10E Action 2011 0919 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Noticing is typically done in the classified section, next to garage sale and help wanted ads. This system is antiquated and inefficient. Can you remember the last time you read that section of the paper? In recent decades, technology has vastly improved, given the advent of the internet, electronic mail, social media, smart phones and other smart devices (iphones /ipads). The public is becoming increasing familiar with the use of new technology, using it as a means to gain quick and up -to -date information. We see more and more the public have a preference for receiving information in an electronic format. Technology allows us to be more efficient and when it comes to business, much more economical. Our division would like to see a change to State Law that allows cities more discretion based on their community's distinct needs (i.e. residents can sign up for e -mail alerts of public hearings, meetings, etc.); and that would count towards meeting the public noticing requirements. We don't want to eliminate noticing in newspapers, just enhance requirements by allowing cities to use alternate methods as a means of meeting the law. In recent years, this issue has come before the State Legislature, but newspaper publication groups have lobbied against this. They receive revenue from classified ads. But noticing is not supposed to be about generating revenue for private industry. It is supposed to be about informing the public, getting them more involved in local government and enhancing our methods of communication. Many times, we don't always see the turnout we would like at public meetings and hearings. We need to enhance our methods to change this. In addition, cities are supposed to be reimbursed by the State for a portion of the cost to notice meetings, but these funds have been deferred for several years now due to the State Budget. If we are not receiving these funds, why can't the legislature work with cities to modify the requirements? We want to work smarter, not harder! » » » »» 2. RESOLUTION RELATING TO TORT REFORM Source Mayor Charlie Goeken, City of Waterford Referred To : Administrative Services Poliev Committee Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee WHEREAS, frivolous lawsuits cost cities, counties, special districts, and school districts millions dollars a year to defend; and WHEREAS, the money that cities spend each year in legal fees fighting frivolous lawsuits is a waste of taxpayers' money; and WHEREAS, the money spent to defend frivolous lawsuits could be put to better public use; and WHEREAS, cities or other government entities are easily sued without reasonable cause when there is no requirement that the person or entity filing the lawsuit have any responsibility when the lawsuit is lost; and WHEREAS, the public good would be served if the law were changed to require the person or entity who filed the lawsuit to pay for all fees and costs of the city, or other sued party, to defend the lawsuit if it were unsuccessful; now, therefore, be it