The animal control ordinance that nearly got away | June 21, 2013 | Mountain View Voice | Mountain View Online |


http://mv-voice.com/print/story/print/2013/06/21/the-animal-control-ordinance-that-nearly-got-away


Mountain View Voice

News - June 21, 2013

The animal control ordinance that nearly got away

City's practice of putting public notices in SJ legal newspaper is questioned

by Daniel DeBolt

It was the animal control ordinance that nearly got away — and caused some finger-pointing over why thousands of cat and dog owners in the city were not informed. Among the practices being blamed is the city's use of an obscure legal newspaper to post meeting agendas, a practice the City Council unanimously voted to extend Tuesday.

This story contains 887 words.

If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have logged in. Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.

If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account, click here to get your online account activated.

Email Daniel DeBolt at ddebolt@mv-voice.com

Comments

Posted by Cuesta Resident, a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jun 20, 2013 at 9:32 pm

The city has 2 problems:

1) City Staff did a terrible job of reviewing the proposed law, including stuff about insuring animal protection from the sun at night!

2) The 5-day notice system is too short for major law/policy issues, especially when the city continues to reduce their summary info about items (e.g., the written minutes of Council and Commission meetings no longer give enough detail to understand the debate). The city should improve the minutes and the agenda summaries, and it should adopt a policy of making any item longer than 10 pages be available at least 10 days prior to the Council meeting.


Posted by 18 year Homeowner, a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jun 21, 2013 at 4:13 pm

Clearly there is something fishy that the council voted 6-1 with only our reasonable Mayor Inks voting "no". Who is being paid by SVACA or trying to curry favor with Jac Siegel? Also, I'd expect SVACA's board member and city councilman Jac Siegel to have recused himself from voting as there is clearly a conflict of interest there. I would expect a locally elected politician to act in the interest of their constituents, not act like a big time politician (we've enough of those).