David
03-17-2009, 12:37 PM
Town web sites
Editor:
“State lawmakers seek a compromise on rules concerning town Web sites”; imagine my surprise while reading the Record-Journal on Tuesday (3/17) from the Sunday edition R-J, 3/15) online regarding this attempt to change the law requiring Connecticut municipalities to post their meetings, agendas and minutes online.
Well, I’m actually being facetious about being surprised.
I expected that someone would introduce a bill countering the original one or go about trying to repeal it.
I did an online search in early February for that and found about 12 bills all with that in mind and blogged about it:
http://jasonzandri.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!AA559A45099B2EBD!4381.entry
If I didn’t have the ability to search for this online, I would only be informed in the newspaper unless I requested all bill proposals to be mailed to me – if I had the foresight to do that.
In days gone by, and being on vacation, that would have meant I would have missed the whole thing.
Not in the 21st century but some would like to have it the old way.
All the arguments against the original bill are FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) from the people that would rather not be open and transparent. Most of that is from the running government that is supposed to be “of the people, by the people, for the people.”
If any compromise is needed, perhaps consider what is required to walk and ask for a printed copy. If that’s 72 hours or a week then so be it — make that change — but it shouldn’t take any longer to produce a printed copy than to post one online. In fact, what is typed up to print is what is converted to be posted online.
Software conversion is faster than any printer and you can have it anywhere in the world at any time.
JASON ZANDRI, WALLINGFORD
Editor:
“State lawmakers seek a compromise on rules concerning town Web sites”; imagine my surprise while reading the Record-Journal on Tuesday (3/17) from the Sunday edition R-J, 3/15) online regarding this attempt to change the law requiring Connecticut municipalities to post their meetings, agendas and minutes online.
Well, I’m actually being facetious about being surprised.
I expected that someone would introduce a bill countering the original one or go about trying to repeal it.
I did an online search in early February for that and found about 12 bills all with that in mind and blogged about it:
http://jasonzandri.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!AA559A45099B2EBD!4381.entry
If I didn’t have the ability to search for this online, I would only be informed in the newspaper unless I requested all bill proposals to be mailed to me – if I had the foresight to do that.
In days gone by, and being on vacation, that would have meant I would have missed the whole thing.
Not in the 21st century but some would like to have it the old way.
All the arguments against the original bill are FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) from the people that would rather not be open and transparent. Most of that is from the running government that is supposed to be “of the people, by the people, for the people.”
If any compromise is needed, perhaps consider what is required to walk and ask for a printed copy. If that’s 72 hours or a week then so be it — make that change — but it shouldn’t take any longer to produce a printed copy than to post one online. In fact, what is typed up to print is what is converted to be posted online.
Software conversion is faster than any printer and you can have it anywhere in the world at any time.
JASON ZANDRI, WALLINGFORD