Are councils giving enough information?
Morrison, Dixon meeting agendas lack detail
Comments (...)MORRISON – Is the city of Morrison giving enough information to the public about issues it plans to consider?
At least one alderman says no.
At this week’s City Council meeting, the agenda contained four items that listed ordinance section numbers the council was asked to amend. But the items didn’t give any indication about the subject matter.
It turns out they were proposed fee and fine increases.
Sauk Valley Media looked at recent agendas from the cities of Dixon, Sterling and Rock Falls. Are they giving residents enough information before they take action?
In at least one case, Dixon’s situation is similar to Morrison’s. Its Feb. 6 City Council agenda listed an ordinance section number that the council was asked to amend. But the city didn’t provide any more information.
“The mayor explains what the items actually are at the meetings,” City Clerk Kathe Swanson said.
What if a resident uses the agenda to determine whether to attend meetings?
Swanson said people can go to the Dixon city website and link to its ordinances and determine which one the council is considering amending. But the ordinance section listed on the Feb. 6 agenda isn’t on the Internet.
The issue, as it turns out, was to give the police the power to seize and impound cars involved in certain crimes. The council approved it.
Sterling’s and Rock Falls’ recent agendas appear to give residents more of an idea about what they’re considering. For instance, Sterling lists an ordinance number on its Jan. 16 agenda and states that it is the proposed repeal of the city code on alcoholic beverages. Rock Falls does the same about an amendment for solid waste rates.
In Morrison, the council this week decided to delay a decision on raising fees.
Alderman Leo Sullivan said he thought the city had agreed some weeks ago to give more detail on its agendas. He said this week’s agenda didn’t say what the proposed amendments were.
“There may be people in the community who are interested in this stuff,” Sullivan said.
Mayor Roger Drey said the council would give a description the next time the issue is on the agenda.
In December, the council voted on a controversial path along state Route 78. Residents along the path opposed it.
But they later complained that the council agenda didn’t say that the issue was on the agenda. The issue was under the item labeled, “Reconfirmation of Support of Greenway Trails Program.”
That was a program the council and other area government entities approved 13 years ago. The Route 78 path was a part of that program, officials said.
At that time, Sullivan questioned why the path issue was listed on the agenda under an item about a program that he wasn’t aware of.
Brent Shadle, a resident on state Route 78, also criticized the wording on the agenda.
“The council was asked to vote on something that they didn’t know was coming up,” Shadle said.
The mayor later acknowledged Shadle’s point, but he said the city needed to meet deadlines.
The state doesn’t have a law requiring any amount of specificity on meeting agendas.
Comments
Total Comments 0 View/Add Comments |
There have been no comments made about this story. |
