The Official "Making America Woke Again" Thread

[AZGrizFan]

That's next. Only wealthy people have 401(k)s.

They need to apply the tax to billionaires and federally elected officials.

There'd be no point to investing if this happens.

I’d say we’d become a cash society at that point, but they’ve made sure there isn’t enough actual cash in the system to be able to do that.

[AZGrizFan]

https://nypost.com/2021/10/24/dems-plan ... d-2t-bill/

Dems want to tax UNREALIZED cap gains....
1) how can you tax something that hasn't been actualized?
2) would the implication be to trigger a sell off, which would then be taxed as well?

Is there something i'm not understanding here? Seems like a grasp

It's just another way to say a "wealth tax" without calling it a "wealth tax". In principle, I'm not adverse to something like that, but in practice I just don't see how it's going to be practical to implement. How do you properly assess a person's property or their possessions? Heck, every local struggles with property tax reassessments and likely will forever. Extend that saga now to pretty much anything else someone owns. Like I said, the principle of getting a really rich person who has little to no income, but sits on a hoard of wealth, isn't a bad thought, per se, but that same person is likely to be able to afford the tax lawyers necessary to avoid much, if not most, of this new tax. I'm pretty sure lots of other countries, Europe included, have abandoned wealth taxes as they just weren't worth the expenditures to chase them down.

What y’all should be more up in arms about (although this whole topic makes my blood boil) is the IRS plan to make financial institutions report ALL transactions in/out of personal bank accounts TOTALING more than $600 in A YEAR. This is directly aimed at the lower end service jobs who get paid in tips and/or cash. They are gonna squeeze every drop of blood they can out of the poorest Americans, and they really don’t give two shits.

And GF, taxing ANY unearned or unrealized gain is so far down the slippery slope that we’re gonna end up giving them our entire paychecks and letting THEM decide how much we get back each month. It’s draconian, it’s over the top, and it’s living proof they (and I mean ALL of them) have ZERO intention of ever scaling back spending…

[Ibanez]

It's just another way to say a "wealth tax" without calling it a "wealth tax". In principle, I'm not adverse to something like that, but in practice I just don't see how it's going to be practical to implement. How do you properly assess a person's property or their possessions? Heck, every local struggles with property tax reassessments and likely will forever. Extend that saga now to pretty much anything else someone owns. Like I said, the principle of getting a really rich person who has little to no income, but sits on a hoard of wealth, isn't a bad thought, per se, but that same person is likely to be able to afford the tax lawyers necessary to avoid much, if not most, of this new tax. I'm pretty sure lots of other countries, Europe included, have abandoned wealth taxes as they just weren't worth the expenditures to chase them down.

What y’all should be more up in arms about (although this whole topic makes my blood boil) is the IRS plan to make financial institutions report ALL transactions in/out of personal bank accounts TOTALING more than $600 in A YEAR. This is directly aimed at the lower end service jobs who get paid in tips and/or cash. They are gonna squeeze every drop of blood they can out of the poorest Americans, and they really don’t give two shits.

And GF, taxing ANY unearned or unrealized gain is so far down the slippery slope that we’re gonna end up giving them our entire paychecks and letting THEM decide how much we get back each month. It’s draconian, it’s over the top, and it’s living proof they (and I mean ALL of them) have ZERO intention of ever scaling back spending…

That $600 reporting worries me. We can only hope that a sane Republican gets into office soon (or a majority to act as a bulwark) and deny that bullshit any chance of passing.

[Ibanez]

“I’ve been talking about this for years,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., who campaigned for the presidency on a wealth tax, and backs Wyden’s approach. “I’ve even made billionaires cry over this.”

https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-bu ... 617547e3fe

And she wonders why nobody likes her.

[kalm]

“I’ve been talking about this for years,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., who campaigned for the presidency on a wealth tax, and backs Wyden’s approach. “I’ve even made billionaires cry over this.”

https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-bu ... 617547e3fe

And she wonders why nobody likes her.

Won’t anyone think of the billionaires!!!

[Baldy]

https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-bu ... 617547e3fe

And she wonders why nobody likes her.

Won’t anyone think of the billionaires!!!

[GannonFan]

It's just another way to say a "wealth tax" without calling it a "wealth tax". In principle, I'm not adverse to something like that, but in practice I just don't see how it's going to be practical to implement. How do you properly assess a person's property or their possessions? Heck, every local struggles with property tax reassessments and likely will forever. Extend that saga now to pretty much anything else someone owns. Like I said, the principle of getting a really rich person who has little to no income, but sits on a hoard of wealth, isn't a bad thought, per se, but that same person is likely to be able to afford the tax lawyers necessary to avoid much, if not most, of this new tax. I'm pretty sure lots of other countries, Europe included, have abandoned wealth taxes as they just weren't worth the expenditures to chase them down.

What y’all should be more up in arms about (although this whole topic makes my blood boil) is the IRS plan to make financial institutions report ALL transactions in/out of personal bank accounts TOTALING more than $600 in A YEAR. This is directly aimed at the lower end service jobs who get paid in tips and/or cash. They are gonna squeeze every drop of blood they can out of the poorest Americans, and they really don’t give two shits.

And GF, taxing ANY unearned or unrealized gain is so far down the slippery slope that we’re gonna end up giving them our entire paychecks and letting THEM decide how much we get back each month. It’s draconian, it’s over the top, and it’s living proof they (and I mean ALL of them) have ZERO intention of ever scaling back spending…

Oh, I agree, that $600 a year thing (I think they may have upped it to $10k a year, but even that would pretty much still capture anyone with a job) is completely loony. That's like a blanket search warrant over everyone's banking accounts. I don't see how that would pass constitutional muster and would see an injunction against it the moment it passed.

I'm actually kind of amazed at how dumb the Democratic party has become - a lot of what they are proposing to pass with a razor thin majority in the Senate and a relatively razor thin majority in the House are some of the worst policy ideas I've heard in years. And yet they are plowing ahead with it. Again, at this point, the GOP just has to make sure Trump doesn't run and they will have both houses of Congress and the White House in 2024. But the GOP is pretty dumb too so that might be too much to ask for.

[Ibanez]

What y’all should be more up in arms about (although this whole topic makes my blood boil) is the IRS plan to make financial institutions report ALL transactions in/out of personal bank accounts TOTALING more than $600 in A YEAR. This is directly aimed at the lower end service jobs who get paid in tips and/or cash. They are gonna squeeze every drop of blood they can out of the poorest Americans, and they really don’t give two shits.

And GF, taxing ANY unearned or unrealized gain is so far down the slippery slope that we’re gonna end up giving them our entire paychecks and letting THEM decide how much we get back each month. It’s draconian, it’s over the top, and it’s living proof they (and I mean ALL of them) have ZERO intention of ever scaling back spending…

Oh, I agree, that $600 a year thing (I think they may have upped it to $10k a year, but even that would pretty much still capture anyone with a job) is completely loony. That's like a blanket search warrant over everyone's banking accounts. I don't see how that would pass constitutional muster and would see an injunction against it the moment it passed.

I'm actually kind of amazed at how dumb the Democratic party has become - a lot of what they are proposing to pass with a razor thin majority in the Senate and a relatively razor thin majority in the House are some of the worst policy ideas I've heard in years. And yet they are plowing ahead with it. Again, at this point, the GOP just has to make sure Trump doesn't run and they will have both houses of Congress and the White House in 2024. But the GOP is pretty dumb too so that might be too much to ask for.

1000% correct.

It looks like Manchin is doing a good job at casting doubt and potentially scuttling this crap.

[UNI88]

Minnesota school board requires parents to disclose personal info to speak at meeting

Jodi Sapp, the chairwoman of the Mankato school board, is seen in a video of the Oct. 18 meeting telling a man that he cannot speak if he doesn’t announce his address. The man immediately objected but eventually acquiesced after attempting to give vague answers citing concerns that his house would be a target for vandalism.

Sapp had earlier announced that anyone who spoke during the open forum was not permitted to criticize members of the Mankato school board and that the school board meeting was "not a meeting that belongs to the public."

Be interested in Fiver's perspective on this and some of the posts in the CRT thread.

I'm confused about where threats to our republic are coming from.

[HI54UNI]

Minnesota school board requires parents to disclose personal info to speak at meeting

Jodi Sapp, the chairwoman of the Mankato school board, is seen in a video of the Oct. 18 meeting telling a man that he cannot speak if he doesn’t announce his address. The man immediately objected but eventually acquiesced after attempting to give vague answers citing concerns that his house would be a target for vandalism.

Sapp had earlier announced that anyone who spoke during the open forum was not permitted to criticize members of the Mankato school board and that the school board meeting was "not a meeting that belongs to the public."

Be interested in Fiver's perspective on this and some of the posts in the CRT thread.

I'm confused about where threats to our republic are coming from.

This is where I hate social media. Makes a big deal out of things that really aren't. The rules in every state are likely different so I can give my experience for Iowa. Stuff in italics is from the Examiner article. Regular text afterward is my comments.

Jodi Sapp, the chairwoman of the Mankato school board, is seen in a video of the Oct. 18 meeting telling a man that he cannot speak if he doesn’t announce his address. The man immediately objected but eventually acquiesced after attempting to give vague answers citing concerns that his house would be a target for vandalism. A lot of public bodies require this as a condition to speak. I'm not aware of any law requiring it but rather this would be local policy. Part of it is to get it recorded for the record, part is to make sure it is a local patron talking and not some grandstander from out of town, or perhaps you complain about a pothole on the street in front of your house staff can know where to send the repair crew (this would be an example of speaking to a city council not a school board but same thing). Unfortunately in today's climate a board/council should probably review that requirement if it is necessary.

Sapp had earlier announced that anyone who spoke during the open forum was not permitted to criticize members of the Mankato school board The video mentions criticism of both board members and staff. The full context of this would be relevant. What does "criticize" mean? Does it mean personal attacks - Board member Jones beats his wife? Or Board Member Jones is wrong when he promotes a vaccine mandate for kids? At our boards meetings the first would get you cut off, the 2nd wouldn't. If you can't handle criticism you shouldn't be on the school board.

and that the school board meeting was "not a meeting that belongs to the public." She is not wrong but is saying it poorly/needs more explanation. No member of the public has the right to speak at our school board meetings. A school board is a legislative body and their meeting is no different than Congress or a State Legislature meeting. Congress and legislatures don't let the public speak on every issue. The meeting is for the board to do their business. Having said that the public has the right to attend our meetings, video or audio tape them, etc.

If any speaker violated the rule, then the open forum would be immediately closed for the rest of the meeting and the offending individual would be barred from ever speaking at a future school board meeting. As president I have the right to end the public forum at any time for any reason. This can be because of a speaker violating a rule, continued interruptions or outbursts from others present, or simply because there is enough business to conduct that time becomes an issue. The latter part about barring future participation would bother me as a board member. People can become passionate about an issue and do you ban them if they go over the line one time? Or should it be a 3 strikes type rule? Also you don't want to be seen as using a rule like this to stifle legitimate dissent.

Sapp also said that any audience reaction to forum commentary, including applause and cheering, would also result in the open forum being closed. The Minnesota-based Alpha News reported that the change in the open forum policy came after the school board's Oct. 4 meeting in which a number of people spoke out against district mask mandates and vaccination policies and a number of audience members applauded community speakers. This goes back to the two previous items. The board needs to be able to conduct its business in a orderly manner but people clapping their hands after a speaker would be really low down on my list of hills do die on.

[kalm]

Minnesota school board requires parents to disclose personal info to speak at meeting

Jodi Sapp, the chairwoman of the Mankato school board, is seen in a video of the Oct. 18 meeting telling a man that he cannot speak if he doesn’t announce his address. The man immediately objected but eventually acquiesced after attempting to give vague answers citing concerns that his house would be a target for vandalism.

Sapp had earlier announced that anyone who spoke during the open forum was not permitted to criticize members of the Mankato school board and that the school board meeting was "not a meeting that belongs to the public."

Be interested in Fiver's perspective on this and some of the posts in the CRT thread.

I'm confused about where threats to our republic are coming from.

I don’t agree with this…at all. But get used to it. Similar thing happened at our county meeting regarding storm water runoff and building codes this summer. Zoom only with limited opportunities for public comment.

When the pitchforks come out, the drawbridge over the most goes up.

Threats of violence much less shouting down speakers are all the excuse they needed.

EG: some dude at an Idaho Charlie Kirk rally politely asked when they can start using guns…

https://www.elkharttruth.com/news/natio ... 0bc2e.html

[Baldy]

Minnesota school board requires parents to disclose personal info to speak at meeting





Be interested in Fiver's perspective on this and some of the posts in the CRT thread.

I'm confused about where threats to our republic are coming from.

This is where I hate social media. Makes a big deal out of things that really aren't. The rules in every state are likely different so I can give my experience for Iowa. Stuff in italics is from the Examiner article. Regular text afterward is my comments.

Jodi Sapp, the chairwoman of the Mankato school board, is seen in a video of the Oct. 18 meeting telling a man that he cannot speak if he doesn’t announce his address. The man immediately objected but eventually acquiesced after attempting to give vague answers citing concerns that his house would be a target for vandalism. A lot of public bodies require this as a condition to speak. I'm not aware of any law requiring it but rather this would be local policy. Part of it is to get it recorded for the record, part is to make sure it is a local patron talking and not some grandstander from out of town, or perhaps you complain about a pothole on the street in front of your house staff can know where to send the repair crew (this would be an example of speaking to a city council not a school board but same thing). Unfortunately in today's climate a board/council should probably review that requirement if it is necessary.

Sapp had earlier announced that anyone who spoke during the open forum was not permitted to criticize members of the Mankato school board The video mentions criticism of both board members and staff. The full context of this would be relevant. What does "criticize" mean? Does it mean personal attacks - Board member Jones beats his wife? Or Board Member Jones is wrong when he promotes a vaccine mandate for kids? At our boards meetings the first would get you cut off, the 2nd wouldn't. If you can't handle criticism you shouldn't be on the school board.

and that the school board meeting was "not a meeting that belongs to the public." She is not wrong but is saying it poorly/needs more explanation. No member of the public has the right to speak at our school board meetings. A school board is a legislative body and their meeting is no different than Congress or a State Legislature meeting. Congress and legislatures don't let the public speak on every issue. The meeting is for the board to do their business. Having said that the public has the right to attend our meetings, video or audio tape them, etc.

If any speaker violated the rule, then the open forum would be immediately closed for the rest of the meeting and the offending individual would be barred from ever speaking at a future school board meeting. As president I have the right to end the public forum at any time for any reason. This can be because of a speaker violating a rule, continued interruptions or outbursts from others present, or simply because there is enough business to conduct that time becomes an issue. The latter part about barring future participation would bother me as a board member. People can become passionate about an issue and do you ban them if they go over the line one time? Or should it be a 3 strikes type rule? Also you don't want to be seen as using a rule like this to stifle legitimate dissent.

Sapp also said that any audience reaction to forum commentary, including applause and cheering, would also result in the open forum being closed. The Minnesota-based Alpha News reported that the change in the open forum policy came after the school board's Oct. 4 meeting in which a number of people spoke out against district mask mandates and vaccination policies and a number of audience members applauded community speakers. This goes back to the two previous items. The board needs to be able to conduct its business in a orderly manner but people clapping their hands after a speaker would be really low down on my list of hills do die on.

Holy shit. Requiring any citizen who speaks at a public meeting to disclose personally identifiable information has got to be a violation of Minnesota state law. Someone please tell me that MN has some sort of open meeting law or act on the books somewhere.

[Winterborn]

Holy shit. Requiring any citizen who speaks at a public meeting to disclose personally identifiable information has got to be a violation of Minnesota state law. Someone please tell me that MN has some sort of open meeting law or act on the books somewhere.

ND does but not sure about MN.

North Dakota has “sunshine laws,” which make all government records and meetings open to the public unless a specific law authorizes a record to be withheld or a meeting to be closed.

These laws apply to all state and local government agencies, rural fire and ambulance districts, public schools, private businesses or non-profit organizations that are supported by or expending public funds, and contractors, if the contractor is providing services in place of a public entity rather than to that entity.

The courts are not subject to open records and meetings law. Information about how to access court records is available on the ND Supreme Court's website.

Anyone has the right to attend meetings of a public entity or to access and obtain copies of the entity’s records, regardless of where they live.

https://attorneygeneral.nd.gov/open-records-meetings

[GannonFan]

I don't have any problem with school boards and the like requiring a disclosure of someone's address (there is some benefit to making sure that only constituents are talking during meetings) but surely it can be done without announcing it to everyone in the room. They could do it like how sports talk radio does it, just have a screener get the person's address while they're next in line before they talk.

[AZGrizFan]

I don't have any problem with school boards and the like requiring a disclosure of someone's address (there is some benefit to making sure that only constituents are talking during meetings) but surely it can be done without announcing it to everyone in the room. They could do it like how sports talk radio does it, just have a screener get the person's address while they're next in line before they talk.

No, no, no. It MUST be broadcast for all to hear. How else will they ever know where to riot/picket/burn/loot/destroy?

[Winterborn]

Oh, I agree, that $600 a year thing (I think they may have upped it to $10k a year, but even that would pretty much still capture anyone with a job) is completely loony. That's like a blanket search warrant over everyone's banking accounts. I don't see how that would pass constitutional muster and would see an injunction against it the moment it passed.

I'm actually kind of amazed at how dumb the Democratic party has become - a lot of what they are proposing to pass with a razor thin majority in the Senate and a relatively razor thin majority in the House are some of the worst policy ideas I've heard in years. And yet they are plowing ahead with it. Again, at this point, the GOP just has to make sure Trump doesn't run and they will have both houses of Congress and the White House in 2024. But the GOP is pretty dumb too so that might be too much to ask for.

1000% correct.

It looks like Manchin is doing a good job at casting doubt and potentially scuttling this crap.

I was under the impression that all transfers over $10k were already reported?

[UNI88]

Minnesota school board requires parents to disclose personal info to speak at meeting

Be interested in Fiver's perspective on this and some of the posts in the CRT thread.

I'm confused about where threats to our republic are coming from.

This is where I hate social media. Makes a big deal out of things that really aren't. The rules in every state are likely different so I can give my experience for Iowa. Stuff in italics is from the Examiner article. Regular text afterward is my comments.

Jodi Sapp, the chairwoman of the Mankato school board, is seen in a video of the Oct. 18 meeting telling a man that he cannot speak if he doesn’t announce his address. The man immediately objected but eventually acquiesced after attempting to give vague answers citing concerns that his house would be a target for vandalism. A lot of public bodies require this as a condition to speak. I'm not aware of any law requiring it but rather this would be local policy. Part of it is to get it recorded for the record, part is to make sure it is a local patron talking and not some grandstander from out of town, or perhaps you complain about a pothole on the street in front of your house staff can know where to send the repair crew (this would be an example of speaking to a city council not a school board but same thing). Unfortunately in today's climate a board/council should probably review that requirement if it is necessary.

Sapp had earlier announced that anyone who spoke during the open forum was not permitted to criticize members of the Mankato school board The video mentions criticism of both board members and staff. The full context of this would be relevant. What does "criticize" mean? Does it mean personal attacks - Board member Jones beats his wife? Or Board Member Jones is wrong when he promotes a vaccine mandate for kids? At our boards meetings the first would get you cut off, the 2nd wouldn't. If you can't handle criticism you shouldn't be on the school board.

and that the school board meeting was "not a meeting that belongs to the public." She is not wrong but is saying it poorly/needs more explanation. No member of the public has the right to speak at our school board meetings. A school board is a legislative body and their meeting is no different than Congress or a State Legislature meeting. Congress and legislatures don't let the public speak on every issue. The meeting is for the board to do their business. Having said that the public has the right to attend our meetings, video or audio tape them, etc.

If any speaker violated the rule, then the open forum would be immediately closed for the rest of the meeting and the offending individual would be barred from ever speaking at a future school board meeting. As president I have the right to end the public forum at any time for any reason. This can be because of a speaker violating a rule, continued interruptions or outbursts from others present, or simply because there is enough business to conduct that time becomes an issue. The latter part about barring future participation would bother me as a board member. People can become passionate about an issue and do you ban them if they go over the line one time? Or should it be a 3 strikes type rule? Also you don't want to be seen as using a rule like this to stifle legitimate dissent.

Sapp also said that any audience reaction to forum commentary, including applause and cheering, would also result in the open forum being closed. The Minnesota-based Alpha News reported that the change in the open forum policy came after the school board's Oct. 4 meeting in which a number of people spoke out against district mask mandates and vaccination policies and a number of audience members applauded community speakers. This goes back to the two previous items. The board needs to be able to conduct its business in a orderly manner but people clapping their hands after a speaker would be really low down on my list of hills do die on.

Thanks Fiver. That's consistent with my experience with board meetings.

Question for you about "As president I have the right to end the public forum at any time for any reason" - Adjourning the meeting is different from ending the public forum and going into private or executive session. If you or another chair ends the public forum and goes into private/executive session, are you limited in what you can discuss and/or vote on? In my experience executive session is appropriate for discussion and voting on employee performance, compensation, legal issues, etc. not general agenda items. Going into private/executive session would seem to run counter to the public's "right to attend our meetings, video or audio tape them, etc."

[DSUrocks07]

1000% correct.

It looks like Manchin is doing a good job at casting doubt and potentially scuttling this crap.

I was under the impression that all transfers over $10k were already reported?

AFAIK right now only individual transfers/deposits/withdraws over $10k are currently reported. This would be cumulative.

Sent from my SM-G781U1 using Tapatalk

[GannonFan]

I was under the impression that all transfers over $10k were already reported?

AFAIK right now only individual transfers/deposits/withdraws over $10k are currently reported. This would be cumulative.

Sent from my SM-G781U1 using Tapatalk

Yes, that would be the change, if, over the course of a tax year, there was cumulatively more than $10k of cash flow (transfers/deposits/withdraws) then that would trigger the reporting of all activity to the IRS, to use as they wish. I think they may have mentioned excluding salary deposits, but that's silly because eventually that same money would move to pay bills, so basically anyone with a job and a bank account would have their account activity fully available to the IRS. Crazy stuff.

[Ibanez]

I don't have any problem with school boards and the like requiring a disclosure of someone's address (there is some benefit to making sure that only constituents are talking during meetings) but surely it can be done without announcing it to everyone in the room. They could do it like how sports talk radio does it, just have a screener get the person's address while they're next in line before they talk.

No, no, no. It MUST be broadcast for all to hear. How else will they ever know where to riot/picket/burn/loot/destroy?

It makes sense...I went to a town council meeting years ago and they asked for the street and neighborhood you live in. We also signed in and gave that info. No point in having some not for the town or district try and speak up about town/district matters.

[HI54UNI]

This is where I hate social media. Makes a big deal out of things that really aren't. The rules in every state are likely different so I can give my experience for Iowa. Stuff in italics is from the Examiner article. Regular text afterward is my comments.

Jodi Sapp, the chairwoman of the Mankato school board, is seen in a video of the Oct. 18 meeting telling a man that he cannot speak if he doesn’t announce his address. The man immediately objected but eventually acquiesced after attempting to give vague answers citing concerns that his house would be a target for vandalism. A lot of public bodies require this as a condition to speak. I'm not aware of any law requiring it but rather this would be local policy. Part of it is to get it recorded for the record, part is to make sure it is a local patron talking and not some grandstander from out of town, or perhaps you complain about a pothole on the street in front of your house staff can know where to send the repair crew (this would be an example of speaking to a city council not a school board but same thing). Unfortunately in today's climate a board/council should probably review that requirement if it is necessary.

Sapp had earlier announced that anyone who spoke during the open forum was not permitted to criticize members of the Mankato school board The video mentions criticism of both board members and staff. The full context of this would be relevant. What does "criticize" mean? Does it mean personal attacks - Board member Jones beats his wife? Or Board Member Jones is wrong when he promotes a vaccine mandate for kids? At our boards meetings the first would get you cut off, the 2nd wouldn't. If you can't handle criticism you shouldn't be on the school board.

and that the school board meeting was "not a meeting that belongs to the public." She is not wrong but is saying it poorly/needs more explanation. No member of the public has the right to speak at our school board meetings. A school board is a legislative body and their meeting is no different than Congress or a State Legislature meeting. Congress and legislatures don't let the public speak on every issue. The meeting is for the board to do their business. Having said that the public has the right to attend our meetings, video or audio tape them, etc.

If any speaker violated the rule, then the open forum would be immediately closed for the rest of the meeting and the offending individual would be barred from ever speaking at a future school board meeting. As president I have the right to end the public forum at any time for any reason. This can be because of a speaker violating a rule, continued interruptions or outbursts from others present, or simply because there is enough business to conduct that time becomes an issue. The latter part about barring future participation would bother me as a board member. People can become passionate about an issue and do you ban them if they go over the line one time? Or should it be a 3 strikes type rule? Also you don't want to be seen as using a rule like this to stifle legitimate dissent.

Sapp also said that any audience reaction to forum commentary, including applause and cheering, would also result in the open forum being closed. The Minnesota-based Alpha News reported that the change in the open forum policy came after the school board's Oct. 4 meeting in which a number of people spoke out against district mask mandates and vaccination policies and a number of audience members applauded community speakers. This goes back to the two previous items. The board needs to be able to conduct its business in a orderly manner but people clapping their hands after a speaker would be really low down on my list of hills do die on.

Thanks Fiver. That's consistent with my experience with board meetings.

Question for you about "As president I have the right to end the public forum at any time for any reason" - Adjourning the meeting is different from ending the public forum and going into private or executive session. If you or another chair ends the public forum and goes into private/executive session, are you limited in what you can discuss and/or vote on? In my experience executive session is appropriate for discussion and voting on employee performance, compensation, legal issues, etc. not general agenda items. Going into private/executive session would seem to run counter to the public's "right to attend our meetings, video or audio tape them, etc."

In this case when I say public forum that means a citizen comment period. If the public forum is ended the regular meeting would continue with the board moving on to regular business. In Iowa for a public board (school board, city council, etc) to go into executive session it must be for one of the reasons outlined in state code. It must be listed on the agenda that the board is planning to go into closed (executive) session and must cite the code section that the board is using to justify the closed session. A vote of the board must be held to go into closed session with a roll call vote and can only do so if a majority votes yes. The session must be recorded and no action can be taken during the closed session. The board must vote to come out of closed session and any action coming from the closed session must be done in public session. An example would be a closed session to discuss the performance of an employee and the board decides to fire the employee after the closed session. The vote to fire must be done in public.

The tape recording is essentially "sealed" but someone could sue to say that other things were discussed in closed session that were not allowed. If that happened a judge could listen to the tape and determine if the lawsuit was justified or not.

Violations of open meetings laws can lead to personal fines against board members that violate the law.

[Baldy]

This is where I hate social media. Makes a big deal out of things that really aren't. The rules in every state are likely different so I can give my experience for Iowa. Stuff in italics is from the Examiner article. Regular text afterward is my comments.

Jodi Sapp, the chairwoman of the Mankato school board, is seen in a video of the Oct. 18 meeting telling a man that he cannot speak if he doesn’t announce his address. The man immediately objected but eventually acquiesced after attempting to give vague answers citing concerns that his house would be a target for vandalism. A lot of public bodies require this as a condition to speak. I'm not aware of any law requiring it but rather this would be local policy. Part of it is to get it recorded for the record, part is to make sure it is a local patron talking and not some grandstander from out of town, or perhaps you complain about a pothole on the street in front of your house staff can know where to send the repair crew (this would be an example of speaking to a city council not a school board but same thing). Unfortunately in today's climate a board/council should probably review that requirement if it is necessary.

Sapp had earlier announced that anyone who spoke during the open forum was not permitted to criticize members of the Mankato school board The video mentions criticism of both board members and staff. The full context of this would be relevant. What does "criticize" mean? Does it mean personal attacks - Board member Jones beats his wife? Or Board Member Jones is wrong when he promotes a vaccine mandate for kids? At our boards meetings the first would get you cut off, the 2nd wouldn't. If you can't handle criticism you shouldn't be on the school board.

and that the school board meeting was "not a meeting that belongs to the public." She is not wrong but is saying it poorly/needs more explanation. No member of the public has the right to speak at our school board meetings. A school board is a legislative body and their meeting is no different than Congress or a State Legislature meeting. Congress and legislatures don't let the public speak on every issue. The meeting is for the board to do their business. Having said that the public has the right to attend our meetings, video or audio tape them, etc.

If any speaker violated the rule, then the open forum would be immediately closed for the rest of the meeting and the offending individual would be barred from ever speaking at a future school board meeting. As president I have the right to end the public forum at any time for any reason. This can be because of a speaker violating a rule, continued interruptions or outbursts from others present, or simply because there is enough business to conduct that time becomes an issue. The latter part about barring future participation would bother me as a board member. People can become passionate about an issue and do you ban them if they go over the line one time? Or should it be a 3 strikes type rule? Also you don't want to be seen as using a rule like this to stifle legitimate dissent.

Sapp also said that any audience reaction to forum commentary, including applause and cheering, would also result in the open forum being closed. The Minnesota-based Alpha News reported that the change in the open forum policy came after the school board's Oct. 4 meeting in which a number of people spoke out against district mask mandates and vaccination policies and a number of audience members applauded community speakers. This goes back to the two previous items. The board needs to be able to conduct its business in a orderly manner but people clapping their hands after a speaker would be really low down on my list of hills do die on.

Thanks Fiver. That's consistent with my experience with board meetings.

Question for you about "As president I have the right to end the public forum at any time for any reason" - Adjourning the meeting is different from ending the public forum and going into private or executive session. If you or another chair ends the public forum and goes into private/executive session, are you limited in what you can discuss and/or vote on? In my experience executive session is appropriate for discussion and voting on employee performance, compensation, legal issues, etc. not general agenda items. Going into private/executive session would seem to run counter to the public's "right to attend our meetings, video or audio tape them, etc."

A president or chairman cannot just end the open or public session of a board meeting. The president can call for a vote to adjourn the meeting or to go into executive session (if there is an executive session posted on the agenda). Boards cannot legally discuss executive session agenda items in open session, and they also can't discuss open session items in executive session.

After being properly sanctioned, this idiot in Minnesota needs to be handed a copy of Robert's Rules of Order and have a long training session with the board's attorney on parliamentary procedure.

[SeattleGriz]

Biden says that the Pope told him that he was a good Catholic and that he should keep receiving communion.

Me thinks Biden is lying.

[UNI88]

Biden says that the Pope told him that he was a good Catholic and that he should keep receiving communion.

Me thinks Biden is lying.

Did he say which pope and when?

[SeattleGriz]

Biden says that the Pope told him that he was a good Catholic and that he should keep receiving communion.

Me thinks Biden is lying.

Did he say which pope and when?

No shit.