Its not often I read the paper - online or dead tree, but for a whole host of unrelated reasons, I found myself today conveniently located in front of the Anna-Melissa Tribune, and perhaps more importantly, with time to read it.

"Fireworks Dominate Meeting" the headline read, and it creatively went on to say both literally and figuratively.  But after reading the story, it sounds more like Councilwoman Becky Glover dominated the meeting - and with good reason. 

Eleven score and 14 years ago we severed ourselves from an oppressive, overbearing government which tried to legislate every aspect of our lives.  Now while on the surface this seems to be a positive event, we've spent the last 234 years trying to bring it back.  Save for one woman, Councilwoman Becky Glover. 

Don't get me wrong - I don't always agree 100% with my elected officials, and I don't want to minimize the effectiveness that our fine law enforcement and fire departments do, but I also try to pick my battles.  Celebrate Independence Day on July 10th?  WTH?

When I was in the Air Force we had to stand for the National Anthem they played before every movie at the on-base theater.  Most people groaned.  Or complained.  I think those people would be okay with an Independence Day celebration on July 10th.  Not me.  Not during peacetime.  And admittedly I don't know the details of the amendment allowing possession and use of fireworks from within the city limits, but it seems to me had one or the other passed, that is to say either we can shoot off our own fireworks or fireworks will be detonated on the weekend of the 4th - I might've taken this lying down.

BUT DENYING BOTH SEEMS LIKE A REALLY, REALLY BAD IDEA.

Like, on purpose bad.

Bad enough to see how we'll react when you take away our freedoms and supplant them with "officially sanctioned" displays of freedom, then take that away from us as well.
 
But that could just be the pessimist in me.  I'm sure everything will be just fine.

We've had great success in outlawing fireworks in the past, right?

At least we have Councilwoman Becky Glover on our side.

So why is it on the 10th?

Is it just me missing something, or does it seem to be a rare occurrence that all council persons are present?  The night that this first came up, only 4 were present.  Now only 5.  What's up?

Back on to the topic.  I appreciate all that the GACC puts together event wise for the City, but it's not like there wasn't time to plan for the 4th of July.  It only comes once a year.  As a matter of fact, I would say there has been roughly a year to plan for it.  Why come up in June and say "You know what... Let's move the 4th of July celebration back a week because we truly didn't plan for enough volunteers.  Ooops, our bad."

Is it just me missing something, or does it seem to be a rare occurrence that all council persons are present?  The night that this first came up, only 4 were present.  Now only 5.  What's up?

In re-reading the article again this morning, I noticed a three-to-one vote during a "special called meeting."  Now I'm all for quorum, etc. during regularly scheduled (and previously agenda'd items) but I get alarmed when a "special" meeting seemingly excludes so very many.  Not a special meeting for discussion mind you, but absolutely for votes.

I think that that meeting was a special session called in the middle of the week with minimal legal notice...the people who missed are also the people I 'd expect to be more fireworks-friendly.

I sure hope that wasn't by design, because that would be unmistakably reprehensible and forever change my perspective on leadership.  I think I need to be comforted directly by those in question (and potentially unrelated third-party members, just for fun, perhaps a little more intimately) prior to saying more lest I unintentionally damage something in which I don't have all the facts.

Quote from: no thanx, just lookin on June 11, 2010, 08:29:58 AM

Is it just me missing something, or does it seem to be a rare occurrence that all council persons are present?  The night that this first came up, only 4 were present.  Now only 5.  What's up?

I'm not trying to defend absenteeism, but I think that that meeting was a special session called in the middle of the week with minimal legal notice.

I don't think it was a case of someone not making a regularly scheduled meeting.

Although I don't have list of all absenteeism for any set amount of time, I do notice when a vote is mentioned in the paper, it doesn't seem to be with a full council.  I've gone to several meetings and I believe there were absences at those as well.

I'm going to have to start paying better attention. 

Uh sorry no, wilsonbo, all you get is lady fingers.. ha!

ROFLMAO!

I'm lucky if they'll sell me a punk...