Alayne Weingartz, the so-called corporation counsel for the City of Aurora, has apparently been either confused or not competent enough to respond to the request filed to Aurora's Zoning Board of Appeals on the Planned Parenthood permit.
Attorneys say the filing of the appeal should grant a stay of the permit for 30 days or in the interim while the appeal is being considered.
So, does Weingartz say yes or no?
Nothing. She says nothing. Maybe she thinks if she stays AWOL on the issue, it will evaporate?
Ms. Weingartz is pretty busy these days trying to figure out how to play politics at taxpayer expense and evading questions about deception, but we think she should at least respond one way or another and let the process move forward appropriately.
We want to remind Ms. Weingartz her numerous violations of the Open Meetings Act with recent city council meetings should not be repeated for Tuesday's City Council Meeting, which is likely to be highly attended again.
Violations of the Open Meetings Act may result in civil penalties and also are a CRIMINAL OFFENSE, punishable up to $1500 in fines and 30 days of imprisonment.
Attorneys say the filing of the appeal should grant a stay of the permit for 30 days or in the interim while the appeal is being considered.
So, does Weingartz say yes or no?
Nothing. She says nothing. Maybe she thinks if she stays AWOL on the issue, it will evaporate?
Ms. Weingartz is pretty busy these days trying to figure out how to play politics at taxpayer expense and evading questions about deception, but we think she should at least respond one way or another and let the process move forward appropriately.
We want to remind Ms. Weingartz her numerous violations of the Open Meetings Act with recent city council meetings should not be repeated for Tuesday's City Council Meeting, which is likely to be highly attended again.
Violations of the Open Meetings Act may result in civil penalties and also are a CRIMINAL OFFENSE, punishable up to $1500 in fines and 30 days of imprisonment.
15 comments:
Face it, it's a medical clinic not some type of health-related facility. Check out the definitions in the Zoning Code. Openline had the attorney's reports posted last week. It's all there for everyone to see. Since some of you are so wrapped up in legal details, where in any City regulation does it give the City Council the authority to vote on an occupancy permit?
Where in any city regulation prevents the city council from acting on the investigation it was asked to initiate?
Sorry 602 – your latter definition fits better. Yes, a medical clinic refers to the type of business that will be conducted there, but a not for profit health-related facility fits better. This definition describes not only the type of business but the legal entity as well. Therefore, this definition is more specific as it describes the use on two levels and not just one.
I was wondering when someone would realize that those meetings violated the OMA!!!
But: that means the COUNCIL willingly violated the act also! Including Openline hero libs Steffy and Ricky! Where's the outrage against the Council for violating State law?
The council should be able to vote to punish the City STAFFERS who were complicit ijn the issuance of the illegal and incomplete permits (try building a deckon your house with "unknown" on any of the blanks!).
And what "rules" would PREVENT the elected representatives from overruling an employee? That concept- that the Council CAN'T decide something- is an odd one at best in a representative republic.
The rationale of the City was that since this was a non-agenda item they did not have to relocate to a larger facility. This true?
How can the City suggest that its citizens don’t have a vested interest in seeing any and all facets of the executive process? While these people may have an interest in the PP issue, they cannot deny them access solely on this, because they could have other interests as well.
I know for a fact the city could use Copley thearte, the paramont, East or West High. All the mayor would have to do is ask!
I talk with a couple of the good alderman and they are all for it and I believe are going to put fourth a motion to move the council meetings to larger venues when it is known or can be reasonable assumed that the fire code limitations of council chambers will be exceded by those wanting to attend.
This mayor is such a loser. How can these greedy bastatrds that run him put up with his incompitence? You would think they could find a puppet that had a brain at least.
This shows me even these local power brokers are nothing but a joke themselves.
Viva La Aurora
Can't there ever be a story on the lighter side other than always knocking the city, the council,
contractors or the mayor. This constant bashing is getting so old.
Sure -
The city will be remodeling a floor in the Mayor’s building that will look second to none. It will be a Grand Palace.
I think everyone should come and visit the floor and office where the Mayor works.
Where the mayor works??
If you believe that the city violated the OMA then why hasen't anyboby contacted the states attorney? If you have proof then go to them because they will prosacute them. Put your money where your mouth is and do something about it.
Tom is in the center of a "permits for contributions" scandal now.
A medical clinic can be for profit or not for profit and be legally located lots of places in Aurora, like East New York and Oakhurst. 3051 East New York is no health related facility, it's a medical clinic. Check out the specific definitions. It is entertaining to see the lawyers try and stretch their misread sections of the law like cheap rubber bands, though. Too bad they're already broken.
10/7/07 8:23
If a medical clinic is a medical clinic is a medical clinic, then why does that same ordinance differentiate between profit and not for profit medical clinics? The inquiry goes further than just is it a medical clinic. The next inquiry profit or not for profit. Seems simple doesn’t it. It should be.
Keep in mind that this run arises from an ordinance of the City of Aurora written by the City for the City to accomplish its own goals. When writing this ordinance the City set up that distinction. A distinction that it now seeks to ignore.
Do you live across the street from this business?
Like it or not PP and abortion clinics in general are a lightening rod of controversy. Like it or not the issue of abortion is probably the single most divisive issue troubling this nation. We all know what happens at these sights and it is this nuisance value that has to be examined when considering placement of an abortion clinic.
Should the people that live in that neighborhood have to be subjected to all of this? The answer is a resounding NO.
There was an abortion clinic on West Galena Boulevard for many years. By the way I live within two blocks of that location.
I suggest to you that the Weisner, Stover and Pierce adminstration fell down on the job and did not take steps to protect the general population from the fallout, the secondary effects of placing an abortion clinic in this city.
What could they have done you say? The answer is simple.
This business could have been regulated off of main street. It could have been and future abortion clinics can be regulated off of main street by time, place and manner restrictions not unlike those placed on adult uses.
Well you say isn’t this constitutionally protected activity? The answer is yes and no. Yes the right of a woman to make decisions on abortion is protected to some degree by Roe vs Wade. I suggest to you that the business of abortions is not constitutionally protected. Let me remind you that adult uses are also constitutionally protected, but time, place and manner restrictions abound. The right to bear arms is fully stated in the constitution, does not arise from a court case and is constitutionally protected.
The entire nation now knows that abortion clinics can be set up in Aurora with little or no regulation and little or no opposition by the current administration. How many more can we stand.
Check out the zoning ordinance. Churches are more regulated than abortion clinics.
Post a Comment