Cape Informer

To really dig in to the essence of what Freedom of Speech is, you have to be aware of the long standing rules that exist within our country. The Freedom of Speech, as with all other freedoms, carry a great responsibility.

There are very few limitations on speech. The few that have been addressed are mostly related to the general safety of individuals, and the country as a whole. The famous, if misquoted “shouting fire in a crowded theater” for example. This would not be considered speech, because it is both a lie, and dangerous to those within the theater.

You cannot slander, or libel someone, and consider it free speech. Stating provably untrue things about others is not a protected freedom of speech.

A third, and perhaps too often forgotten limitation on the freedom of speech is the so called “Fighting Words” doctrine. The Supreme court made an opinion in the case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. They wrote:

“It is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or “fighting” words — those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. “Resort to epithets or personal abuse is not in any proper sense communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution, and its punishment as a criminal act would raise no question under that instrument.”

You see, the Internet has created a juxtaposition for the Freedom of speech. You really cannot consider it “Free Speech” by saying whatever disgusting hurtful epithet comes to mind at any given moment. What you’re really having is a Freedom from retribution. You have still wronged another human being. That injustice is merely held harmless by the fact that you are physically out of reach of the other person.

That, friends is not protected as a Freedom in this great country. Those that take advantage of the fact that they can say things and not suffer the real consequences of their actions actually work to destroy the foundation of Free Speech that this country is founded upon. Abusing the anonymity that you gain is not a true protected freedom, but instead, it is merely an affront on decency.

I have been unavailable for wrap ups for several meetings, due to work keeping me away from home with travel. However, today, I was able to have the council meeting on via channel 14, while I was handling work. I was in this position not because I was working late, but instead, because the City chose to hold the meeting at 3 PM.

Firstly, I was more than a little upset over the fact that the meeting started during the normal work day. To hold a meeting of such importance at a time that many of our residents would be at work, hardly meets the standard of working for the public good.

I was given the explanation that the sheer amount of items required an earlier meeting. In reality, the meeting starting at 3 PM was at Public Input time by 3:15 PM. The meeting was adjourned by 4:11, until 5:30, when they will present the 19 remaining “public hearings” which will mostly amount to a monotone presentation of the rambling modifications to various PDPs, and a handful of ayes and nays. This will of course, be followed up by the sometimes famous reports of Mayor and Council.

There are usually at least one or two of these public hearings that have a small presentation or a few questions, but generally, these things don’t equate to the vast majority of time in council meetings.

Most of the council meetings which include anything of major interest are dominated by public input time, responses to the public input time, and the final reports of Mayor and Council. Today, the city has effectively eliminated the public input time, by having it in the middle of the afternoon. Therefore, there was very little to respond to.

Now if they could just do away with the bothersome reports, our council meetings could be over in no time!

Do you want that? I sure don’t. I want the meetings to be filled with interested people. Residents paying attention, and making their opinions known. Why do I want all the contentious, rabble rousing? Because that is exactly what makes things happen. That is exactly how a city grows. That is how residents ensure that their future, and their investments are well cared for.

What happened today is a recipe for disaster. The city council should never allow public input to the items which they vote for occur in times where residents are unable to attend. Residents should consider their council, and the meetings that they hold, to be extremely approachable. What happened today was unacceptable, and should not be accepted by any resident, or land owner within our community.

As everyone is probably pretty well aware, we’ve been anxiously awaiting a letter, requesting the opinion of the Attorney General. We (being the citizens of Cape Coral) wanted to know if the Auditor General was right, or if the City Management was right, regarding the recent audit performed by the State. You remember the one, where we get to ‘respectfully disagree’ with each other?

We can’t help ourselves, we’re human. We want to find answers when two individuals, or groups of individuals have different opinions. We want to know which opinion most closely matches reality. I think we’d all be a bit happier knowing one way or another. There was of course, an option which allowed this. Our City Council could request an opinion of the State Attorney General.

Sounds simple enough, doesn’t it?

Well, of course, it’s not quite that simple. The council approved an action which allowed one finding to be questioned. Finding number 20. This finding, according to the synopsis was:

“The City did not fully comply with provisions of Section 287.055, Florida Statutes, in procurement of its contract for its utility expansion program. Additionally, invoices submitted for payment by the contractor were not adequately supported. Finally, the City’s consultant hired to audit selected work authorizations relating to its utility expansion program included several findings and made several recommendations.”

The City Attorney took this opinion, sharpened her pencil, and came up with:

“Where construction manager at risk or program manager at risk services are procured, pursuant to local ordinance which conforms to the requirements of 287.055, Florida Statutes, for the design and construction of a multi-phase utility project, would 287.055(9)(c) preclude the negotiation of a guaranteed maximum price and a guaranteed completion date based on competitively bid subcontracts for each phase of the project?”

She then included an entire “Memoranda of law” which went on to fully illustrate the City’s official position. In the position, our City Attorney states quite clearly that the City built it’s own rules for bidding using “the most pertinent provisions of CCNA”.

So you’ll see that she is trying to justify her own statement, within the question, when she says that our “Local ordinance which conforms to the requirements of 287.055…”

Notice what’s missing there? I didn’t either at first. It took a few reads to really understand. Here’s what’s missing, The Auditor General was kind enough to point it out in his own rebuttal, to our fine City Management’s rebuttal:

“However, the point of our comment was that no documentation was available to demonstrate such evaluation occurred. Specifically, the City did not provide evidence that the contractor was appropriately licensed as of the date of the City’s evaluation.”

In addition, what appears to be missing is the entire foundation of the argument. Is it even legal to supersede a state law, set to ensure regularity within municipalities? What gives a municipality the right to overrule the State, in a rule, created to control the municipality?

So we’re left with real issues on the table. Is the City right in its stance that we are able to write our own rules for contracting? Is it right that the City did not provide evidence of the contractor licensing process?

These questions will not be answered by the letter to the Attorney general, in it’s current draft. We need to urge the Mayor and Council to request an opinion which more closely matches the needs of our City.

Our city has gone through years of agony about sewer systems. Recommendations came and went for different systems, different payment methods, different allocations. Some stuck, others await their day, and yet still others were apparently buried due to various interested parties sharing the why and how of the folly of short sighted decisions.

On Monday, we were yet again romanced with another notion. This notion carrying undertones ever more dangerous than any that has yet graced our esteemed city hall. This notion is clothed in the siren’s song of delaying sewer installations. A safe, effective way to keep septic systems, and avoid the assessments, at least for now. Or so the special interest who presented it would have you believe.

You see, the very people who came to tout the capability of septic to remain in our city are the very people who would profit from the septic systems remaining. Their comparisons to ‘filters’ and bureaucratic requirements of annual inspections, paid of course, by the home owners, were nothing more than a thinly veiled way to ensure a business, at the expense of our residents.

You see, eventually, you’re going to need sewer anyway. Eventually, the neighborhood you live in will fill out to the point that you will have to have an improved system. They of course, have an answer there. A “micro system” which would also be charged to the home owners. This system would then last for a while, until even it is no longer capable of handling your sanitary needs. Then you would be forced to install a “real” sewer. So you will not pay once for sewer, not twice, but indeed, thrice! The insult added is that with likely inflation, you will pay yet more for your sewers than you will if they are completed in a timely manner, during the next few years.

Pay three times, and pay more than you would have originally… Where is the deal in that for residents?

Of course this deal sounds great to members of “NOWRA” the National Onsite Wastewater Recycling Alliance, who’s members include Robert “Bob” Himschoot, who spoke so convincingly on Monday. Here is Bob’s Bio from the NOWRA website:

Now why would someone like that want to promote a government controlled bureaucracy that would force annual inspections of your septic system?

I’m certain Bob does a great job at what he does. I’m also sure, that if you need a good company to handle your septic for you, he is probably a candidate. However, it will never be in the interest of the residents of Cape Coral to have a vendor forced upon them to maintain, or inspect septic systems.