Since removal of the Jellins, Winkler, DuBoc clan, our City council seems to be running more openly and without the bitterness those three created.

We don't need their type in power ever again. It may take years to undo some of the abuses they managed to create, but this new council at least seems to try and do its best. You can still see the attitude they had being voiced by John Boyle, who on so many occasions just seems to want to delay and disrupt. He should not be allowed quite so much air time, even though once in a while he has a good idea.

Although, at first glance, I am also not a big proponent of the high speed rail coming through our town, this type of negative attack on an individual that VOLUNTEERED her time for several years, is unacceptable. It is individuals like you that continue to divide our town as those that won't even accept another opinion, and discuss ideas that might improve our town, versus those that are opposed to every idea that may actually make our town nicer.
Please have a little respect for those that are actually trying to suggest some differing views that may actually have some merit, versus sitting around sending negative, no growth, no improvement, no creative idea type hate mail! Thank you.

Hey Hank,

The Big W never accepted the opinion of others as a Councilperson, why the --- should we accept her opinion now?

She's MP's version of Bush - come 1/20/09, no one will care what he has to say and since her defeat, no one cares what Winkler has to say.

The letter Miz Winkler wrote is full of innuendo and unproven "facts". This is what we need to get rid of in all levels of government. Sure, if there is concern about not enough sunshine on decisions, there should be questions, but her letter goes far beyond that and infers that there is a secret faction that's behind a lot of different decisions by the city and also by the Derry family about their project. Further, she suggests that the closed meeting decision might be illegal but did not find out the city attorney's position before making those accusations. Talk about chutzpah!

Most of the current council won their seats because the public was seeking open-minded decision makers who made decisions in the open. Just because Winkler's council made bloc voting after minimal discussion and made decisions in study sessions does not mean that this council does.

According to one of the bloggers, my name is Hank. Sorry, my name is not Hank. I am again, just a resident that pays his taxes, volunteers his time in many of the town's organizations, and tries to make MP a better place to live. Your day will come, it will take some time, but it will come. Positive, creative, intelligent thinking, always wins out over the disgruntled, angry, grumpy, "you better not change anything or I will act even more like a child" types.
All I am asking is that you funnel your anger toward something else, rather than others that have served this town. Regardless of your views, the volunteers that give of their precious time have a common goal, to make MP better. I love the GWB comment, I hear he caused cancer too. Unbelievable.

I too am an advocate of open government, so how about a response to Winkler's specific questions?

So why did the rail lawsuit get agendized without public input?

Why wasn't the Derry project redesigned in a public forum?

Is it possible that our current council majority and their supporters spend so much time accusing others of not being open to divert attention from their own secretive activities?

I am confused by the above question by Contrarian about the Derry project redesign. The project developer and property owners exercised their right to redesign and resubmit the project; this is the same right any project owner can exercise. Their redesigned proposal has been reviewed in public meetings that include, I think, a study session with the City Council, meeting with the Housing Commission, and project review with the Planning Commission. Some aspects of the project were modified as a result of the latter public meeting, as happens with other projects. The City Council has yet to review the project, awaiting the project developer's final submission. This review will be in a public forum.
What's the problem?

This is perfect.

If the Winkler/Duboc partisans want a debate on transparency and Sunshine in government, let's do it. I call for an open debate. Let's have your best and brightest, and we can ask council members to defend their positions, in a live and open setting. We can stop the one-way emails (again, no discussion allowed) and political backwash which is so much a part of the approach with the Winkler, Duboc, Gilles, Sinnott regime.

I know of at least one or two current council members who would dance circles around you on this topic. That is why I voted for them.

You in? Or will you yet again take the coward road and send out more one-way diatribes.

We'll shine the light and see who runs for cover.

Observer.
"What's the problem?"
You used the words, "I think".

Dear Iva,
I looked up the list of meetings, which of course anyone can do on the city website, to confirm my memory about public meetings. Sorry to disappoint you, but there have been even more public meetings than I remembered when I said "I think." Regarding the revised project or issues related to it, there have been meetings on: 10/22/07 Planning Commission; 11/27/07 City Council; 2/26/08 Council; 3/408 Council; 3/5/08 Housing Commission; 3/31/08 Planning Commission; 5/6/08 Council.
Now that "I know", I ask again:
What's the problem?

Hey, does anybody remember that this thread is supposed to be about high speed rail?

Well, Winkler's editorial really was about the council. Remember, it's an election season.