Is This Really Smart?

You ain't just whistling Dixie...

Vienna site did have voting on it's page and has had for weeks in the scrolling news panel.

We have the screen shots that say otherwise.

"I got it right" is correct. The java-driven text box with the letter-by-letter information "crawl" (not exactly a crawl, but more like watching a typewriter write) had the voting information for quite a while before the election and up until the election and on election day. Sure, it was one of about 3-5 different messages, but it was DEFINITELY one of the messages. So you must have taken you screen shots at the wrong times or something.

Great... Everyone needs to be a cyber sleuth to figure out it is election day. Awesome java-driven point.

Everyone needs to be a cyber sleuth to figure out it is election day. Awesome java-driven point.

... Or just someone who's driven down Maple Avenue at least once in the previous month and didn't have their head so far up their ass that they couldn't notice the gigantic banner proclaiming May 1 to be Election Day. That banner might have tipped you off that something was afoot.

How's it smell up there, B?

Let's see: almost no press coverage, a street banner and an occasional blinking java script on a web site (which happens to be an embarrassment by any measure of professionalism in 2007), that's an announcement?

The real issue is the complete lack of transparency in Vienna. There is none. And whoever is defending the notion that an election was widely known, would you care to defend Vienna's lack of televised meetings?

Sure, I'll defend it: no one but you would watch a televised meeting, and no one gives a rat's ass about you, so it would be a colossal waste of money.

I'd expect YOU of all people to be against colossal wastes of money. The town could invest that "TV money" in a hedge fund and make like 70 trillion dollars. You wouldn't want Maud to spend 70 trillion dollars on televised meetings, would you?

How's that?

Just so we are all clear on all of your erudite positions "Banner Reader", the polling irregularities (whether they swayed an election or not), those are good by you too?

I tend to agree with you. Forget cable TV, we should go with Maud's original idea of banning cameras!

While I generally find this site to be over the top, I agree that we need new blood on the Town Council. It is time to start electing new members who can be expected to be around long enough to view the longer-term impact of their decisions. I may be wrong about this, but I cannot recall a single incumbent mayor or councilman being voted out of office in Vienna since I moved here in 1996.

"Banner Reader" are you even a Town resident? You seem rather worked up. Why all the cursing?

Cable is just dumb in your opinion? Were you, we assume, supportive of Maud?

Re: Sure, I'll defend it: no one but you would watch a televised meeting, and no one gives a rat's [...] about you, so it would be a colossal waste of money.

SO open and honest government and safeguarding that our elected officials are not abusing the public trust means nothing to you?

You are either a [...], or you are just a [...]. Go back to school [...]!

Just because Maud won, doesn't mean you get to foster corruption. This town will have televised meetings. Anyone who says we cannot afford it, is not telling the truth.

I guess this is my pet project now. Why is not televising meetings "corruption?" Aren't they open meetings, which anyone can attend? I'm fascinated by this question now, because no one will answer it.

I didn't say the town couldn't afford it. I said it's a waste of town money as I see it. Big difference. I can afford to buy nice china. But I think china is stupid and ugly and sucks, so it's a waste of my money because I'll never use it.

That's what I'm saying about televising meetings. Maybe the town can afford it, but nobody will use it, so it's a waste of money.

By your logic, every other jurisdiction that has their meetings broadcast is wasting their money?

How are you arriving at the conclusion no one would watch? Or that only 4 people would watch? Who told you this?

If the town had started televising its meetings years ago, the funny person who runs hv.com would scream that the town council wastes money putting themselves on TV, that they act all polite and phony for the TV cameras but they're mean nasty people when the cameras aren't rolling, that they do evil things in closed sessions that aren't on TV, etc, etc. The problem is that hv.com isn't FOR anything. It's simply AGAINST anything that the town does, and the people who run it will just make things up if there's no evidence to support their arguments, then attack anyone who points out that they're not making sense ("The election was kept secret from the town!" "Um, what about the huge banner across Maple Ave?" "You are a bad evil person for saying the election wasn't kept secret!")

Stand for:

1. Maple Avenue redevelopment.
2. Elimination of unconstitutional laws in Vienna dealing with architectural review boards.
3. Transparency in government.
4. Working toward alleviation of traffic during rush hour in Vienna on 123.

For starters...

The South Vienna Civic Association had for years videotaped town council and board meetings. Contrary to what had been said earlier that the taping would hinder persons from saying their piece that was not the case, nor did council appear stifled by the presence of a camera. During the period the fact that there was a camera at the meeting was discussed with persons who had attended the meetings and they were unaware that there was a camera taping the proceedings. The SVA project began with the intention of honing video skills to do a professional job free for the town. Several persons paid their own fees to take video courses at channel l0 and had qualified to take the equipment and broadcast truck to Vienna. The town would have none of it, free.

Gosh arguing that was constructive.