Pointed commentary cuts video feed.

Last night’s council meeting.  For some odd reason the police were limiting the number of people in the meeting. 

So I had to ask to bring some business before the council to get in.  Which I did.  Well, apparently my probing questions broke the TV camera! 

It turns out there was some controversy. There was a group of disgruntled citizens there to protest the gunning down of one of their community members. For some reason.

City adds $1000 to cost of housing.

Background: Two meetings ago I questioned a proposal to adopt what the city calls “building standards.”  What that means is new mandates about how homes (and businesses) are to be built.  The stated goal is “energy efficiency.”  Absent from any of the documents was any estimate of how much these new rules would add to the cost of a home.

Well a few weeks later there was a “public hearing” on the matter.  Odd, because the measure had already been approved in the first reading.  The 2nd reading and passage and “public hearing” were at the same time.  In other words, it didn’t matter much what “the public” thought about the idea, the “hearing” was a mere formality. 

Well here were things take a strange turn.  After the public hearing, the “Building Guy” says he’s got some information for me.  For me?  Why yes.  And sure enough they actually attempted to find an answer to question I asked at the earlier meeting.

First, note that in the email I got a promotion to individual from my  previous rank of no one. 

So in response to the query, the chief guy from the state pulled a figure out of his ass of estimated from $590 to $1,095 in additional costs and further guessed calculated that over the lifetime of the house it could save as much as $5,157.  I asked how long this “life of the house” was.  No one knew.  But it wasn’t 20 years. (“No, longer.”)  Over the next hundred years?  “Hm, not sure if that long.”  So according to government figures you’ll enjoy these savings sometime between the next 20 to 100 years.

Seems like a lowball figure to me on the costs.  Maybe one of you in the building trades can say.  The estimate has absolutely no supporting calculations other than “what the guy at the state said.”  And the savings is based on an assumption that the wonder-house will use 15% less energy.

My guess is that the estimate doesn’t include compliance costs.  Those are the costs of following the code.  The code is in three large volumes and specifies everything from where to bang in nails to tables and graphs to figure out how much insulation you need.  Compliance costs are what it costs in your time to read and understand these books, and to modify your architectural plans, and everything else associated with actually following the code.  I wonder if the state’s estimate is simply the costs of the added insulation, the more efficient lighting fixtures, etc.  Which may be only a fraction of the total.

I was about to move this issue off my radar screen when I noticed one other thing.  On the paper someone scribbled to figure the “percentage increase” in costs.  It has two math errors.  Where it says =3.52% that should be 0.352%.  It’s off by a factor of ten.  Sure easy enough mistake, I’ve made that one a few times.  But now we’re left wondering.  The initial estimate at the first meeting was given at 1 to 2 percent.  Just 1 percent is $1,677.  So who knows, are the percentages correct and the real figure is ten times more?  ($5,900 to $10,950 ? )  Probably not, but one never knows. 

By the way, if all they did was come up with three phonebook sized books on “how to build a house that uses 15 % less energy” why not just publish that and let builders build that if they wanted to?  What customer wouldn’t want a house that costs less to heat and cool?  So why is the government involved at all? 

Questions? What questions? What ordinance?

Just for the record.  I sent a letter to the city council with a list of questions about the new “code enforcement” ordinance.  You know, the one that turns Manteca into a giant homeowners association.  There was no response from any council member.  That was over two weeks ago.

At the meeting I asked if any had received my questions.  The City Clerk verified that “her staff sent a copy to each member.” 

I also asked if any of the council members had read the law they were voting on.  None of them, as best I recall, said anything definite about having read the text of the proposed ordinance.  In other words, they were voting on something they had not read.

After I left the podium the mayor was kind enough to acknowledge that he remembers getting my thoughtful letter but that “I didn’t read it.”  I’m sorry for wasting His Honor’s valuable time.  I’ll include pictures next time.

Guilty until proven innocent

Here’s the complete text of the proposed “code enforcement” law I talked about at last city council meeting.  I think this will work, I had to scan it in.  The city isn’t responding to any questions about it so far.

In addition to the other complaints, I also noticed something odd in the law.  On page 8 it says you don’t have to pay the fees if you can get a Notice of Compliance.   But look at page 12, it says you have to pay all the fees before you can get the Notice of Compliance!  And if the director doesn’t feel like giving you the notice of compliance for any reason, his decision is final and can not be appealed!  Ever.

And this is the just the “enforcement” procedures.  We haven’t even considered what rules they are going to be enforcing.  But suddenly, Manteca would be a giant Homeowners association with the code enforcer the chief busybody who can demand to inspect your home any time he feels like it? 

completeC12.pdf - Google Docs

p.s. I almost forgot, notice how many times it says if we don’t notify you of any violation, even if it’s the city’s mistake, you’re still guilty or if there’s a fine or fee, you still owe it even if we forget to notify you or for any reason you don’t get the notice.

From “Enforcement” law:

Here’s page 7.  Read the second paragraph “Authority to Inspect.”  You thought I was kidding?  (click on image to enlarge)

Enabling law on agenda tonight

There’s an odd item on the “consent” calendar at tonight meeting of the Manteca City Council called Administrative Enforcement Provisions.  (Consent Item 12 CC)

Only the introductory remarks are on the city’s website.  The PDF file doesn’t include the actual language of the new law.  But after obtaining the actual text, a couple things got my attention:

• The law involves “code enforcement” and claims to be needed to protect the “health and safety” of the people of Manteca.
• Section 1.10.040 – Authority to inspect.  Grants just about any city employee the authority to enter upon any property or premises within the city to ascertain whether … this code, … uniform codes, or … state codes are being obeyed.
• In other words, the code enforcer doesn’t even need a reason or any suspicion of any violations.  He can simply demand entry to any home or business in Manteca at any time?
• The code enforcer is permitted to set up scientific equipment and take photographs and to take “samples.”  In other words, he can enter your home, take pictures, and if he sees anything interesting, he can simply take it?
• If you refuse to permit entry, they can attempt to get an “administrative inspection warrant” and then charge you a fee for their trouble.
• The procedure for administrative hearings ends with failing to comply with the administrators decision is a misdemeanor.
• Further, a companion ordinance will establish a $100, $200, and $500 fine for every citation.  In the definitions a citation is a document issued by an enforcement officer … for violating … this code or … state code.  You don’t get a hearing, you don’t get to plead your case to a judge, the “officer” can simply look at you or look at your home, and issue you a fine. 

I don’t usually write things before the meeting but this law is so outlandish, I don’t even know what else to say about it it’s shocking.  Has the constitution been repealed and I wasn’t notified?  I’m still reading.  I urge you to find out about this regulation and tell the council what you think.

Pointless bickering tests endurance

Amid the heat and mental pressure of a council chamber packed with angry policemen, a woman fainted, briefly causing a break in the pointless, childish, hyperbolic emotional “debate” over pay adjustments for city workers.

I guess technically this was before the pointless debate, as the meeting was still an agenda item at the time, a plan to upgrade the public works garage.  This presentation was so searing-ly boring that it’s a wonder someone doesn’t drop every meeting. 

(The young woman had, it appeared, simply fainted and walked out with assistance.  It was very warm in there, and it was packed with people.)

Below, Manteca citizen does a pretty respectable Norma Rae

Manteca tells visitors to stay the hell away

In the Manteca Bulletin yesterday, Dennis Wyatt says "There’s an extra incentive now for out-of-town residents to drive safely in Manteca" referring to the recent city council decision to charge a fee to anyone who doesn't live in Manteca and needs emergency fire services while traveling here. http://www.mantecabulletin.com/news/article/6748/

How will Manteca advertise this incentive? Afterall, if out-of-towners aren't aware of this new incentive, then why would they be more likely to drive more safely? Will they be putting up billboards or signs advertising it as visitors enter city limits? Maybe a prominent sign at the entrance of Bass Pro Shop warning customers to get the hell out of Manteca before they get nabbed for having an accident. One in front of Big League Dreams too.

What happened in ‘82?

This is from the report on “affordable housing” that’s to be presented at tonight’s council meeting. (Pg 10, fig 1) It’s a graph of how much money people make (personal income) in this county over the years and compared to the average of the nation (United States) and the state (California.)

According to this, the rest of the state has done pretty well over the years. One of the more prosperous places in the nation. (Many lucrative industries, Hollywood, aerospace, silicon valley, etc). So what went wrong with San Joaquin country?

And in particular, what happened in 1982? SJ was more or less about as wealthy as the nation as a whole, just a little less than California as a whole. But according to this chart, the bottom fell out in the early ‘80’s. You can see the red line (San Joaquin) diverge from the national average about then, and the “gap” in poverty increases.

So what went wrong? Did people suddenly get stupid? Prop 13? Williamson act? The ascendency of “central planning?” State takeover of school funding? Ronald Reagan? (no, the nation prospered under Reagan). Then what was it? Maybe someone should ask the expert tonight.

Police focus on Club Leon

The public hearing about Club Leon’s permit for operation was put off a few months ago. This week it comes back for consideration.

Since then, the courts have ruled that if you permit a bar then you have to permit live music. Live music is a right; it’s a form of expression protected by the first amendment.

Nevertheless, the police chief is still opposing the renewal of the permit. He cites “incidents” since they last met. One was a call from an unknown person about “noise.” (One noise complaint in a year? That’s fantastic!) And the police drove through the parking lot and … hold onto your hat… they found a drunk. And guess what, they did the same thing a month later, they found yet another drunk near the bar or in the parking lot. What a crime wave. In a year, that would be a dozen drunks found in the parking lot.

By the way, there’s no result of any investigations in any of these “incidents.” Maybe the noise was coming from a car stereo? It does seem like an odd claim since anyone can go there any night they are open and see if there is “noise.”

Oh, and someone “discovered” (That’s what the report says, as if they unearthed a dusty old zoning map from Joshua Cowell’s sarcophagus) that the zoning is “community commercial” and for some reason a bar and/or dance hall needs a permit. But all of “downtown” is the same “CC” zoning. Including all the bars, restaurants, and the M.R.P.S. hall where they presumably dance and sing. So the zoning is a non-issue.

I’ve previously commented on the other issues. If anything, the courts have spoken and it makes no sense to single out Club Leon for punishment. In fact, in light of the vast improvements they have made, they should be commended.

Manteca Fire to charge a fee?

This week the Manteca Fire Department is proposing they be permitted to charge (actually, bill) people from “out of town” who get in car accidents in Manteca!

The proposal is riddled with problems:

1. The department notes that California law permits charges for certain services but it’s a bit more nuanced. The accident has to be caused by negligence. And while I’m sure most accidents are caused by someone’s negligence it’s often hard to figure out who. Now the fire department claims to have some method of determining fault?

2. There’s no provision in the law for provincial discrimination. In other words, there’s nothing that lets them charge one guy and not charge another guy depending on where they live.

The rationale they glibly suggest is that people in Manteca already pay taxes for the fire services and presumably “outsiders” don’t. But that is not so. Actually, anyone who stays at a hotel, fills up with gasoline or stops for a meal in a restaurant or buys a stick of gum in Manteca pays some taxes.

Is that enough to pay for fire services? Probably. Consider the entire public safety budget, and consider how long it takes a car to pass through Manteca’s jurisdiction on Hwy 99 or 120. Something like 90 seconds to 180 seconds. And when you figure it all out and divide the public safety budget by the number of minutes in a year, it comes to about a dollar a day, or a fraction of a penny for a passing through. If someone stays at a hotel, they pay about $10 in tax, enough for more than a week of public safety. I don’t want to get bogged down in numbers too much; but it’s obvious that many visitors do pay enough in Manteca taxes. And maybe everyone does.

Because, one could argue that for the small amount of time one passing through Manteca uses, (a minute or two of fire and police protection) they have already paid that in taxes paid to California and to the federal government. Based on my back of the envelope calculation, if Manteca takes in $1.8 million in federal or state aid or grants, then everyone in the United States has paid enough to the City of Manteca to cover the cost of providing life saving services for those who pass through.

3. What kind of a public relations disaster this would be! The city is trying hard to promote itself and encourage people to visit. How will it help our reputation once it gets known if some crazy Manteca driver causes an accident not only might you be hurt but the city will send you a bill! Our new slogan will have to be “Come to Manteca so we can bill you if we have to save your sorry ass.”

4. Maybe we should only charge people who reside in a city that would charge us if we were in their city and got in an accident! Fortunately, there are few cities that do this. Most cities save the lives of Manteca residents when they are visiting or passing through. Our way of thanking them for that is by charging their residents?

5. The charges are outrageous and arbitrary. Anything from about $500 to go out to the scene of the accident and do nothing, to over $2000 to essentially do nothing but watch a helicopter land and med-evac someone. Granted there’s an in-between charge of about $1800 if they have to use the "jaws of life” to pry open a door to get you out of a wreck. Now I have one more thing to worry about if I’m trapped in a wrecked car; if I’m still conscious I’ll be thinking “what is that thing costing me?… Maybe I can just crawl out the back window, just give me a boost….”

6. I saved the best for last. This company they are thinking of hiring brags on their web site how they collect at such a high rate, much more than anyone else. How do they do it? They won’t say. It’s a secret method, we’re just supposed to authorize that.

God only knows what they do! Do they call up and demand money? Do they threaten? Do they “forget” to mention that you have a right to contest the charge? Do they say they will sue? (They aren’t authorized to bring lawsuits.) Do they send out the goon squad who remarks what a shame it would be if your kneecaps were to “get in an accident like your car?” Who knows!

But one thing we do know. The City Council should not authorize a third party to do some secret thing they won’t tell us. Do I need to say it again? A public relations nightmare!

Citizens’ advisory committee

Meeting of the "citizens advisory committee" on 16 Jul 09. Briefing on current state of the economy, city government. One citizen pronounces judgment on presentation (near end of video) hehehe.

Manteca introduces new “we won’t put you out of business” program.

Good news! Manteca city official have decided it no longer makes sense to do everything they can to close every local business. From now on, this treatment will only be reserved for ordinary people.

Previously, city officials have caused businesses to fail by requiring them to, among other things:

• Tear up the sales lot of a car dealership and plant trees instead. The cars, the city felt, were unpleasant to look at.
• Deny a permit to a car wash because the other car washes in town didn’t like the idea.
• Revoke the permit for a dance hall because there was too much dancing and music going on.
• Require a fitness center to purchase and build a larger parking lot because they moved a machine from one room to another.
• …. and so on….

But city officials vow to end such abuses and put an end to the poverty enhancement policies that have plagued the past. Even the mayor is quoted as saying he thinks private enterprise is important! A new day dawns!

However, there are a few strings attached to getting your new permission to operate in Manteca. Here’s a quick checklist to see if you qualify to not be driven into poverty by city policy:

• Do you have plans to expand? Do you draw in a lot of tax money? Has the city demanded at least a $million in fees or else?
• Have you threatened to leave Manteca? It’s not enough to just say you’ll leave; have you actually found land in another jurisdiction and put up a “For Sale” sign?
• Are you friends with the director of a politically well connected charity? Friends with the husband of the finance director? (regular people need not apply).

If you meet all the above requirements, you’re in luck! You simply need to have your friend ask his wife to talk to “some people” at city hall. Chances are that $million in fees will soon be “Did we say a million dollars? hmm… how about half that… no, tell you what, make it $400,000 and we’ll call it good.”

Good luck! Enjoy your new prosperity!

Manteca saves 130 jobs

Trouble!

The police chief has submitted a report to the city council asking to revoke (or not renew) the "dance hall permit" for Club Leon in downtown Manteca. They cite such problems as, during the last year or so there was a fight in the parking lot, a bouncer threw a guy out of the club and a woman was hit by someone in the club.

Additionally, they are accused of having minors in the hall (although it's unclear if that's a problem since there's no claim of underage drinking) and the employees purchased booze from the local supermarket apparently contrary to the states rules about where they buy their supplies. The chief's report accuses them of "trying to pass off counterfeit money" although it seems more likely a customer had passed them a bad bill and that's how the whole matter came to light.

Furthermore, the ubiquitous "numerous complainers" (ever present in council documents) are mentioned but as usual none of the members of the League of Numerous Complainers have actually come forward or said what they are complaining about. Maybe they are jealous or competitors or just they just don't like "their kind?" Who knows, none of the "numerous complaints" are listed.

So is it really fair to punish the owner of the club? The club owner hasn't been accused or convicted of any crime. What more could the management do? The place is popular. That fact alone makes it almost unique for a night club in Manteca! Things do happen at popular places.

I could see blaming them if, say, they had a drink special for anyone who got in a fight in the parking lot, but there's no evidence of anything of the sort. To the contrary, it looks like the owner has done the best he could to run the club properly. Although there have been some infractions with the ABC, they corrected those and paid with a temporary suspension of their liquor license. The things such as finding the doors locked has been corrected and wasn't repeated. (The doors were locked after the police told them to "keep out the minors," then they cited them for locking the doors.)

The council should renew the dance hall permit. First, because there really is no other choice -- the owner has done nothing wrong and has a right to operate a successful business. In the Stockton/Maxim case just a few weeks ago the federal court ruled that having discretionary permits for live music is "unconstitutional." The reason being that live music is a form of constitutionally protected free speech.

It's also possible there is a "culture clash" going on. The report hints that someone from the police dept visited the club almost a year ago and sort of "laid down the law." Curiously, this was before most of the "trouble" started. They "warned" them that if they call the police too much they could lose their permits! Think about what a perverse incentive that creates.

Instead of warning them not to call them too much, the police should be helping them and encourage them to communicate with the police at the first sign of trouble, and not wait till there's a melee going on or something.

Lets hope the council keeps both the law and common sense in mind and gives the successful local business a chance to thrive in Manteca. In this economy, Club Leon should be getting an award, not being threatened with closure!

nice tree in the middle of the road.

By my reckoning, the residents of the "Union Ranch" development voted 178 NO and 38 YES, thus approving the special tax to pay for the trees in the street. (I observed the back room counting at last night's city council meeting.)

You read that right. The large majority of residents voted NO. Yet it was approved. Why? The answer is that one person had the power of 1,018 votes because he was much wealthier than anyone else. You see, in the formation of special districts, one man doesn't have one vote. Under edicts of the People's Republic of California the number of votes you have is determined by the value of the property you own.

The "rationale," if you want to call it that, is that the rich man pays more in taxes, so he should have more say. And, in fact, the tax is based on the value of the property. But it still seems downright un-American. And it is, especially the way these districts usually work in the real world of land development.

It was only because of a bureaucratic snafu that the election made news with residents attending the council meeting complaining. Normally, the way the city likes to do things is that they hold the "vote" before a single house is sold. That way, all the parcels are owned by one person (the developer) who votes yes and it's recorded at "100 percent in favor of the special tax" for that area.

Then, we are told, people moving in are "fully disclosed" about the fact that the developer voted for a new tax that you, the new home owner, are obligated to pay. I don't know why I didn't think of this convenience sooner, I think I'll ask the local rich guy to vote for me all the time and save me the trouble of actually deciding anything.

We didn't even get into the issue of how the developer is "forced" to cast his single powerful vote under threat by the city. They usually include language in the "development agreement" that lets them revoke or deny building permits unless the developer exercises his free will in this free and fair election and votes the correct way.

Welcome to democracy California style.

---
By the way, there's a story on this issue in the state run news service. Also I've visited Union Ranch and it looks like Disneyland on acid or the planet that shot spores at Spock and turned him emotional.

"One" stop: say anything.

Last night the city council approved the planning department's convoluted scheme to move other department's offices, expand "counter space" and "workstations" and send the group they are displacing over to some rented office space. They call it the "one stop" planning dept shop.

But here's the mystery. We'll two mysteries if you count the mystery of why two councilmen who voted against it just two weeks ago suddenly decided its a champion idea.

The other mystery is last meeting they were proposing this "improvement" as a justification for raising fees for permits. The argument was "we will be providing faster, "more efficient" service, so we can justify collecting higher fees from "the developers."

Now, this week they claim the purpose of the musical offices is to do things more efficiently and save money. I guess that sounded better so maybe that's why it was approved this time.

So presumably now we can expect fees to be lowered? Unlike last meeting when they said the improvements would result in higher fees? Which is it? Or doesn't it matter? Is all that talk just "say whatever we need to say to get them to approve it?"

budget advisors

I went to the meeting of the "budget advisory committee" last Thursday. The committee consists of 15 impartial members of the public (3 selected by each city councilman). Here's what I've learned so far:

During the almost 3 hour meeting each city government division gave a presentation. Each presentation followed the same basic format:
a) This is what we do;
b) This is why it costs so much and it's not our fault; and
c) a chart or graph comparing them to "other cities in the area." (Eg: we have 1.4 trees per household vs. 5 other cities have 1.1, 0,9, 1.5, 1.9 trees in Lodi, Tracy, Roseville, Death Valley, whatever)

I have to wonder about the validity or purpose of all this comparing. Didn't your mother ever tell you "if all your friends were jumping off a bridge, would you jump off the bridge?" I want to ask, what's the purpose of the survey? Are the other cities doing it better? Worse? Don't we have any method of evaluating things more sophisticated than simply looking around at what other people are doing?

One of the main abuses is the fallacy of the median. Did you ever notice how all those surveys seem to "find" what they wanted to find? Like if they want more for the tree budget, the survey finds other cities have more trees. If they want to hire more people they find other cities have more staff. And, most importantly, city workers ask for raises based on these surveys that always show that everyone else is getting paid more and our pay needs to be raised to be "equal" or "fair." And it always needs to be raised to be equal, never lowered.

I've decided that I'll stop going to meetings the day that they come up with one of those surveys that doesn't show "we need to spend more" or "we deserve a raise." The day they say "we found other cities are paying much less than us, therefore we're being paid too much" is the day I'll give up any interest in keeping an eye on government.

How can it possibly be that five cities survey each other and each of them decides the others are spending more? It's like Lake Wobegon where every child is above average. It's like being in a room and measuring the height of the participants and then each participant says "everyone else is taller than me." You'd think at least one person in the room is tallest (right?) and can't say "others are taller than me" but that's what happens with these city survey and "equity studies."

Didn't anyone notice they always pick five different cities for the surveys? The ones that show what it is they want to show. And furthermore, did anyone ever stop to realize that all the other cities are doing exactly the same surveys of cities around them, including us, and basing their decisions on what they see? It's like watching some other guy and doing what he does 'cause you think he knows what he's doing; then you ask him and he says "I don't know what I'm doing, I was watching you!"

There were few other interesting revelations at that meeting. To be continued....

It worked great in '29

This week the Manteca City Council will debate it's own version of "Buy American" protectionism. Under consideration is a new policy that cut bidders for government projects "a break" if they are "local."

I know that some consider this a "no brainer" and if that's the case, you might be surprised if you do some research on what economists say (and most importantly, understand the reasons). Most economists pretty much agree that any attempt at protectionism, which is the proposed Manteca policy, will actually increase unemployment, lower wages, cost more in taxes -- make us poorer in any way you can measure it.

I know this isn't a "popular" idea and I'm sure some are ready to boycott companies that "outsource" and complain bitterly: But the economics are clear, if we try to give special breaks to "local" people and "keep money local" we are chasing a false idea.

Well don't just take my word for it. If you have some time, you can listen to this talk and read more from two very smart economists. If there are any questions feel free to ask.

The Manteca plan sounds harmless enough. The "local guy" is allowed to try to match the lower bid of some "outsider" under some circumstances. Well unintended consequences abound! If you haven't listened to the podcast just think of what will happen when the guy who won the contract by entering the low bid suddenly has his contract ripped away from him? After all that work to prepare a bid? How likely will he be to jump into the next contract the city offers? The result? Only the "local favored guy" bids and knowing there's likely to be less competition and he can later snatch away the contract even if his bid is too high; his incentive will be to enter a high bid (rip off the taxpayer). And this is just one possible consequence. There are many others we don't have to go into.

The U.S. government tried this kind of policy very similar to what Manteca is considering to "help the economy" in the '30's. You know, keep the jobs here, keep out those foreign competitors, what could possibly go wrong? The result was something we now call "The Great Depression" that lasted more than a decade.

Manteca should keep the current bid policy and not enter into the dangerous realm of protectionism.

(The issue will be discussed Tuesday at 7 pm at city hall)

Handy city pay chart

Here's a handy email-able version of the city pay chart for those who may have missed it.

(courtesy of the Manteca-Lathrop Sun-Post, 30 Jan 2009, pgs 12-13)

The chart is readable if you click on the image to show it full resolution.

Agenda confusion

Some are wondering what I was talking about at Tuesday's city council meeting. I said there didn't seem to be anything on the agenda about a guy talking about his strip mall plans and the great depression and human psychology, etc.

Well the mystery's been partly solved. On the city website, the pdf file shows an item under "presentations/proclamations" listed as 1. Project Update: Promenade Shops at Orchard Valley. Above at right is the printed agenda I had in my hand at the meeting, which as you can see doesn't list anything. (You can click to enlarge if you have to.)

Obviously it was added at the last minute. And so the city knew it wasn't on the printed agenda. So why didn't they say something or note it in some way?