|
|
I received this in the mail from Councilman Dennis Maloney just a few minutes ago. It was in response to a letter I wrote to the mayor and all city council members: quote:
Thank you for writing. At tonight's workshop meeting the council instructed the city manager to terminate the city contract with American Traffic Solutions. As you may already know, the election is being contested by two College Station voters who claim the election was illegal. A judge will soon make a ruling. Regardless of the judge's ruling, the city council has directed staff to tell the camera operators to take their toys home with them. Hope this clears the matter for you. Regards, D.Maloney
[This message has been edited by Frenas (edited 11/16/2009 7:01p).]
|
|
|
I will cheer when this happens.
Until it actually does, and the cameras are gone, it's still up in the air.
|
|
|
I understand your skepticism, but it does seem to render useless (do I dare use a legal term like "moot"?) the litigation that seeks to declare the election invalid.
I suppose somebody could sue contending that what the City Council did tonight was illegal, but other than that, I see the cameras being turned off once the TRO expires (or, alternatively, at the end of the 60-day contractual period).
BTW, according to what Jay Socil (CoCS P.R. guy) told me in an email, the council chamber was empty when it voted, but he sent out a notice to the news media.
[This message has been edited by Frenas (edited 11/16/2009 7:33p).]
|
|
|
To be clear, off in 60 days due to contract termination agreement I am sure.
I REALLY want to know how who voted. Is it even legal to keep a vote secret by the council? How would that be possible to deny voters the information to know how their representative represented them?
|
|
|
quote:
At tonight's workshop meeting the council instructed the city manager to terminate the city contract with American Traffic Solutions.
quote:
BTW, according to what Jay Socil (CoCS P.R. guy) told me in an email, the council chamber was empty when it voted, but he sent out a notice to the news media.
They must have done this when they came out of executive session. It was not discussed before executive session and there were a fair number of people in the audience at that time. If that is the case, the video should be uploaded within a few days.
|
|
|
http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/70240062.htmlWe'll see if they enforce tickets in the next 60 days.... [This message has been edited by TexasAggie008 (edited 11/16/2009 8:10p).]
|
|
|
quote:
The motion was carried unanimously, 6-0. Councilman Larry Stewart was not at the meeting.
Lucky lucky...... I think I should change my name to "Asleep no more"
|
|
|
http://wtaw.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2852:gordon-response-to-council-vote&catid=1:local&Itemid=13Gordon calls us an "angry mob".....HA... He also all but calls out the mayor and Lyles at the end. What a scumbag. [This message has been edited by TexasAggie008 (edited 11/16/2009 8:41p).]
|
|
|
Well I guess if you consider the majority as screaming mad so be it.
No matter how you slice it a vote, a bunch of angry citizens calling the clarity the council got was what the majority wanted.
|
|
|
quote:
"I did receive confirmation that City Attorney Harvey Cargill hired outside counsel on Nov. 11 to defend the City of College Station and the 52% of those voting in the Nov. 3 election. Bob Heath of the Austin law firm of Bickerstaff Heath Delgado Acosta LLP will represent the city. Mr. Heath has worked for the City of College Station on numerous occasions."
Oh for gosh sakes why couldn't he hire someone local? e have plenty of good attorneys locally! The travel time and hotels are going to be a killer and probably they re going to pay twice as much in hourly fees. It is our tax dollars going to an out of town attorney.
|
|
|
Ok is it time to change the city charter which says 20 days to something more reasonable like 1 year or 2 years?
|
|
|
You only had 20 days after the date the charter was created to petition that change
|
|
|
quote:
You only had 20 days after the date the charter was created to petition that change
If you actually read the charter, you'll see that while it guarantees that citizens can petition for a referendum within 20 days after the passing of an ordinance, there is nothing that limits those petitions to 20 days. A more reasonable interpretation is that the city must accept the petition if submitted within 20 days but may, at their discretion, accept any petition for a referendum.
|
|
|
Hopefully that position is upheld in court.
|
|
|
eric76 lets hope tht your position is what the judge rules...
|
|
|
Wow, this guy Gordon calls the petition process an "abuse of power".
In other words, if you or I want to petition to bring anything to a vote in our city, we are abusing our power. We're just "an angry mob".
How does that sit with you....some guy from out of town who waltzes in here and tells us we don't know what's best for us in our (not his) town?
Incredible.
|
|
|
I suspect that the City of College Station won't try to argue that point. They probably don't want to open up every ordinance ever passed to the potential to be voted on by the voters well after the ordinance was enacted.
|
|
|
I would keep an eye out for charter changes in the future. Gordon is arguing it is the charter and the council that they are arguing against in court.
Hopefully they don't try to sneak changes in like the word MUST on the 20 day thing.
|
|
|
I don't like the issuing tickets another 60 days.
It should have been turned off 8 days after the election.
I think Cargil should be fired.
He is so incompetent against a frivolous lawsuit that the city has to hired outside council.
Of course, after the sham of a defense he set forth at the preceding hearing I think it is in the citizens of College Station best interest that he does not represent the defense.
[This message has been edited by DisTex (edited 11/17/2009 8:44a).]
|
|
|
Roger Gordon just solidified the fact that he is a total idiot and does not belong on our city council. I have never heard a more ridiculous position.
|
|
|
quote:
Roger Gordon just solidified the fact that he is a total idiot and does not belong on our city council. I have never heard a more ridiculous position.
Ummmm, what? Roger Gordon is a lawyer from Austin those two yahoo's are using to contest the RLC elections validity.
|
|
|
What a farce. And I'm an RLC proponent. I'm going to let Mr. Gordon know how I feel, and would encourage others to do the same. http://texasmunicipallawyers.com/team-rogergordon.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kat - if you were joking with that last comment please use the winky icon next time. Ok, thnx, bye.
|
|
|
What? Before calling someone an idiot.....uh?
[This message has been edited by mymainname3 (edited 11/17/2009 9:34a).]
|
|
|
quote:
Jim Maness, who wrote the petition to get the matter on the ballot, said he gave a letter to the city requesting that City Attorney Harvey Cargill be removed from the upcoming hearing in court. The council was briefed about the letter during executive session Monday.
Ash and Maness said Cargill appears to be overtly attempting to disregard the wishes of the voters by not giving much of a defense in court.
The Eagle learned late Monday that Bob Heath, with the Austin law firm of Bickerstaff Heath Delgado Acosta LLP, has been hired by Cargill on behalf of the city to represent College Station and the voters in court.
www.theeagle.com/local/CS-Council-approves-removal-of-red-light-cameras
|
|
|
Wow, is that Eagle article pointing to some discontent with the city attorney?
|
|
|
Looks like Cargill didn't like all the talk about him. He filed a real answer yesterday, challenging the TRO's overstepped ability to prevent the City from canceling the contract.
It's actually pretty good.
|
|
|
pdf: www.mediafire.com/file/wizywg1e1e3/rlc-reponse2.pdf Official tiff is on justiceweb. This second response is actually pretty good as Stucco indicated, but it is signed by Heath, the Austin lawyer, although attributed to Cargill on justiceweb. Too bad it didn't come last week when it should have, but better late than never. Summary:  [This message has been edited by texbcs (edited 11/17/2009 11:29a).]
|
|
|
Good to see they've decided to actually mount a defense.
|