There is no reason why Prop. 1 is a bad idea.

Proposition one is a wonderful idea! Let us give other citizens a chance to serve--not just the Bienski clones!

techno, let's get the facts straight. She is not forced to withdraw any more than Bienski's brother would have to resign from P&Z. The rule is not effective until it passes and is implemented. Then those already on commissions and boards are "grandfathered".

Right. But she was indeed forced to relinquish the position for political expediency. How embarrassing that the mother of one of the proposition's big proponents found out it would be affecting her directly.

Yes, the proposition isn't in effect. But, she would not be able to serve on other committees in the future if voters do approve the proposition.

How embarrassing is it that Bienski nominated her?

quote:

---

How embarrassing is it that Bienski nominated her?

---

Pretty embarrassing for Pena.

There are plenty of competent citizens in Bryan to serve on commissions and boards who are not related to council members. Prop 1 won't eliminate favoritism and appointments based on politics, but it is a step in the right direction. Contrary to what some of the Bienski group claim, children of council members can still volunteer at the animal shelter and current city employees will be "grandfathered". All 3 propositions are needed if we are to have a level playing field in Bryan city government.

quote:

---

There are plenty of competent citizens in Bryan to serve on commissions and boards who are not related to council members.

---

Sure. But it's a shame people like Pena's mother won't be able to. Doesn't seem right to ban her from serving just because she's CM Pena's mother.

quote:

---

Contrary to what some of the Bienski group claim, children of council members can still volunteer at the animal shelter and current city employees will be "grandfathered".

---

Where have people been claiming otherwise? The only thing I've seen was an effort at clarification, and a concern about lawsuits since the wording of the proposition seems to be very harmful to the rights of those wishing to serve in a voluntary capacity with the city.

quote:

---

All 3 propositions are needed if we are to have a level playing field in Bryan city government.

---

It doesn't seem level if a CM's family member is banned from volunteering. It seems discriminatory.

quote:

---

quote:

---

How embarrassing is it that Bienski nominated her?

---

Pretty embarrassing for Pena.

---

Not really but keep up the great trolling.

Techno, Prop 1 pertains to appointments to committees and commissions as well as to employees of the City of Bryan. A volunteers are not appointed and are not employees, thus are not subject to this rule. The so called "clarifications" that claim volunteers would be banned are nothing but misinformation coming from some of Biendki's friends intent on killing theethics propositions.

Pena's mother would probably serve very well, but her decisions and votes on a commission could too easily be seen as conflict of interest. In most instances, there might not be a problem, but when a mayor in the real estate business appoints a brother who works for the same real estate company, possibilities of conflict
of interest become serious, especially when the appointment is to the powerful P&Z Commission.

quote:

---

Techno, Prop 1 pertains to appointments to committees and commissions as well as to employees of the City of Bryan. A volunteers are not appointed and are not employees, thus are not subject to this rule. The so called "clarifications" that claim volunteers would be banned are nothing but misinformation coming from some of Biendki's friends intent on killing theethics propositions.

Pena's mother would probably serve very well, but her decisions and votes on a commission could too easily be seen as conflict of interest. In most instances, there might not be a problem, but when a mayor in the real estate business appoints a brother who works for the same real estate company, possibilities of conflict
of interest become serious, especially when the appointment is to the powerful P&Z Commission.

---

Come on cavu. Play this straight. When a mother of a council member serves on a committee, possibilities of conflict of interest become serious (by your standards).

It hurts when the shoe is on the other foot.

quote:

---

When a mother of a council member serves on a committee, possibilities of conflict of interest become serious (by your standards).

---

Totally agree. That's why Prop 1 should be adopted ---- along with the other two.

Looking forward to voting for the anti-nepotism proposition.

Prop 1 is a ginned up issue. There is no proof at all that there have been any illegalities or other ethical shortcomings under current rules or else charges would be filed, but the Southerland, Joyce, Pena, Saenz, Hall coalition chose to make this an issue and try and force the current majority to prove there are no ethical violations. Only problem is you can't prove a negative.

And for the poor misinformed folks that think this will "level the plying field" in local politics, the playing field was already level - there aren't different rules for different people or groups. It's just that most folks think the current majority is doing it correctly. But Southerland et al will do anything to gin up an issue.

agrab86 says:

quote:

---

Prop 1 is a ginned up issue

---

It is most certainly NOT a ginned up issue. Neither is Prop. 3. Consider the facts.

FACT: Mayor Bienski's brother serves on the P&Z Commission
FACT: P&Z made decisions on zoning changes, including Special Use Permits.
FACT: A recent Special Use Permit was approved for a large apartment complex over neighborhood objections.
FACT: A building code variance was granted a developer to allow houses to be built close together.
FACT: Both decisions benefited developers who helped finance Bienski's mayoral race
FACT: Requests from developers who did not support Bienski get turned down.

Level playing field? Just who do you think you are kidding?

Even The Eagle, that staunchly liberal local paper, encouraged everybody to vote against all the propositions. They're poorly worded & won't stand in court.

The Eagle also endorsed Mike Southerland for city council.

^^^ I suspect they enjoy writing about the trouble he likes to stir up.

Sorry Techno, after reading the proposition I see no reason why it should not pass. Too many fingers in the city pie leads to very little left for the citizen.

quote:

---

^^^ I suspect they enjoy writing about the trouble he likes to stir up.

---

I suspect they think he's the better candidate.

quote:

---

Sorry Techno, after reading the proposition I see no reason why it should not pass. Too many fingers in the city pie leads to very little left for the citizen.

---

The wording likely won't pass legal muster on all three of them, Jim.

Techno do you have legal experience?

quote:

---

Sorry Techno, after reading the proposition I see no reason why it should not pass. Too many fingers in the city pie leads to very little left for the citizen.

---

Does the Eagle have any attorneys on their editorial board? The legal opinions of journalists don't carry much weight.

quote:

---

Does the Eagle have any attorneys on their editorial board? The legal opinions of journalists don't carry much weight.

Maybe techno is their legal counsel.

---

When even the liberal Eagle chastises Karen Hall, Southerland & their friends for not using a lawyer to write the propositions, you know they're in trouble.

I admire the energy you're putting into tilting at this windmill, techno. It almost rivals the energy Greg D puts into getting Elite status on Yelp.

If your going to tell lies get your facts straight. Councilmember pea mom did not in any way have to withdraw herself from any thing. Another thing you fail to mention was mayor bienski had councilmen pea mom as his first choice candidate for the job. His mom withdraw herself from consideration because she knew he had supported the charter amendment and she believed in it as well. And you also forgot to mention that she applied close to a year ago. she could have served very easily if she wanted to hell the mayor picked her and she made it through and if it wasn't for her calling she would have served for a full entire term even if the charter amendment passed. You know why??? Because the current proposition in the ballot does not kick any members off the board it's only from here forward.

Let's get the facts straight once and for all. The three propositions on the ballot would 1.not fire any current employee at cob or at btu 2.kick anyone off any boards for any reason because they will be grandfathered in 3.would not in any way prohibit any councilmember kids from volunteering at the animal shelter..... Also what most people don't understand is that a simple majority on council can interpret the charter amendment if passed to effectively correct any wording issues so that no rights are being abridge and make it so that no laws are conflicting with state law. Council recently interpreted the last charter amendment brought by former councilmember southerland and current councilmember Saenz to allow just two councilmembers to put anything on the agenda but part one of that charter amendment clearly states that the council as a whole shall adopt the order agenda items are to be put on the agenda. The council has sense interpreted that to mean just the city manager and the mayor. So vote in favor of all three proportions because the city of Bryan needs to held to the same standards as other cities. Last but certainly not least if a law suit is brought about it will be because a majority on council gave direction to the city attorney to bring about a lawsuit and would have in turn decided to waste tax payers money.

quote:

---

Another thing you fail to mention was mayor bienski had councilmen pea mom as his first choice candidate for the job.

---

I thought the mayor only allowed people who vote in lockstep with him to have any say in the political process?

quote:

---

Last but certainly not least if a law suit is brought about it will be because a majority on council gave direction to the city attorney to bring about a lawsuit and would have in turn decided to waste tax payers
money.

---

The city attorney would be the one charged with defending the proposition if it passed.

Let's be clear. There will be no need for any defense unless someone files a lawsuit against the city. And does anybody want to guess who the plaintiff would be? Just maybe someone on City Council who does not want to follow the new rules imposed in accordance with the will of the people.