City Council Meeting- Nominee Questions

Good Day Snellville.

I went to the Snellville City Council meeting on Monday, 13 July 2015. In addition to normal city business, the meeting agenda also listed several nominations for volunteer positions on the city’s boards and commissions. I listened to the many nominations for different for the Arts Commission, Parks and Recreation Board, Planning Commission, Urban Redevelopment Authority and Board of Appeals. I was taken aback at how many applicants were nominated and not approved? I understand that the Mayor and council had a “work session” before the actual meeting (as they always do) to kind of get on the same page. Really? So how is it that so many were nominated yet not confirmed?

I did some research and have spoken with many on the subject, council members, former council members, commission and board members. As it turns out while there is not an actual resolution or amendment to the City Charter on the matter, there was a meeting, all council and Mayor, where it was decided by the majority of council that in the future, the commissions and boards that were applied to would meet with the applicants, discuss their qualifications and desires for said board, and only after the members of the board felt the applicant would prove to be an asset, would the applicant be presented to the Council.  After the “Vetting” was done by the members, the council would approve based on their trust that the members on the boards were satisfied. Make sense? It does to this ole country boy.

This policy was adopted because in the past, approving nominations was pretty much a rubber stamp deal. As a result people were appointed to boards and commissions who had no idea of the requirements and the amount of time and effort that goes into these positions. Some people didn’t serve very long because they couldn’t devote the time necessary or just didn’t have the desire to continue because the job wasn’t what they thought it would be. Makes sense to me. Let’s make sure everybody know what’s required and that everyone knows who they’ll be working with.
There are certainly alternate options viagra österreich of fighting it. The usage of the buy tadalafil should be done cialis tab loved that is to recognize what is causing the problem and moving towards solving it. Cylic GMP commander levitra appalachianmagazine.com assists to get the longer and tougher penile production. Herbal online levitra treatments include supplements which naturally stimulate the body. So what happened? Why were so many applicants denied confirmation? And why was there one on the agenda that was withdrawn without any discussion?  Is it pure politics? If it is, to what end?  Does it serve the “Good of the People” to nominate people who may not be qualified, or who don’t understand the job? I also found out that some of the applications were two or three years old. Did anyone check to see if the person was still interested. And why did the mayor say one application had been withdrawn when it wasn’t? The nominations were discussed in the work session before the meeting and the council had made it clear that the applicants had not met the requirements, and they would be denied. Why would the Mayor go forward and nominate them in a public forum?  How do you think it makes the applicant feel to be turned down?  Is there a winner here? A loser? In my opinion, yes, there is a loser. It’s us, We the people. I don’t feel like our best interest is being served.  Isn’t that why we vote? So our best interest as a whole will be taken into consideration?

What do you think? Maybe I’m missing something. Do tell.

 

Catch ya next time friends

4 Comments

  1. Before I turned in my application for the Board of Appeals, I attended several city council meetings, the Downtown Development Authority meeting, the Urban Redevelopment meeting, a couple of the BOA meetings. I also spoke to a few people at City Hall, including Jason Thompson (Interim Planning Director) and Butch Sanders (City Manager) just to make sure I knew what I was getting involved in and to make sure I would be able to make the meet the commitment required. Only after talking to several people on the various boards did I turn in my application. After I turned in my application I was interviewed by the current BOA members (some I knew, but most I did not). About a week or two later I received a letter from the BOA indicating that they were recommending me for the open post. A few weeks later I was nominated and approved by a 5-1 vote of the mayor and council. To me, the process made sense. These board appointments are important. It is critical to get the right people on these boards. What I don’t understand is why the mayor has decided to not follow the process that was voted on approved a year and half ago. She nominated some people last week for boards that I personally know and I am sure they would have done a great job on the boards, but the fact that the current boards were not even aware that some of these people applied and did not have a chance to talk to them is mind boggling. The mayor has proven time and time again that she is a divider. Most mayors typically try to unify the citizens of a city. She has done anything but that! It’s getting old and she has outlasted her welcome. It’s time to cut up the pineapple.

  2. In my opinion, no name should ever be made public until after the “vetting”. Probably an embarrassment to a lot of people who are truly good people that were “promised” a spot.

  3. Well I look at it all a bit different, unless I am not understanding the way that this is written. We do vote so that our, each and every citizen od Snellville and not just a select few. It is because of this that most of the nominations were not approved, because the people that were nominated were not all vetted based off of my understandings of the way that it is supposed to be done. As you said, the nominations were discussed in the work session prior to the council meeting, at that time when it was stated that most of these nominations would not be approved, the Mayor should have removed these items from the agenda so that it would spare any embarrassed or feel bad due to not being approved. Unfortunately the Mayor of Snellville, Kelly Kautz will take any opportunity she has to try and make the council members look like the bad guys even though she knew ahead of time that the process was not followed properly. Also unfortunately this is nothing out of the norm for Kautz during her entire term as Mayor. This is yet another reason that the citizens of Snellville need to make sure they get out and vote in November to make sure that we elect a Mayor for the Snellville, that follows the rules and has the best interest for the City of Snellville and ALL of the citizens of Snellville, rather than having someone like our current Mayor that is only out for what fits her agenda, her personal gains or the agenda and personal gains of her “kitchen cabinet”. TOM WITTS FOR MAYOR OF SNELLVILLE!!!!!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*