Changes in the statue for meetings.

Zeke Bender · Member

Changes in the statue for meetings.

Bruce · Member

Do people understand that two Commissioners can't sit next to each other in Church and pray to peace in the town they live for fear of violating the open meeting act. Come on people get real. You honestly don't believe that two Commissioners meeting now actually don't discuss Commission business.

S23246G · Senior Member

When you have commissioners discussing business in private, and out of the public eye, you are asking for trouble. The fact that business is done in public keeps private motivations from seeping in, and keeps commissioners honest. It's law for a reason, and I have seen what happens when it is violated in other towns.

Patrick · Senior Member

For my last two years I didn't know there could be a change in the quorum to allow commissioners to work together. I probably wouldn't have thought of it except the Mayor Smith and Commissioner Kuhn attended the LKM (League of Kansas Municipalities) training seminar for new commissioners and mayors. They came back with information that the LKM suggested this quorum change for cities with 5 commissioners.

There are several boards and commissions that bring information before the city commission. The Senior Citizen board, the Northwest Communtiy Center board, the Library board, The Rec Center Board, and many others. As it stands, only one commissioner can attend these meetings at a time unless neither speaks or participates in any way. This severely limits what we can ask of these boards, or even ask direct questions of them.

There are other times when a commissioner has knowledge or experience that can help in a timely fashion. If we have to wait 2 weeks for a meeting we could miss opportunites. By being able to ask a commissioner that could have vital input we could arrange an earlier meeting or get information to the city manager much more quickly. A great example is Commissioner Kuhn's plumbing experience and the direction he could give in our water and wastewater systems. Other commissioners have experience in housing, retail, business and other areas. Wouldn't it be nice to get ahead a little by gathering information from someone with experience and knowledge beforehand?

The change of quorum also is another protection. A commissioner may only talk with one other commissioner at a time avoiding any way to make a decision. It would still take 3 people to agree for an issue to pass vote and a vote coule ONLY be held in a public meeting.

It is not a matter of inconveniencing the commission and see how well we hold up. We are already "inconvenienced". The question is how much more work could we do for the city if we weren't inconvenienced? It's up to you how much you allow us to do. You elected (hired) us to do the job. It really doesn't matter to me one way or the other as I am used to working this way, but given the opportunity I and the other commissioners could get a lot more done.

Patrick McDonald
Arkansas City Commissioner

S23246G · Senior Member

Zeke Bender said: "Other statues you might consider reading; Michelangelo's David and the Statue of Liberty."

LOL! I was thinking the same thing, but I was trying to think of a delicate way to let the poster know their mistake and correct it. The correct word is statutes.

Ark City Prof · Newbie

As I read the survey question: Should two ArkCity commissioners be able to discuss city business outside public meetings, I thought what a preposterous idea. I realize that this would probably be more convenient for the commissioners however, they are civil servants elected to an office to represent the people who reside in ArkansasCity. Therefore, I feel that they shouldnt be allowed to discuss business outside the quorum. Since the business they are discussing might affect the people they serve. Therefore, if a commissioner doesnt want to be inconvenience by the people they serve perhaps they should consider stepping down from the leadership role they were elected to. I implore everyone to read the statues that pertain to this quorum change. They can be found on the following websites:
http://www.lkm.org/lkmservices/samples/quorum/quorum-requirementspop.html
http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-statutes/getStatuteInfo.do
Lets educate ourselves so that we can make the best informed decision. My opinion is that; we should keep the quorum as it is, inconvenience these civil servants, and lets see what they are truly made of.

Spon T Naeus · Newbie

As to civil servants being inconvenienced if the quorum law doesn't change....it is the citizens who are being inconvenienced. It isn't a matter of inconvenience for them. They are going to do their job regardless. It is a question of how effective do you want them to be. If you want things to move at a snail's pace, and aren't concerned about effeciencies, then you should stick by the status quo. If you don't think commissioners have always met in secret, you are either blind or not too smart. It is how they have always operated. If they want to meet in secret, they will and they'll do it regardless of what any law says. That is the bare facts of it. So it's not about secrecy. Keeping things the way they are IS about secrecy. If you want their discussions to take place out in public, make it so two of them can talk about the city business in public instead of forcing them to meet in private. I guarantee they'd rather meet publicly where it is easier to blend your ideas with theirs. That only makes sense because there'd be a meeting of the minds. Plus, they could meet more often than once every 2 weeks and that would allow more of the people's work to be discussed more often. Right now, 2 commissioners can't even show up to the same meeting of any kind in town if it is about city business. That is idiotic. Two couldn't show up to a streetscape meeting if either were planning to talk. Two couldn't go to a hospital board meeting, etc. What are you so afraid of? All of the things they discuss have to come before the public anyway just like they always have.