Palmeri on Open Meetings - Updated

In a 2001 letter to Former DA Joe Paulus, Councilor Tony Palmeri quoted directly the statue he violated:
Wisconsin Statutes 19.83 say that "At any meeting of a governmental body, all discussion shall be held and all action of any kind, formal or informal, shall be initiated, deliberated upon and acted upon only in open session except as provided in s. 19.85."
So he can not please ignorance.

Original post below:

Perhaps the most disturbing part of this whole episode is how Mr. Palmeri has gone against his history of open meeting advocacy when an issue affected him. here are some of his greatest hits:

From Mr. Palmeri's blog regarding a closed meeting to discuss the goals of the city manager:
If a strong case is made for going into closed session on the 24th, I will certainly join my colleagues. But "strong case" has to be more than a narrow reading of the Open Meetings law. We need to be concerned not just with the letter, but also the spirit of that law.
and further in the comments by Mr. Palmeri:
I think we should do that hashing out in public. Not only is that more in line with the spirit of the open meetings law, but it would also allow citizens who make goal suggestions to see and hear for themselves if the Council is taking them seriously.
And finally from Mr. Palmeri's statement when running for the 54th Assembly:
A side discussion in a recess after half the council has voted is absolutely against the spirit of open meetings.


MacinOsh said...

This is where it becomes iffy to me because they were nominating their choices and not voting for the person to fill the vacancy at that moment in time. The vote was to happen after they narrowed the field down to two. As it turned out the next step in the councils intended process was left out. That being voting on the top two nomination recipients.

Anonymous said...

It's laughable that Kent Monte and Ron Hardy think this is a case of sour grapes on Jef Hall's part becuase he wasn't selected. I'm sure he knew once people like Stephen Hintz entered the mix he would not get elected and he even said publicly Hintz was the better choice with more experience. There is a reason Hall and so many others are upset about this and making the claim there was a violation of the law with this appointment. And the email Buchholz sent was definitely a wink-wink piece of correspondence. Hell, even Esslinger referred to him as Harold at one point in his presentation. On pretty friendly terms with the applicant aren't you Paul? Since most of these people had their minds made up before the meeting started the whole process was nothing more than a not too cleverly staged sideshow for the public. So much for openness, transparency, and accountability.

Ron said...

I don't think it is sour grapes, I think it is opportunistic petty politics.

Anonymous said...

Ron, your boy Tony has made plenty of open meetings accusations against a plethora of others. If it's not opportunistic or petty when Tony does it, then it's not opportunistic or petty when Hall does it.

Fact is they talked to each other. That begets the appearance of impropriety. Questioning it is neither opportunistic nor petty, it is the duty of citizens. Your boy Tony would do the same thing.