Tuesday night's council meeting

Where were the citizens? Where was the TV camera? At Tuesday night's council meeting there were in the audience at the most ten voters plus a few individuals who represented interested parties in the agenda . It seemed that there were more bodies behind the bar than attendees.

The question, could this have been due to the change in the usual and customary date? Or does the sparse involvees reflect the lack of community interest in civic affairs? Or could it have been the competition of American Idol? Time will tell.

It will take me some time to review my notes and be able to post my input from the meeting. Suffice to say, Plainfield Plaintalker has already discussed the Rescue Squad's presentation.

One item that was tabled deserves commentary and I will do so later today or tomorrow. In the meantime the council still needs clarification of Parlimentary procedures in order that well meaning action that differs from Robert"s or Sturgis, rules of order would not be subject to legal challenge. Although there was no major deviation in the motion to table, the Council should be advised that there are three (3) specific variations to that motion none of which was used; They are;

1. A motion to "postpone (table) Definitively". This sets a specific time when the item must be taken off the "table" for action.
2. A motion to "table Indefinitely" does not mean that the item is dead but it de facto indicates that there will be no action before the organizations term expires. It can be used as the equivalent without establishing a position as a no vote.
   
3. A motion to "table Temporarily" suggest that the item will be open for action at anytime in the future, even later in the same meeting. All it would take is a motion to take it off the table. Without any description a 'tabling motion must fall into this classification by default.

We will be back later today even if it is only to post some more pictures from Egypt.