Sedona City Council nixes NSA for Sedona

Readers' comments

 #1 Kudos to Sedona.biz for being there at the meeting and providing such excellent coverage, both in print and video form. Were it not for this web news outlet Sedona would miss out on half the news that’s out there.

Further, I’m amazed how quickly the story was reported. Print news outlets in the community cannot compete with such immediate reporting.

On the NSA being nixed, I think this is yet another example of the council not listening to the will of the people. A lot of citizens walked out of the meeting in complete shock. They simply did not expect the council to take such action. It came as a surprise to everyone, save those who knew it was going to happen.

It was odd that the council seemed to be working in harmony before the motion was made.

But the real impact of what happened will be felt in the next election. If individuals wanting change were committed before the meeting, they are now supercharged. There is a grass roots resentment and desire for change spreading through the community that will be close to impossible to stop. With five open seats, those wanting change only need to take three. Barbara Litrell and Mayor Adams are shoe-ins. All they need is one more solid candidate, like Dennis Raynor, and the council will be a very different one than what people have been dealing with over the years. Once a new council is in control, NSA will be approved, the electoral process will be upheld and lights for 89A will be rejected.

#2 Having read the article and viewing the video in its entirety, my last minute instinct to refrain from attending this city council meeting turned out to be a Message from Heaven. Once again, arrogance of power ruled supreme in supporting the premise of "we will because we can". With little or no consideration for the purpose of the meeting, which presumably was to draft proposed legislation for contribution to the NSA bill, the majority vote of four effectively reflected their own personal opinions without consideration for the people they were elected to represent. Just how much more damage will occur between now and the middle of next year when, hopefully, Sedona will be graced with city council members who will actually listen and take action based on the will of the people?

#3 Wednesday's Council meeting on National Scenic Area was a tragedy and a travesty. For over three hours the councilors worked together to wordsmith the document and come to consensus on language and ideas and ways to meet everyone's concerns and needs. And, just like the August 13, 2008 meeting when Council Scagnelli dropped a premeditated hand grenade of a motion to direct ADOT to go with continuous roadway lighting on 89A, and 3 other council members fell in line to support it without question, the same thing happened here on NSA. Her motion was obviously prepared ahead of time. She knew exactly what she was going to do after the charade of working with other council members on language. And after the meeting was actually declared adjourned by the Mayor, Councilor Scagnelli reopened it to make her motion. Just as with the lights, 3 other council members fell into line without question. The only hope for Sedona's future as a world treasure, a good place to live and do business, is a change in council. March 2010 is a critical election for Sedona, the businesses of Sedona and the people of Sedona. This is the election for everyone to be involved in. Hearing the voice of the people has never been more critical, Sedona.

#4 It would seem that the 4-2 vote of the council to nix NSA designation upset the people who wanted it. Calling the council names such as oligarchy and threatening their demise in future elections sure doesn't do a lot to assure the citizenry that these accusers would be much better. Just that they would be capable of fear-mongering and bullying behavior. The NSA is just another layer of unneeded government oversight and the lights might save someones life someday and I am glad the council took the approriate actions.
Frank Spado
VOC

#5 As a member of the city council, Councilor Scagnelli had every right to make the motion she did.  She also has the right to be concerned about the NSA language, language that I always understood was to focus solely on land trades.  If the councilor had been off-base, her motion would not have been permitted.  If there was no logic behind it, it would not have been supported by the council majority.  I personally support the concept of an NSA but the language must be drafted so it is concise and unambiguous.  It must also be limited solely to land trades. 

One must respect Scagnelli for standing tall in the face of adversity and voting her conscience.  She should run for Mayor.

Carl Jackson

#6 Regarding Councilor Scagnelli's motion made after adjournment, see Robert's Rules of Orders

2. ADJOURN
The motion to adjourn (when unqualified) is always a privileged motion except when, for lack of provision for a future meeting, as in a mass meeting, or at the last meeting of a convention, its effect, if adopted, would be to dissolve the assembly permanently. In any organized society holding several regular meetings during the year, it is, when unqualified, always a privileged motion. When not privileged it is treated as any other main motion, being debatable and amendable, etc.

The motion to adjourn, like every other motion, cannot be made except by a member who has the floor. When made by one who has not risen and addressed the chair and been recognized, it can be entertained only by general consent. It cannot be made when the assembly is engaged in voting, or verifying the vote, but is in order after the vote has been taken by ballot before it has been announced. In such case the ballot vote should be announced as soon as business is resumed.

Where much time will be consumed in counting ballots the assembly may adjourn, having previously appointed a time for the next meeting, or, still better, may take a recess as explained in the next section.

No appeal, or question of order, or inquiry, should be entertained after the motion to adjourn has been made, unless it is of such a nature that its decision is necessary before an adjournment, or unless the assembly refuses to adjourn, when it would be in order. When the motion to adjourn is qualified in any way, or when its effect is to dissolve the assembly without any provision being made for holding another meeting of the assembly, it loses its privilege and is a main motion, debatable and amendable and subject to having applied to it any of the subsidiary motions.

#7 Thank you Nancy Scagnelli and the other 3 Council Members who had the good common sense to oppose the NSA legislation that is being pushed by a small group as demonstrated by the mayor's actions in this video. Forever is a long time and trusting Congress with our lands and taking away local control is a ridiculous and careless move. Talk to anyone who lives in an NSA and they will tell you it is virtually impossible to get schools, roads or anything else built. Law suits prevail and taxes go sky high because of it. Stopping growth is one thing but tying the hands of future generations is criminal and wrong.

#8 It is unimaginable that elected representatives of the people would fail to do everything in their power to protect one of the world’s greatest natural treasures, even if there are unintended consequences. They lack the full measure of courage and vision required to be real leaders when it is most needed.

Ron Vernesoni

#8 A very good decision by the City Council!

It makes no sense to me to turn over our future to a Congress that's heavily influnced by powerful special interest groups who are likely to have their own ideas about a NSA. The usual results of the Congressional legislative process is bad provisions get added to what starts out as a good bill with good intentions. With all due respect to Representative Kirtpatrick, she doesn't have the tenure to have much influence in the House and runs a high risk of losing control of the NSA Bill. Even if there was general agreement on the draft bill introduced (not the case),it is not what we would end up with at the end of process -- a risk that we should not take.

I want to express my appreciation for the good judgment exercised by the City Council!

#9 Having personally watched and monitored city councils since the first one in 1988, the behavior of the mayor at Wednesday's meeting was a spectacle of shame. Never, NEVER, has a mayor tried to gavel a meeting closed and thus shut down debate. Never, NEVER, has a councilperson, let alone a mayor, spewed out a mean speech trying to belittle, browbeat, and embarrass another councilor as this mayor did that evening to Nancy Scagnelli. I have known many past mayors of Sedona on a personal level. They have told me about instances where arguments got hot, and they interrupted the hot head and brought it back to civil discussion. They have told me about rare occasions when a controversial agenda item took off on a surprise path they opposed, but which was obviously going to pass and they tried to bring it all in for a "soft landing" so everyone could walk away with respect. That did not happen Wednesday evening and brings into question the ability of this mayor to lead at all. You win some, you lose some, but respect among council members for each other and the office they hold is priceless. It was damaged irreparably by the mayor's conduct.

Ron Volkman
 
#10 I understand that some may find the language of some parts of the NSA designation undesirable. Unfortunately, to Nix the entire document without offering suggestive language to a potential piece of legislation is foolish at best. While some may applaud the motion by Scagnelli and the subsequent passage to Nix the possible policy that could result in the protection of what everyone heralds as one of the most beautiful places on earth, their lack of judgement should be recognized and they should be held accountable come election time.

They voted the way they felt they should. They now must face the voters in the coming months who will decide whether or not they want to continue with the mindset of those who delivered those decisions. That is why we hold elections - to put in and get out who we think will best represent our viewpoints. There are very few times everyone will agree, but the majority will be represented when the majority votes. My suggestion is to stop bickering and start taking action to find new leaders or support the current council.

I am never surprised at the low attendance at council meetings, association meetings and low turnout at elections. Unfortunately, I am also never surprised by the vast number of complaints about decisions made by elected officials. You can always count on elected officials to vote their minds. You just can't count on them to vote yours. People will have to decide if they want Sedona to become a prosperous commercial success by way of development or if they want Sedona to become a prosperous commercial success by way of preservation, then choose representatives that will vote your intention for this beautiful area's future. When the followers begin to lead, the leaders will follow.

Thom Stanley

#11 This is yet another example of Councilor Scagnelli bulldozing her agenda through the council with total disregard for the voters.

One of my fears as a resident in this wonderful community is that we will lose the majesty of our natural and awe-inspiring wilderness. I am worried that unbridled growth and greed will steal this beauty from us and we will never be able to get it back.

An NSA designation should help us control unsustainable growth and protect those areas of natural beauty we have grown to love.

I support Mayor Rob Adams and am very pleased to see that he cares enough to run again for mayor to help neutralize the voting block of the others who have some sort of hidden agenda and do not support the voters who put them on the council.

I am looking forward to the upcoming election and supporting individuals who will get behind Mayor Adams and his vision for the future of Sedona.

Rick Sperry
West Sedona

#12 It's unbelievable that one of earth's most beautiful places doesn't have the leadership to vigilantly protect its treasured landscape. Our stewards should be resolute and adamant in this cause, not feeble and pathetic like the council majority. Change we must!

#13 The comment #6 about Robert's Rules made no sense to me.  The Mayor had the right to say, as he did, "Without objection, the meeting is adjourned."  He cannot, however, adjourn the meeting if there is, in fact, an objection, which there was.  So the meeting was not adjourned, even though he tried to do it a second time, saying he had adjourned the meeting.  The fact is, no one person has the power to adjourn the meeting, even the Chairman, or in this case, the Mayor.  No motion to adjourn was made, and even if what the Mayor did was considered a motion, there was no second.  As Carl commented in #5, Councilor Scagnelli had every right to make her motion, and she had the courage to do it, for which I commend her.
 
I think many who live here want to prevent any kind of land trades which lead to more and more development, and continuing encroachment into the Forest land surrounding Sedona.  I believe councilor Scagnelli is among them, as I am.  That was the reason Amendment 12 was adopted by the Forest Service, and since it's adoption, no land trades have taken place, at least not for commercial development.  That being the case, I see no reason to ask the federal government, specifically the House and the Senate, to act on stopping such trades.  Many of us complain about and have mistrust for various kinds of governmental entities.  So why are we so anxious to look to the Federal government to handle this issue?  I, for one, am not.
 
I support the action taken by the City Council on this issue, as well as on the lights issue.  So those of you who would claim that Councilor Scagnelli is alone on this issue, it should be obvious that she is not.  Three other councilors voted with her, and some other comments reflect a like mind.  No one can prove where the majority opinion stands.  I certainly don't claim to know.  I believe we can agree to disagree civilly, and that should be the code of conduct for all governmental entities in their meetings and deliberations.
 
Councilor Scagnelli's motion included the passing along of the language agreed upon by the Council to Representative Kirkpatrick for consideration if the proposed legislation moves forward.  I'm not sure everyone really heard the entire motion and understood that.  The work done in that meeting was very worthwhile in that regard, and it will be passed along.  The support of the Council is separate from that, which was made clear in the motion.
 
Voting blocs come and go.  If those who have been so critical of what they refer to as the voting bloc come to power, you can bet they will stop complaining about the bloc when they are in it.  They, too, will be accountable in future elections.  

Sandy Moriarty

#14 For Commentor #10, the motion by Scagnelli DID include action to forward all the comments and suggested language the Council had composed for 3+ hours to Congresswoman Kirkpatrick in the event she still moved a Bill.