At the November 15, 2007 City Council meeting, West Street resident Jackie Misa asked the council to review the appointment status of Planning Director Wayne Feiden. According to her reading of the City Ordinance, The Director of Planning and Development is to be re-appointed every three years by the Mayor, subject to approval by the City Council. Misa wrote to City Clerk Wendy Mazza, asking for a report on Feiden's appointment status, and was told that Feiden's last appointment was in April 2001, set to expire in April 2004.
In light of recent discussions about Best Practices, Ms. Misa asked the City Council to review Mr. Feiden's appointment status.
We also covered this topic on the radio a couple of weeks before Jackie spoke before the Council. Council President Michael Bardsley explained to us that Wayne Feiden's union contract supersedes provisions of the the City Ordinance, and that his emloyment status is in the hands of the mayor only, and not the City Council.
Yet we wonder--will the City Council issue a formal response to Jackie Misa's request that the Planning Director's status be reviewed?
In light of recent discussions about Best Practices, Ms. Misa asked the City Council to review Mr. Feiden's appointment status.
We also covered this topic on the radio a couple of weeks before Jackie spoke before the Council. Council President Michael Bardsley explained to us that Wayne Feiden's union contract supersedes provisions of the the City Ordinance, and that his emloyment status is in the hands of the mayor only, and not the City Council.
Yet we wonder--will the City Council issue a formal response to Jackie Misa's request that the Planning Director's status be reviewed?
3 comments:
The quality of life has improved significantly over the last few years under Higgins and Fieden. While change is "scary," it is not a reason to react so negatively. Northampton has more conservation and preservation land acreage then ever before. And the economic base has both grown and is more sustainable then ever before.
Secondly, those who complain about transparency should be doubly transparent themselves. Who's funding them? Why aren't they helping the homeless downtown? Are they qualified for public office? Why are there so *few* of them? Why aren't they working *with* businesses downtown or in Florence? Why are their websites (except this one, thank you!) CLOSED to public dialog??
Best practices indeed.
Oh, the anonymous posting above gets it totally wrong. We the citizens of this fine city are under no obligation (legally or morally) to reveal any funding sources we have. In fact, any organization is required to be transparent in all it's activities to the ownership and the last time I checked this was still a democracy and that puts the citizen's in power not an usurper such as Higgins. This is and always has been a government of the people, by the people and for the people- despite what some would lead others to believe.
In response to the specific errors list above, allow me to retort. 1- myself and other private citizens and groups are helping the homeless. 2- any citizen is entitled and has the right to run for office so yes we are all qualified. 3- what makes working with business (especially those who have intentionally misled the public regarding the environmental contamination they caused) a postive attribute? Nothing. In most cases business exploit town resources, public time, and the community in general to achieve a profit at the publics' expense. Businesses need more and tighter regulation to ensure they cause not only no harm but a positive impact on the community before they are allowed to open. 4- good question but there is a proper place for open dialog and it must be on a neutrally controlled system, not subject to the whims of the operator.
For the poster to even ask this question shows they have a predetermined agenda that is somewhat reminiscent of the tactics used in the McCarthy hearings by Mr. Cohn. Innuendo, redeirection of questions that go unanswered, and back room deals and manipulations. We already know that Higgins does not quite sink to the low level of George Bush in her attempts to conceal the truth through deviousness and subterfuge, but she is very close.
I think it's great that people are posting, commenting, and engaging in debate and discussion. Unfortunately, I may end up having to moderate comments, because a couple of them have been truly threatening and inappropriate. I am learning as I go, and will try to be fair and simply document things, ask questions, and let people decide for themselves. Of course I am not without bias; nobody is without bias; and the issues that P. and I decide to highlight might not be to everyone's liking. Thanks for the input. We're always open to suggestions, and welcome ideas.
--Mary
Post a Comment