Here's something you might be interested in.
Closed door negotiations have made an apparently popular comeback in California. Forget about governments operating in sunshine under open meeting laws and principles. Besides, what do the taxserfs need to know about the negotiations? Don't politicians spend enough on advertising to tell us how to vote already?
In today's daily paper, Peter Q. Davis lets us know in an editorial letter that he is in favor of closed door negotiations. As a former Centre City Development Corporation head, this man speaks from experience regarding the benefits.
The negotiations he speaks of were certainly beneficial to the same CCDC years after he left that sphere of influence. Or has he?
It isn't like the Davis editorial letter has been the only thing printed in the U-T to excuse the secrecy surrounding the three-month-late state budget in Sacramento. Letters talk about accepting those negotiations because employment in development areas will go up, meaning more people putting on tool belts and going to work. There was even an editorial position made by the paper, extolling the results of a very flawed process.
At least I got to find out what it takes for us to sell out on California legislative bodies operating in sunshine.
My theory is that at a certain point about two weeks ago, the political jungle drum that us ordinary folk can't hear sounded off with a call for all political chips to be brought to Sacramento from all of the stalled local political business in the state. What happened at that point was our new state budget.
Closed door negotiations have made an apparently popular comeback in California. Forget about governments operating in sunshine under open meeting laws and principles. Besides, what do the taxserfs need to know about the negotiations? Don't politicians spend enough on advertising to tell us how to vote already?
In today's daily paper, Peter Q. Davis lets us know in an editorial letter that he is in favor of closed door negotiations. As a former Centre City Development Corporation head, this man speaks from experience regarding the benefits.
The negotiations he speaks of were certainly beneficial to the same CCDC years after he left that sphere of influence. Or has he?
It isn't like the Davis editorial letter has been the only thing printed in the U-T to excuse the secrecy surrounding the three-month-late state budget in Sacramento. Letters talk about accepting those negotiations because employment in development areas will go up, meaning more people putting on tool belts and going to work. There was even an editorial position made by the paper, extolling the results of a very flawed process.
At least I got to find out what it takes for us to sell out on California legislative bodies operating in sunshine.
My theory is that at a certain point about two weeks ago, the political jungle drum that us ordinary folk can't hear sounded off with a call for all political chips to be brought to Sacramento from all of the stalled local political business in the state. What happened at that point was our new state budget.