Due to one’s ignorance on many topics of law, one finds it helpful to research the topic of interest.

In this case the topic of interest is local governance

Mayor Kraham blasts city council for floating constituent’s proposal to ‘dissolve’ Binghamton Police Department

   –end of Mayor Kraham info–

file:///media/fuse/drivefs-bee5958a4aac62de189521bc95cb486d/root/conduct_of_meetings_and_hearings_text_version.pdf —

The rules of procedures could also address how questions from the public will be handled. Will the board answer questions during the hearing, or just receive the questions? Will the public be allowed to question an applicant? What are the procedures by which the board will accept public comment? Will speakers need to register or to identify themselves for the written or recorded record? Boards should be aware that speakers cannot be required to give their name or address for the record. However, the board can also consider what weight they want to give an anonymous speaker when the board is unable to verify how the speaker came by the information. Will the length of their remarks be limited, at least initially? One approach is to give each speaker an initial amount of time to speak the first time, then allow them to speak again after all who wish to speak have had a chance to be heard. This round-robin process could go on until the members of the public with information related to the project are finished.

–end of media info–

Welcome to the Committee on Open Government

–

Therefore, in general, either the majority or minority party members of a legislative body may conduct closed political caucuses, either during or separate from meetings of the public body.

Many local legislative bodies, recognizing the potential effects of the 1985 amendment, have taken action to reject their authority to hold closed caucuses and to continue to conduct their business open to the public as they had prior to the amendment.

Moreover, as indicated by Buffalo News, there have been recent developments in case law regarding political caucuses that indicate that the exemption concerning political caucuses has in some instances been asserted improperly as a means of excluding the public from gatherings that have little or no relationship to political party activities or partisan political issues.

–end of committee info–

As much as one respects the notion of a Constitutional Republic and the order of Representatives of The People standing in stead of a mob demanding human rights, one is also aware of the corruption of the legality without legitimacy of Citizens United.  This Supreme Court decision interjected corruption into our electoral process.

The corruption of greed and self-interest have traditionally deemed, in the USA to be avoided as perception from public service.  Since adopting the Establishment perception of “running government like a business”, perception has gone by the wayside among our public servants.

One believes this doesn’t comport with the spirit of The American Revolution in which The Founders seem to attempt separation from the authoritarian character of obsolete previous governmental process.  People within that mindset would seem to look askance at the modern-day tendency in the USA toward capitalistic hierarchical Establishment human and natural rights violations in order to embrace self-interest and greed; not to mention disregard for the efforts of said Founders.

This is a reason some people object to that which they see as totalitarian actions by modern-day politicians and bureaucrats.  Order in Town Board meetings seem to be a reasonable effort, but not at the expense toward violation of human and natural rights.

In the writings found above in the governmental links, one noticed that developmental project put in place by politicians/big-money interests, projects so approved were intended to be reported to so-call neighbors.  In particular in NYS, for example, big-money interests/politicians have held a history of beginning such development devoid of reporting to neighbors, just lengthy enough to then be able to announce, “well, it’s too late to stop now”.

Since the anti-fracking dust-up of a decade ago, and sunlight shone into this dark corner, the vermin on that scam have fled.  But this wouldn’t have been the case without a resoundingly loud voice against such bureaucratic presumption.

As some people have mentioned in the past, it’s complicated.

Some people question a NYS Deputy Sheriff who was endorsed into the position of NYS Senator by the Sheriff in order to pass laws to his liking, then slipping back into the position of Sheriff where he could enforce his legislation, followed with endorsing into public service the local DA and attempt to endorse for NYS Senator, the man of his choice.

We are indeed “a nation of laws”, but considering the corruption of Citizens United in our electoral process, sunshine in dark corners is only logical and a matter of citizen survival in dignity and liberty.

“Running government like a business” is quite capitalistic hierarchical; but on a continue this becomes organized crime.  Or perhaps Medieval lifestyle that seemed to trigger The American Revolution.  Should we discuss this while it is still legal to do so?