Human Relations Commission meeting sparks ire, reignites conflicts
Original post made on Jul 24, 2007
Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, July 18, 2007, 12:00 AM
on Jul 24, 2007 at 11:16 pm
While I think this article mostly describes this meeting, Ms. Trout seriously underestimated the number of people who attended. The room was full, extra rows of chairs were added, and people were standing in the hall. By my guess over 60 people came to the meeting. I assure you more than 20 people in Palo Alto cared enough about the IM issue, PPJC and free speach to show up for this meeting, particularly after the column in the Weekly. You stated 13 people spoke at the meeting, which means only 7 people sat and watched. The vast majority of the people in the room did not speak. I'm not sure if Ms. Trout intended by her low count to imply that people aren't willing to take a public stand for issues they care about, or that the Human Relation Commission is marginal, whatever her intent, she would better serve all of us if she were accurate.
on Jul 25, 2007 at 12:39 am
By the time the meeting began Thursday, a thread on the Weekly's online forum, Town Square, was packed with expressions of speculation, frustration, confusion and anger.
Going into the meeting, Mora said her role "was about repair work."
I was surprised that no one from the HRC engaged in the Town Square discussion. Not Mora, and not even Jeff Blum. Surely he followed a conversation attached to his very own column. At a minimum they could have posted a link to the agenda. The discussion went on for pages before someone stepped in and explained that Blum misrepresented the agenda. This was at 4:50 pm the day of the meeting.
Are they forbidden from entering a public discussion because of HRC rules? I can't imagine that they weren't aware of the discussion. Their silence made a bum situation worse.
on Jul 25, 2007 at 1:42 am
I sure hope we're not paying for these clowns.