Call to City Hall lurkers:
(1) The council minutes used to include all correspondence received. Does it still do this because I know of at least a couple of letters which have not been included in the minutes list.
(2) Why not also include in the minutes the committee meetings that our councilmembers attend? Not the church barbecues, etc. but the ones where our elected officials are representing the City of Burlingame. This would show which councilmembers are doing their share of attending meetings and, more importantly, which councilmembers sit on which committees.
Seems like a no brainer to me!
(1) The council minutes used to include all correspondence received. Does it still do this because I know of at least a couple of letters which have not been included in the minutes list.
(2) Why not also include in the minutes the committee meetings that our councilmembers attend? Not the church barbecues, etc. but the ones where our elected officials are representing the City of Burlingame. This would show which councilmembers are doing their share of attending meetings and, more importantly, which councilmembers sit on which committees.
Seems like a no brainer to me!
- Written by Fiona
Oh come on Fiona. If the minutes included who went to which official meeting, we would all see that Mike Coffey DOESN'T DO ANYTHING around here. What a waste of a perfectly good council seat. He's so useless. Thanks, Dan. Are you gonna make the same mistake this time around?
Posted by: al | May 29, 2005 at 04:50 AM
I there something in the city regulations as to what is or is not included in the council minutes. Do council members have to attend a certain number of official meeting; if not is there some way to have this procedure put in place?
Posted by: Raymond | May 30, 2005 at 05:27 PM
I wonder if Jackie Speier is aware, that the man she endorsed, Mike Coffey, has really not been doing his job as a councilman. It means Burlingame is not functioning to its fullest, regionally and it means the other four need to take up all of the slack, it isn't really right. It makes me think that the big name endorsements really don't mean too much. To the contrary, they should be a red flag. As much as I like and respect Jackie's work, she didn't really do her homework, right here at home.
Posted by: Jenn | May 30, 2005 at 06:29 PM
Jenn, you are quite correct. The real problem is Ms. Spier did talk with most of the candidates the last time around and still screwed up her endorsements. It's a little scary when you consider she could be the next Lt. Governor and can't even get it right in the next town over from her high perch.
Posted by: frank | May 31, 2005 at 04:28 AM