Mayor Uchitelle:
(1) While the public discussion session at a Council or Board of Aldermen meeting potentially presents an opportunity to discuss the merger, it doesn't begin to carry the same weight as a specific forum designed to capture public opinion. Consider the number of multi-location, well-advertised, scheduled-in-advance open public forums the School District of Clayton hosted regarding the Voluntary Student Transfer program.
The potential merger could possibly be the most significant issue in the history of Clayton and Richmond Heights. It deserves far more attention and care than the Cities have given it. Public opinion should have been elaborately surveyed and measured before entering into this process.
(2) The recent meeting at Richmond Heights to which you referred again was a scheduled Council meeting. It was not specifically called to collect public opinion on the merger. You refer to the "long statement" I read. Presumably, you are speaking of my reading of a one-page statement in which Mayor Humphrey interrupted to ask, "Are you almost done?" The recollection of a number of people that attended is that other citizens spoke longer and were not interrupted. While you may believe this fair, you are one person, and a number of people -- both from Clayton and RH -- voiced concern about this treatment.
(3) You stated, "At the end of the meeting last evening we opened it to public comments. You and others were in attendance but chose not to speak. I'm not sure why but that certainly was your prerogative."
When the meeting announcement was posted on the merger website, an email was immediately sent to both Mayors and all members of the Board of Aldermen, and Council advising of the possible oversight that the meeting agenda did not allow for public commentary. (It certainly has been customary for public meetings in Clayton and RH to afford public comment so an oversight was presumed.) The leadership had plenty of time to correct the agenda posted on the website and arrange to set up microphones, etc. but chose not to. One of the Clayton Aldermen was asked before the meeting where the public microphones were. The reply was there won't be any speaking tonight. It was patently clear that neither Clayton nor RH leadership demonstrated any interest in hearing what the public had to say on this night before the resolution was passed.
Again, YOU TENDERED YOUR OPEN INVITATION TO COMMENT AFTER THE RESOLUTION WAS PASSED. Had there been a legitimate public forum, here's the statement I was planning to read:
There has been much championing for the JSC to be facilitated by an outside professional with city merger experience to ensure fairness, impartiality, and completeness. The proposed resolution, indeed, is an example of a task that could have benefited greatly from the review of expert eyes. Tol illustrate:
1. The study purpose is loosely defined and is tantamount to let’s cut open the patient and see if we can find something wrong.
2, Procedures do not provide for replacement of members who are unable to complete their term.
3. The procedures specify no proxy voting so that members who have devoted hours of their time could be precluded from voting owing to illness, death in the family, unexpected business trip, or vacation that was planned long before the meeting schedule was established
4. The process appoints JSC membership for a term not to exceed two years but offers no guidance for proceeding or dissolving if the study is not concluded within two years.
It is urged that the RH Council and Clayton Board of Aldermen do not approve this resolution without further review.
Now, as far my failing to exercise my perogative to speak after the fact, there's simply little point in discussing birth control after the girl is pregnant.
