Tag Archives: Transparency

Public hearing doesn’t mean the public gets to know anything

Jane Osborn wrote:
Requesting such a hearing before January 24 would give the opportunity to have all this information presented and for questions to be asked and answered.
Except that’s not the way it works around here. Public hearing locally means the chairman or mayor or whoever says “Who wants to speak for?” and maybe somebody speaks. And then “Who wants to speak against?” and maybe somebody speaks. It doesn’t mean that the Commission or the Council or the Authority presents anything for the public to consider.

Witness the hearing the Lowndes County Commission held in December on the documents related to the Comprehensive Plan. The only reason the public knew anything about what was in those documents was that Gretchen got them from somewhere else after the Commission refused to supply them in response to an open records request. The Commission never distributed any of the relevant documents to the public. Only one citizen spoke, perhaps because nobody else knew what to speak about.

Almost none of the local municipalities or boards or authorities routinely present to the public the information that is in the packets they see before the discuss or vote. There are rare exceptions, such as the VLMPO and other organizations or projects administered by the Southern Georgia Regional Commission (SGRC). SGRC is a state agency, not a local agency. Why does Lowndes County and all its municipalities and boards avoid transparency?

Why can’t you, the public, see what’s in a rezoning request before Continue reading →

No public hearing unless someone asks for it —Jane Osborn

Received yesterday on Public transportation and public records in Lowndes County,
Another issue here is that there will be no public hearing on this issue unless someone ASKS for it. Without a hearing, it just goes forward with no other public information about being presented. Anyone may ask for a hearing, but I would especially think that there are people who really need a functional system that is not just focused on people who have access to Medicaid as a payment source due to illness or disability. Requesting such a hearing before January 24 would give the opportunity to have all this information presented and for questions to be asked and answered.

-Jane Osborn

What is MIDS, anyway?

Here’s a bit from a VDT article about MIDS, by Malynda Fulton 11 July 2009, The bus stops here: Proposed plan will not affect county buses
Lowndes County officials assure citizens who use the county’s current transit program that they will not be affected if the proposed Valdosta-Lowndes County Transit Service Plan is implemented in the area.

The current Lowndes County 5311 Transit Program falls under the jurisdiction of the Georgia Department of Transportation. Ten percent of the program is subsidized by the state and 80 percent is subsidized by federal funds. Lowndes County provides 10 percent of the cost of each bus.

Lowndes County’s 5311 Transit Program was implemented in December 2001 with only three buses. The program now includes six buses that provide transportation throughout Lowndes County.

That may make MIDS the biggest bus system in the county. VSU may have more busses. Does Moody run busses?

More about MIDS: Continue reading →

Public transportation and public records in Lowndes County

Jane Osborn asked me 6 Jan 2011:
Here are the notices about public transportation that was supposed to be done some time ago. I am trying to figure out how the county will compensate private providers for all this transportation.
Good question. I can’t answer it, but maybe I can point at some related information that might help.

She was referring to two public notices in the VDT of that same day, Exhibit 8B, which is about the MIDS service, which is one of the ones in the list in Exhibit 8A. If you call MIDS, a small van will pick you up and deliver you, all for a flat fee, if I understand it correctly. It’s the closest thing we have to a bus system around here.

It looks like MIDS comes up for renewal about every two years, according to the agendas: Continue reading →

CCA is a functional equivalent of a government agency —TN court

A government agency is subject to open records laws. Alex Friedman of Prison Legal News sued CCA for not satisfying an open records request. CCA lost in local court, then lost again on first appeal. On a second appeal, CCA lost even more abruptly.

Knoxville News editorial of 14 March 2010, Chalk two up for open government

CAA[sic] maintained it wasn’t the functional equivalent of a government agency, but the Appeals Court rejected that claim and the Supreme Court refused even to hear it.

“With all due respect to CAA[sic],” Appeals Court Judge D. Michael Swiney wrote in his opinion on Friedman’s case, “this Court is at a loss as to how operating a state prison could be considered anything less than a governmental function.”

So eventually CCA will have to surrender at least some of the records, although there is still haggling in court over which exceptions CCA can use for which records. (And there’s always the old “we didn’t keep them that long” trick.)

The Tennessee Supreme Court had already ruled about government contractors:

“When a private entity’s relationship with the government is so extensive that the entity serves as the functional equivalent of a governmental agency, the accountability created by public oversight should be preserved.”
I wonder if Georgia will accept a Tennessee precedent?

-jsq

Ankle monitoring system budget adjustment: Lowndes County Commission 9-10 January 2012

Two more board appointments, several road and infrastructure items, and a budget adjustment to the ankle monitoring system, among many other items on the agenda for the Lowndes County Commission. The Commission will vote Tuesday on its meeting schedule and its budget calendar. This morning’s meeting is the Work Session; no voting during that, but maybe some information that won’t get mentioned Tuesday.

They can change their meeting schedule at any time. Did you know they had a special called meeting December 1st? They didn’t mention that during their 12-13 Dec meetings; there’s no agenda for it on their web pages; and this agenda doesn’t say what it was for.

Here’s the agenda.

LOWNDES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
PROPOSED AGENDA
WORK SESSION, MONDAY, JANUARY 9, 2012, 8:30 a.m.
REGULAR SESSION, TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 2012, 5:30 p.m.
327 N. Ashley Street – 2nd Floor
Continue reading →

What if shelters didn’t euthanize animals?

Some places are looking beyond the details of how to euthanize animals in shelters or how to control the drugs used to doing something about the idea of euthanizing animals in the first place.

Sue Manning wrote for AP today, Euthanasia to control shelter population unpopular

Nathan Winograd, director of the Oakland-based No Kill Advocacy Center, believes 95 percent of all animals entering shelters can be adopted or treated. And even though the other 5 percent might be hopelessly injured, ill or vicious, he said they should not all be doomed.

Some, if not most of them, can be cared for in hospice centers or sanctuaries, he said. As for pit bulls and other dogs with aggressive reputations, he said shelters need to do a better job of trying to find them homes.

That story has some interesting discussion of difficulties of getting to such a goal and methods of achieving it. Maybe we could have such a discussion around here.

-jsq

Vermont Comprehensive Energy Plan

Georgia can do this if it wants to, Final Comprehensive Energy Plan 2011
The Comprehensive Energy Plan (CEP) addresses Vermont’s energy future for electricity, thermal energy, transportation, and land use. This document represents the efforts of numerous state agencies and departments, and input from stakeholders and citizens who shared their insights and knowledge on energy issues over the past ten months. The plan can be downloaded from this website or may be viewed at the Department of Public Service, 112 State Street, Montpelier during regular business hours.
More about those public comments:
The release of the Final CEP 2011 includes the CEP Public Involvement Report II (above). This document summarizes the written comments received during the second public comment period, between the release of the CEP Public Review Draft (CEP) on September 13, 2011 and the close of the public comment period on November 4, 2011. Over 1,380 written comments were received via email, the Comprehensive Energy Plan website, and hard copy between July 15 and November 4. Approximately 350 stakeholder groups, including municipal, business, and non-profit entities, submitted comments. Over 830 form-letter comments were signed and submitted by members of at least three different organizations. Over 200 comments were submitted by individual members of the general public.
Real input from the entire state. Imagine that!

Vermont’s population is about 622,000, or the size of a single Congressional district, so maybe it’s easier for them than for Georgia. On the other hand, maybe a regional south Georgia energy policy, or even a county policy, would be possible.

-jsq

More County Commission Transparency: Chatham County, Georgia

The Chatham County, Georgia Board of Commissioners has its agendas and minutes online. The agenda for 2 December 2011 does not include the detailed packet materials for most of the items to be voted on. However, it does include a table of dollar amounts and other details for bids that were to be voted on, so the public doesn’t have to go to the work session and scribble down what staff read aloud.

There’s also this interesting boilerplate:

Proposed changes to ordinances must be read or presented in written form at two meetings held not less than one week apart. A vote on the following listed matters will occur at the next regularly scheduled meeting. On first reading, presentation by MPC staff and discussion only by Commissioners will be heard.

Comments, discussion and debate from members of the public will be received only at the meeting at which a vote is to be taken on one of the following listed items.

So in Chatham County the Commission can’t just decide one day to change an ordinance.

Also it appears that the public does get to discuss and debate ordinance changes.

The minutes for 2 December 2011 contain quite a bit of detail as to who said what. Plus for each agenda item that was approved it includes the agenda packet information, such as item IX-2 on the right here, which is about local participation in jail construction.

This isn’t as transparent as Travis County, Texas. Chatham County doesn’t put the agenda packet items in the agenda, and doesn’t do videos. But it’s still more transparent than Lowndes County, Georgia, which doesn’t provide agenda packet items unless you do an open records request for each item you want to see.

-jsq

Cloudy transparency on RFP & bidding —Barbara Stratton

Received today on Transparency by a County Commission. -jsq
I don’t know how you found this example, but good work & thanks for the research. This is a real genuine effort to produce government transparency. Anything short of this is faux transparancy. Can you find out how the citizens were able to get this good faith transparancy enacted?

I am expecially concerned with the cloudy transparancy on RFP & bidding procedures within our county. Having spent 12 years in government construction contracting I know the detailed safeguards that have been enacted to protect the taxpayers from contracting fraud & crony capitalist back door agreements. It is my observation that these safeguards are being bypassed by end around tactics & the current popularity of public/private partnerships has a plethora of possiblities for good old boy system abuses.

Recently a local contractor started work on an unfunded, unawarded government project that was exposed by the local newspaper. The city’s answer to the illegal contracting procedures was to issue a contract change order for $143,807 with a 10% contingency. It has been my experience that anytime a contractor starts work on an unfunded project said contractor eats the cost of any work completed & all contractors are aware of this rule.

In addition it is a dis-service to taxpayers for that amount of money to be

Continue reading →