caj11 wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Before the start of this new administration, it was unusual to see eleven or seventeen second reading ordinances. The most was six ordinances. This new administration is just pounding the agenda with a ton of second reading ordinances. During the KRE tax abatement, Councilwoman Coleman she didn't know what she was voting on. I am not going to attack her for her honesty, that agenda had one of the longest second reading ordinances that I have ever seen. The council president must reduce what is on the agenda. That is the problem too many items on the agenda in which this council is clueless. Former Councilwoman Richardson did not allow last minute items on the agenda, this council is allowing it and they are voting on this without full comprehension.

Richardson was a Councilmember who didn't care about anything except herself, as I saw her on more than one occasion throw up her hands and say "whatever!" when people attending the meetings got upset with her, and was a double-dipper, collecting both her police pension and council salary.

She was totally against the concept of politicians holding just one public job at a time, saying that it was impossible to make a living on just one public job, without indicating the possibility about the novel concept of getting a private sector job instead while serving on the council (like Fulop did). Anything good she did was well more than cancelled out by her negative qualities. GOOD RIDDANCE!

caj11 wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Before the start of this new administration, it was unusual to see eleven or seventeen second reading ordinances. The most was six ordinances. This new administration is just pounding the agenda with a ton of second reading ordinances. During the KRE tax abatement, Councilwoman Coleman she didn't know what she was voting on. I am not going to attack her for her honesty, that agenda had one of the longest second reading ordinances that I have ever seen. The council president must reduce what is on the agenda. That is the problem too many items on the agenda in which this council is clueless. Former Councilwoman Richardson did not allow last minute items on the agenda, this council is allowing it and they are voting on this without full comprehension.

Richardson was a Councilmember who didn't care about anything except herself, as I saw her on more than one occasion throw up her hands and say "whatever!" when people attending the meetings got upset with her, and was a double-dipper, collecting both her police pension and council salary.

She was totally against the concept of politicians holding just one public job at a time, saying that it was impossible to make a living on just one public job, without indicating the possibility about the novel concept of getting a private sector job instead while serving on the council (like Fulop did). Anything good she did was well more than cancelled out by her negative qualities. GOOD RIDDANCE!

Yvonne wrote:
Before the start of this new administration, it was unusual to see eleven or seventeen second reading ordinances. The most was six ordinances. This new administration is just pounding the agenda with a ton of second reading ordinances. During the KRE tax abatement, Councilwoman Coleman she didn't know what she was voting on. I am not going to attack her for her honesty, that agenda had one of the longest second reading ordinances that I have ever seen. The council president must reduce what is on the agenda. That is the problem too many items on the agenda in which this council is clueless. Former Councilwoman Richardson did not allow last minute items on the agenda, this council is allowing it and they are voting on this without full comprehension.

jimbehrle wrote:
They could also have a rule that allowed new speakers to speak before people who get up each and every week to talk about each and every ordinance. Give other people a chance to speak

caj11 wrote:
Quote:

radryan03 wrote:
If you cant get your point across in less than 10 mins... you shouldn't be talking. I would attend the council meetings if I knew they weren't dominated by an overly opinionated few. Frankly - speaking any longer than 10 mins makes you a grandstanding jerk.

There is that woman on crutches, who comes to every meeting (at least she's come to every meeting I've been to and others have told me she's always there) and asks questions about nearly EVERY resolution and really contributes to the dragging out of the meetings. I don't think she ever speaks for longer than 10 minutes but collectively she must add an hour's time to the meeting. Really annoying. Don't get me wrong, she seems like a sweet person, and I'm sorry she has to walk around on crutches, but my respect for the elderly does not apply when it comes to her hogging the microphone.

I'd name the names of a few others that act similarly at these meetings as well, but I don't want to be sued for defamation as I'm sure some of them read this board. It is all nothing but grandstanding in my opinion because there is no way all these resolutions affect them.

Being the head of a neighborhood association does not make you an expert or qualified to speak for the masses either, I don't care how long you've lived in Jersey City. I don't know if there's a neighborhood association where I live but if there is, the head of it does not speak for me, I'll say that right now.

radryan03 wrote:
If you cant get your point across in less than 10 mins... you shouldn't be talking. I would attend the council meetings if I knew they weren't dominated by an overly opinionated few. Frankly - speaking any longer than 10 mins makes you a grandstanding jerk.

OneSkirt wrote:
While some people may over use this right, we need to keep it as is. I've spoken recently re: the McGinley sq. Redevelopment Plan which went on for almost 3 hrs. It was extremely productive for the residents to have this time (and we were organized) as we got to ask the City Planners and developers a lot of questions before the council. In doing this, we exposed a lot of problems with the plan and a lot of lies and contradictions the developer had been telling during that meeting, and before. President Lavarro did a great job keeping speakers on topic. If we didn't have this open time limit to hash out details and make our case, the residents wouldn't have gotten any wins out of this deal. We won a few solid points, most notably abolishing the four large video screens the developer wanted to go on the building and secure money from them towards building the new park at the square.

JSleeze wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

JSleeze wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:

The next Council meeting I go to would be my first Council meeting. My civic involvement in JC is micro, not macro.

Collecting a paycheck is about the extent of it, no?

???????????????????????

You live a half hour away. You obviously have some sort of vested interest in JC, likely a cop based on your worldview. But whether you are a cop or not, you are just here to make your buck and go home, right?

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

JSleeze wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:

The next Council meeting I go to would be my first Council meeting. My civic involvement in JC is micro, not macro.

Collecting a paycheck is about the extent of it, no?

???????????????????????

jimbehrle wrote:
I don't know why time can't be limited. I've seen people leave the room and be frustrated with city government because of the hogging of the microphone of a few. Why make council meetings routinely 4 or 5 hours long to satisfy the rhetorical whims of a few? The freedom of speech and engagement of government shouldn't have to be an endurance contest.

JSleeze wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:

The next Council meeting I go to would be my first Council meeting. My civic involvement in JC is micro, not macro.

Collecting a paycheck is about the extent of it, no?

Monroe wrote:

The next Council meeting I go to would be my first Council meeting. My civic involvement in JC is micro, not macro.

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Yvonne and Monroe will be pissed, if they don't get their petty complaints in at the council meeting too!

Cityhall needs a whine hotline for time wasting petty complaints so during council meetings, we have serious issues dealt with!

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Yvonne and Monroe will be pissed, if they don't get their petty complaints in at the council meeting too!

Cityhall needs a whine hotline for time wasting petty complaints so during council meetings, we have serious issues dealt with!

Stringer wrote:
Plan to limit public comment at Jersey City council meetings draws Fulop's ire

By Terrence T. McDonald | The Jersey Journal
July 11, 2014 at 12:35 PM

Looks like there's no chance of d?tente between Jersey City Mayor Steve Fulop and his chief antagonist, City Councilman Rich Boggiano.

The political adversaries are bickering over Boggiano's proposal to limit public comment at council meetings, with Fulop's spokeswoman saying Boggiano does nothing but "complain" and the councilman striking back by criticizing the mayor for running a "top-secret administration."

The measure in question would place a five-minute limit on speakers who offer comment during the second reading of an ordinance. Currently, speakers during those legally mandated public hearings can speak as long as they wish, which Boggiano said discourages others from speaking when some public hearings drag on for hours.

"This is just to give everyone an opportunity to talk," Boggiano told The Jersey Journal. "We had people leaving here at 10, 11 ... they get disgusted and walk out and leave."

City spokeswoman Jennifer Morrill said Fulop is opposed to the ordinance, just as he opposed a similar measure that limited public comments at Board of Education meetings earlier this year. http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... ting_public_comments.html

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... eetings.html#incart_river