Comments on: Santa Rosa sticks to secrecy policy for council applicants

By: Caller

Caller — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 07:25:30 +0000

@Terry Jensen –
First of all, agreed.
Second of all, how is Judy Kennedy not angry, toxic, and bitter?

4 1

By: Q213

Q213 — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 03:34:47 +0000

Funny how the press waives the freedom of information flag only when it wants to. Ravitch has been HIDING her pathetic stats for some time now and not a word about that.

4 0

By: Caller

Caller — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 21:46:34 +0000

How many articles is the PD going to write about this just a few days before all of the information is released? Must be a slow news week.

8 3

By: brown act Jack

brown act Jack — Sun, 20 Jan 2013 19:12:08 +0000

Amazing how the press rolls over for the politicians.
think about this, deliberative actions refers, does it not, to legislative actions, which, of course, the submission of applications and the disclosure of applications, and the hiring of the applicant do not consist of any deliberation, do they?

But, of course,a City Attorney will do what the City Council, or the Mayor want the City Attorny to do, otherwise the CA would have to throw away the job!

if the City will not take the advice of the CA then the CA would reasonably consider that advice is not needed and resign from the position, as advice not taken is advice that is worthless to the client!

6 7

By: BigDogatPlay

BigDogatPlay — Sun, 20 Jan 2013 16:18:53 +0000

What specific public interest is the council citing to maintain confidentiality? Hiding that the council has likely already made it’s collective mind up on a particular person so as not to discourage others interested from wasting their time doesn’t really seem to ring true.

9 8

By: Terry Jensen

Terry Jensen — Sun, 20 Jan 2013 04:47:27 +0000

Judy Kennedy got it right. The people of Santa Rosa do not want any more angry, toxic and bitter people on the City Council such as Gary Wysocky, and as he likes to call himself, “the reverend Curtis Byrd.”

14 4