Wining and dining under the First Amendment
Lawyers for two companies accused in a corruption probe at Sweetwater schools are arguing they should not have to give back construction contract proceeds because the meals, trips and tickets...
By: Ricky Young
Read the original here:
Wining and dining under the First Amendment - Video
Declaring that Florida's open government laws have been "under attack in recent years," the First Amendment Foundation asked the two candidates for governor to answer three questions pledging to reverse recent trends and operate with more transparent practices if they are elected.
Gov. Rick Scott and challenger Charlie Crist were asked if they would agree to conduct all public business on public computer networks and devices, release a detailed schedule of appointments and travel, and pledge that he and staff will not use private email accounts when conducting business.
Crist, a Democrat, responded that he would. Scott, a Republican, did not respond.
The First Amendment Foundation is a non-profit open government watchdog that receives its support from voluntary contributions and many of the state's news organizations.
The governor's failure to respond comes against a backdrop of increasing questions about his commitment to Florida's open government laws.
During his term, Scott has blocked data about his private air travels from public flight tracking records. He has released only superficial details about his daily schedules. He has used, and allows his staff to use, private email accounts when corresponding on public business, creating additional barriers to public access. And his staff has been encouraged to use private cell phone accounts when sending text messages about politically sensitive issues.
In each case, the governor has said he has followed the law but his actions have drawn lawsuits.
He is is being sued by Tallahassee attorney Steven R. Andrews, a Republican, for allowing his staff to alter calendar entries, for withholding documents from public records requests and for failing to say who opened his private gmail accountand the gmail accounts of his staff. He faces another lawsuit, from attorney general candidate George Sheldon, a Democrat, alleging that his financial disclosure forms fail to reflect more than $200 million of his wealth because it excludes assets his wife owns but which Scott remains as the beneficiary.
Here are the responses from Crist:
Q: As governor, will you release a weekly calendar in advance that details your appointments, public meetings, and travel schedule?
Follow this link:
Open government group: Scott won't commit to reversing practices in second term
Here's the the latest in our ongoing series of some of the crazy things the anti-gay marriage equality opponents are saying and doing around the world.
I Totally Don't Understand What The First Amendment Says
Joe.My.God Points out that Bryan Fischer is mixing up his lies about the First Amendment. Speaking about the Houston pastor subpoenas, he said:
But as Joe so cleverly points out:
What a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive.
full story
Matthew Shepard's Death is a Hate Crime Myth
ADF attorney Erik Stanley says the whole Matthew Shepard thing was a myth cooked up by gay activists to advance their agenda:
Unfortunately,some on our side are taking the bait, lending these charges credence, including Andrew Sullivan, who should know better.
full story
See more here:
Seriously? What Marriage Equality Opponents Are Saying - October 30th
The Fremont City Council approved two of three proposed changes to a zoning code amendment on Tuesday prior to unanimously passing a group of amendments intended to open Fremonts doors wider to home-based businesses and home occupations.
The council heard public opposition and support during first reading of the three zoning codes on Sept. 29, but there was no opposition on Tuesday when the council, with Kevin Eairleywine and Steve Navarrette absent, approved all three amendments.
The first amendment differentiates between home-based businesses and home occupations, a distinction that didnt exist in current codes.
Under the new language, home occupations are operations run only by people who live within the household. A home-based business, on the other hand, can have up to two employees who do not live in the home.
Creating the distinction, interim City Planner Justin Zetterman explained at an Oct. 12 council meeting, allows zoning codes to be more liberally applied to home occupations than to home-based businesses. Home occupations will be allowed in nearly all residential districts, while home-based businesses will be allowed in some districts, and require a conditional use permit in others.
The Fremont Planning Commission, on Sept. 15, voted 4-3 against that amendment, and did not bring to a vote the two ensuing amendments outlining regulations on home-based businesses and home occupations. It was the second of those two ensuing amendments where Councilman Larry Johnson on Tuesday proposed changes before voting on the amendment itself.
Johnsons first change, refining language about allowable signage at home-based businesses, passed 6-0.
His second alteration, adding tattoo parlors to the list of businesses explicitly prohibited in residential districts, passed 4-2 with Jennifer Bixby and Michael Kuhns opposed. Other prohibited businesses include stables and adult entertainment establishments.
Ive talked to no one who wants a tattoo parlor in their neighborhood, Johnson said. If were going to exclude some of those other things, I think we should make it clear that thats not something that we would be approving by our changes here.
Its not necessarily the number of people, its the atmosphere, he said. I happen to drive up Main Street when Im going anywhere, and I look at the tattoo parlor that was on Main and Military, and there are regularly folks outside that just arent enhancing the image of the community, or they wouldnt be enhancing the image of a residential neighborhood.
Here is the original post:
Code amendments open doors to home-based businesses
Keynote Address: Public Health in the Shadow of the First Amendment
Keynote Address: Public Health in the Shadow of the First Amendment.
By: BY65464
Read the original:
Keynote Address: Public Health in the Shadow of the First Amendment - Video