Tuesday, August 25, 2009

How come all of the good stuff from last night is missing?



  1. Yeah, well, they act like people with something to hide. The ethical questions will continue until true transparency exists.

    The tirade by the head of the Keffler 7?

    Oh, see that's what happens when people at church stop making eye contact with you because you look like a stammering asshat on the news.

  2. William J. 'Bill' McCalpinAugust 26, 2009 at 12:51 AM

    Destiny, while it's true that the indexing doesn't work (gosh, start-up problems - who'd have thought?), you can get to any part of the video by starting the video at the beginning, then hitting the go-to-end button, which will take you to the beginning of the next segment.

    Between this and the slide bar, it isn't long before you can get anywhere you want. I just used this method to listen to the Visitor's Section of the Council meeting.

    I am not surprised that the comment above is anonymous, as it is totally irrelevant - if they were trying to hide stuff, they wouldn't have put the meeting online at all, would they? Duh.


  3. Bill,

    Yesterday, when I posted this, they only had video up to Item 4. Both Item 5's, Item 6 and Item 7 were not up yet.

  4. "if they were trying to hide stuff, they wouldn't have put the meeting online at all, would they?"

    I wonder what this says about every meeting up until the most recent two. :-)

  5. William J. 'Bill' McCalpinAugust 30, 2009 at 6:14 PM

    bloggermouse, sorry I did not notice your comment until now...

    It's a funny thing, but there is actually no requirement that the City (or any government agency in Texas) broadcast anything. The only requirements are that meetings be announced at least 72 hours in advance, that a clear agenda be posted in a public place (usually City Hall), and that minutes be made available after the meeting. The law further states that if the City has the facility to use the Internet, both the meeting notice and the agenda need to be posted on the City's website as well.

    That's it.

    Yes, after 5 decades of television and many more of radio, there has never been any requirement that these meetings be broadcast, just that they be open to attend (i.e., in town at a reasonable place that is handicapped accessible). Thus, the advent of the Internet hasn't introduced a new problem - this has been the same issue all along, and at no time has the State felt the need to mandate the broadcast of meetings in any fashion.

    Why didn't these same people demanded decades ago that County Commissioner meetings be on the radio? Why haven't these same people demanded years ago that the State Legislature be put on television? I suspect it's because those government agencies would have simply laughed at them and said, "We comply with State law; our meetings are open if you want to get off your ample posterior and come to the meeting; and we're not going to spend taxpayer money to broadcast something that no one will watch or listen to anyway."

    Thus, the City of Richardson (and the other cities doing this) is going far beyond the requirements of the law...which is an odd thing to do if your goal is to cover up criminal misbehavior.

    The problem is not in the City, but in the minds of some citizens who feel that the City staff and the City Council are inherently crooked, and that everything the staff and Council do is with the intent of defrauding the public. These people call for "transparency", but in truth, no amount of transparency will ever satisfy them, because they have already decided that the staff and Council are guilty of lying and criminal activity, along with anyone who dares say anything in support of them. I am sure that you have frequently observed this.

    The irony is that the people who are the loudest about calling for "transparency" almost inevitably use an anonymous account to do so...because Lord knows that "transparency" surely doesn't apply to them ;-)

    As I noted elsewhere recently, if the Founding Fathers had had the same craven attitude about hiding who they were while calling the king a tyrant, we would have had a Declaration of Independence signed by 56 guys named Anonmyous...and we'd all still be British citizens...


  6. William J. 'Bill' McCalpinAugust 30, 2009 at 6:16 PM


    But they would probably have spelled it better as "Anonymous" ;-)


  7. You have no one to blame for that giant grammar target on your forehead but yourself Bill. (: