PT admits it.
Sometimes I just don't get it. Take, for instance, last Saturday's Council meeting.
Bernice opened her post ("East Third/Richmond: The Process") this way:
"In A SPECIAL EMERGENCY MEETING Saturday (Sept. 23, 2006), the City Council approved both the East Third/Richmond Street “in need of redevelopment” study and a redevelopment plan that calls for high-density, multi-family construction.Notwithstanding that PT has never heard of a 'special' emergency meeting, the statute (NJSA 10:4-9) very wisely gives the governing body leeway to hold meetings without adequate notice if:
There was no prior notice of the 9 a.m. meeting except a verbal announcement by Council President Rayland Van Blake at the end of the Sept. 20 meeting that it would take place. The council is relying on a Sunshine Law provision that allows for an emergency meeting with notice to follow."
Such meeting is required in order to deal with matters of such urgency and importance that a delay for the purpose of providing adequate notice would be likely to result in SUBSTANTIAL HARM TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. . .AND providing along with the later published written notice EITHER --
That the public body COULD NOT REASONABLY HAVE FORESEEN THE NEED for such a meeting, or COULD HAVE BUT FAILED TO DO SO.Here's where PT just doesn't get it.
What EXACTLY was the SUBSTANTIAL HARM TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST avoided by going forward in such a hasty manner?
If you know, would you please enlighten this poor benighted soul?
-- Dan Damon
Not getting your own CLIPPINGS email daily? Click here to get started.