Monday, November 16, 2009


Getting the facts straight matter. Her response appears to be more in the light of, I will help my fellow commissioners put their issues on the agenda even if I do not support them. If the mayor ends up being the only vote in support of this agenda issue, the mayor will only look more incredibly incompetent than before.

MZ's words.

"I do not support moving public comment to the end of meetings. In fact, I've discussed with fellow commissioners, including the City Attorney, to move the item to the beginning of meetings.

I co-sponsored the item to allow the Mayor to present the item for discussion. And, I would co-sponsor other items I may not support to allow other commissioners the same courtesy."


Anonymous said...

Getting the facts straight do matter. What was wrong in saying she co-sponsored an item? Nothing. But I believe we deserve to remember what co-sponsoring really means? The whole reason needing a second commissioner to place an item on the agenda was to keep the stupid stuff from taking everyone's time. The original intent of the two signatures was not, as she is using it, to allow commissioners an opportunity to vote on a given issue. If that were the case, one wouldn't need a second. Why not just keep it to just one person being able to put something on the agenda? But yes, Bobby, facts matter. She co-sponsored something she shouldn't have especially if she claims not to support it. She will forever be branded with the statement public comments are a distraction to city business. What's next from the princess? Let them eat cake?

Anonymous said...

"In fact, I've discussed with fellow commissioners, including the City Attorney, to move the item to the beginning of meetings."

I know you used to be a BH editor, but you should rephrase that because the City Attorney is not a commissioner. I know he acts like a commissioner the way he protects you all. Small grammar error aside, isn't organizing the agenda the City Secretary's job? The City Attorney is your lawyer and as Bobby indicates a shyster at that. Why do you need to get your lawyer involved just move it back up to the beginning? Do you need his permission before you do anything? You should have co-sponsored a resolution to move up public imput, not to move it down. Dumb move by a novice.

BobbyWC said...

maybe the agreement between MZ and Pat Almighty is if she sponsors moving it to the end next time he will co-sponsor moving it to the beginning.

These type trade offs are standard in politics. Remember in politics everything is politics.

In the trade off process it is also important that somethings should forever remain without cosponsors - this is one of them and maybe as a reader said it was the mistake of a novice.

I expect my elected officials to do trade-offs - it is the nature of the beast if you want to move things forward.

Bobby WC

Unknown said...

Nonetheless, it is a topic that warrants discussion, and the Mayor was the first to put it on the table.

BobbyWC said...

MZ, thanks for putting your position forward.

I just want to make clear - trade-offs are the nature of the beast. No politico will survive if they do not do trade-offs. Further, cosponsoring bills which will fail is not new. It is done so that the cosponsor can be owed a favor. This helps the cosponsor to move his/her agenda forward.

This is the nature of the beast.

Further, I am rather glad this is happening. Pat Almighty only hurt himself with his comments in the Herald. It helped to bring forward the gerneral issue of silencing debate and discussion. the people need to know this.

In the end because of this discussion I think the people will be better educated about what is happening.

Cosponsoring has many purposes. I love discussion because it opens the door to a better understanding.

If MZ can make it clear to the viewers her decision to cosponsor this was to allow for discussion so that the people know what is happening, it could be spinned into her favor of promoting speech by educating the people about the commissioners desire to limit speech.

Everything is politics in politics. How MZ handles this tonight could lead to a redemption in the eyes of many people.

I cannot tell people what to think. I can tell people what I know. Cosponsoring a bill does not always mean you support it. Given the nature of politics it can mean many things.

Would I cosponsor a bill which makes Pat Almighty look bad - in a heart beat.

It is easy to say her move is to limit speach - but if the public discussion leads to people having a better understanding that it is time they stand up and be heard and demand the city commission end this assault of speech, then her decision to cosponsor this change could result in greater speech and that is good.

I am very happy with all of the posts to this string because it gives different perspectives and allows my readers to form their own opinion.

Also unlike Sorry Charlie Atkinson, MZ did not turn to insults - she stated simple facts and stayed on topic. This puts her ahead of most of the city commission.

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

"This puts her ahead of most of the city commission."

Melissa Zamora “Iwantzamora” in my view is the worst of the worst. During the campaign such as I always do I kept out of candidate’s personal lives. At the time of the campaign there was nothing to inform us that the poor choices she exercised in her personal life would translate into how she governed. Boy were we wrong. She remains indignant to the fact that she actually believed there was nothing wrong with seeking to do consulting work for a city contractor at the same time she would be voting on those contracts. I commended Melissa Iwantzamora when she went public with the fact the city was not putting out all contracts for competitive bidding. I now understand she was not in fact protecting the people, but in my mind probably one of her clients who felt like they had been left out of the process in the past or would be left out in the future.

I remain horrified how Melissa Iwantzamora used the city attorney to silence any dissent by the people regarding her outright corruption in trying to do consulting work for a city vendor. The fact she remains incredibly non-contrite about her actions only further feeds the belief that the poor judgment she has shown in her private life is now influencing her actions as a city commissioner. Such as Sorry Charlie Atkinson she only regards as friends those who worship her as a princess and dismisses those who seek to give her good counsel.

losing credibility, Bobby!

Wishy Washy NOT

BobbyWC said...

So credibility is ignoring what I know to be the reality of politics if it is necessary to disredit a politico?

So now we know your standard

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

"...I've discussed with fellow commissioners..."

Isn't that a TOMA violation?

BobbyWC said...

No it is not, and this is the problem with gotcha politics. Commissioners are free to meet separately just not in a group.

What I do know because I have been told this, Executive Session is used to violate TOMA all of the time.

A Commissioner or board Member or their attorneys are free to use Executive Session to discuss these issues in secret.

A commission or board member while discussing something on the agenda may ask - well how is it different from ABC? the door is then open to discuss ABC

The entire thing about TOMA and Executive Sessions is a joke.

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

Bobby, you are incorrect. An open meetings vilation can occur without a quorum actually meeting @ the same time. If one member discusses any item related to city business which may require a decision being made with 3 others, it constitutes a walking quorum, which is a violationl Meeting with 3 separately is a violation of TOMA.

Anonymous said...

(No it is not, and this is the problem with gotcha politics. Commissioners are free to meet separately just not in a group.)

Actually, you are wrong Bobby, but it is okay because you believe TOMA to be a joke. Others do not. We shall agree to disagree on this point. But to be fair, the attorney general has ruled in GA 326 and TOMA is quite clear that meeting in a roving majority is a violation of the law. Section 551.143 plainly applies to "members of a governmental body who gather in numbers that do not physically constitute a quorum at any one time but who, through successive gatherings, secretly discuss a publicmatter with a quorum of that body." In essence, these secret deliberations violate open government and open meetings.

I would argue that if Commissioner Zamora truly felt it needed to be discussed but finally moved up, she should have found one other commissioner to do just that instead of creating the side show distraction that will take place, e.g. the mayor quotes as you cite. But instead, she chose to do a trade off as you say. A trade off will be worthless if the other commissioners won't support you because you sided with the mayor on a stupid issue. Not to mention, it could be worthless if the mayor is removed from office. Where will that leave her?

Wouldn't you agree that she could have moved it up and looked more stateswoman-like instead of appearing Machiavellian by cosponsoring a resolution that she now claims she doesn't support?

Princess Iwantzamora was very fortunate her name was left out of the Herald article. Ordinarily, the reporter would have mentioned the cosponsor.

BobbyWC said...

No, you aer wrong such as gotcha politics is normally wrong - the following is from the Texas Municipal League pg 21.

"Walking quorum: where a quorum is not present in one place at the same time and secretly discusses public business with the goal of avoiding a public meeting – may subject members to criminal and civil liability." -

One commission going to as many as 3 other commissioners to get support fr a cosponsor is not a violation unless - and here is the key - the goal is to avoid a public meeting. This is an intent issue. If having to go to more than two other commissioners to get a cosponsor for an agenda item were illegal, it would be become very difficult for the commissioners to do business.

Bobby WC

BobbyWC said...

It does not amaze me that you ignore the intent part of the statute. I am not saying that a commissioner meeting separately with 3 other commissioerns with the intent to bypass TOMA is not a violation, it is - under these facts it is about putting an issue on the table - nothing more - you have no intent and no violation.

But you know that and you simply want to play games.

yes and I do consider TOMA a joke which is why I filed the grand jury referral againt BISD over the La Pampa Affair - because I think it is a joke.

I deal in reality - TOMA is a joke as to enforcement - without witnesses you cannot prove most behind the door voilations. This is why they are standard practice in Executive Session - It will take just one commissioner going to the grand jury and you watch how fast the practice ends.

Executive sessions should be recroded with mandatory review by an independent party to insure compliance with TOMA

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

Whatever recroded is, I sure hope it is painful!