April 11, 2009
Secrecy in the public service
The Seattle Mayor and Councilmembers have climbed down and agreed to stop holding illegal secret budget meetings.
Spokesman Alex Fryer explained:
Questions raised by The Times about the [illegal secret] meetings were "a distraction," Fryer said, adding that the mayor's office encourages people instead to attend several planned open meetings of the full City Council.
Previously, Councilmembers explained that the illegal secret meetings were designed to
protect the public from boredom.
"...mostly what we're going though is just process," [Councilwoman Jean] Godden said. "It's very dull stuff that no one would really care about."
Later:
A Seattle Times reporter was denied entrance to a budget briefing on Thursday afternoon ... a legislative aide to Councilmember Jean Godden, physically dragged the reporter away from it by the strap of her bag.
Because reporters must be shielded from dull meetings that they might not care about, or something.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 11, 2009
12:15 PM | Email This
1. Don't ya also just love the secret "executive" sessions when they deal with personnel and their land developments?
2. This is standard operating procedure for these Demorat controlled governments. Lie, obfuscate, lie and obfuscate some more. If that doesn't do the trick than lie a little more and back that up with some muscle. I'll bet if that reporter decides to follow-up with some pesky cogent questions he/she might find themselves on the outside looking in at future press conferences, unable to ply his/her trade.
And these are the lying S.O.B.s that everybody wants controlling their health care.
3. Trolls posting something about George W. Bush in 3.... 2...... 1......
4. Dragged the reporter...? Where's the assault and battery charge??
5. Don't forget to thank the liberal media.
6. I give Credit to both the EFF and a friend of mine Chris, who both vowed to sue the city council if they tried to budget behind closed doors. My hats off to the EFF and Chris as I know him to be a fighter, and although I once took him on on a neighborhood battle, I later realized he was on the right side of most fences in this GD State Government battle.
7. Jiggy@2 worries, "And these are the lying S.O.B.s that everybody wants controlling their health care."
Do you think insurance company executives would be more willing to let reporters cover their budget meetings?
8. You know, back when I was studying such things, the laying of hands upon an unconsenting person was considered *assault*...why is nobody wearing silver bracelets?
9. Jiggy, it's also the standard process for handeling dissenters in "socialist regimes". Only thing missing is the gulag where the reporter would be "disappeared". But don't worry, they'll get around to that eventually. Anxiously awaiting Obama's "Civilian Security Force" made up no doubt of ACORN activists "and funded as well as the US Military"...
And Bruce, nice irrelevant comparison...Private Company to Public Government. Way to totally miss the point buddy!
10. GC@8, I'm not defending the city council, but no one was arrested for "laying of hands" because no one laid hands. Did you read Stefan's post before commenting on it?
Scott@9, I made it clear that I was responding to Jiggy's implication that the government would be worse at managing healthcare than the private sector because of government's secrecy. My comparison was entirely relevant; indeed, his point is meaningless absent such a comparison.
11. GC@8, I'm not defending the city council, but no one was arrested for "laying of hands" because no one laid hands. Did you read Stefan's post before commenting on it?
Scott@9, I made it clear that I was responding to Jiggy's implication that the government would be worse at managing healthcare than the private sector because of government's secrecy. My comparison was entirely relevant; indeed, his point is meaningless absent such a comparison.
12. GC@8, I'm not defending the city council, but no one was arrested for "laying of hands" because no one laid hands. Did you read Stefan's post before commenting on it?
Scott@9, I made it clear that I was responding to Jiggy's implication that the government would be worse at managing healthcare than the private sector because of government's secrecy. My comparison was entirely relevant; indeed, his point is meaningless absent such a comparison.
13. Wrong again Bruce. The comment implies the insurance industry is "replaced" by a government run system. So what you'd have is an all empowered government having secret meetings to decide the fate or you our your loved ones.
At least with a market based insurance company, you can QUIT and go elsewhere. Not so with a government system. If you don't like the secrecy of a private company you can leave them.
14. Scott@13 writes,
"At least with a market based insurance company, you can QUIT and go elsewhere. Not so with a government system."
With a government system, you can do even better than quitting: you can fire the government. By voting.
(Admittedly, it's not easy to fire the government. Then again, for most people, it's not easy to switch health insurance plans, either.)
15. Regarding Government supplied health care. think about it much like a post office during Christmas or getting your first driver license. That my friends is the customer service you would expect from the Government. Just ask a Canadian or Cuban about Government Managed (press hard - 4 copies) healthcare. And ask the wet ones that swim the shark infested waters to escape Cuba. By the way a question to ask politicians promising to sit more people in the wagon. Why limit government to health insurance? Add car insurance and home insurance.