council persons are fairly new. “Greenhorns,” if you will. I assume each of them has had some basic training sessions through Assn of MN Cities or whatever. Minnesota Association of Townships offers such trainings for new township board members.
As Supervisor Messner has said, the attendance of the Waterford Board at the Jan. 19 Northfield Council meeting was properly posted--there was no violation. The Bridgewater Township Board is also well informed on open meeting law.
In my years as a farm activist, I find that township government is widely supported. At an ag forum in Owatonna Friday, all three candidates for the Senate seat vacated by Dick Day said they supported the right of townships to have their own planning and zoning. Candidates are Jason Engbrecht (DFL), Roy Srp (I) and Mike Parry (R).
*Election is Tuesday, Jan. 26. Townships in southern Rice Cty bordering on Faribault are in SD 26.
Stephanie: I understand the reticence you remark upon; even the LWV observers felt hesitant at attending a previous ‘retreat’ in the Hospital Board room. It seems chosen to inhibit public observance.
However, if annexation is to be one of the Big Issues in this coming year, then those interested parties would do well to listen to a more general discussion, rather than the specific action related items at a council meeting.
There is a LWV observor report on the Council Retreat that Griff might want to post here.
I would be surprised if one or two Council members do not regret their action against Waterford, given a little while to reflect on it. Someone who attended the jt. govt meeting hosted by Dundas at Bridgewater Township last week remarked that he doubted a local attorney firm representing the City would have moved ahead in this fashion. Only an outside firm unfamiliar with the close ties in our community would have done that.