Open Meetings Act
To the Editor:
I know the Record doesn’t like to have a back and forth on subjects, but Sarah Kile’s response leaves the public with the impression that the city council did something wrong, which it didn’t, when it followed the Open Meetings Act. The act has several exceptions to holding open meetings, and some of those are: real estate transactions, legal proceedings and personnel issues.
As Sarah pointed out, the meeting was closed to discuss the contract and personnel evaluation of the city manager. Now the city manager is entitled to have a closed session concerning his personnel evaluation, and since that is tied to his salary and retention, the closing of the session was appropriate. Unfortunately, Sarah had an opportunity to have her concerns answered when the council had a session with Lewis Bender, a speaker that recently addressed the council concerning appropriate interaction between members of the council with others, and the mayor. She did not think that it warranted being addressed by someone knowledgeable in the public arena.
Now, since I doubt she would accept my reading of the Open Meetings Act, the only way now to remove any doubt would be for the city attorney to review the context and give an opinion to the council. That answer would need to be published in the paper, so that the issue is resolved in the public eye. If I am right, Sarah needs to become more knowledgeable about the Open Meeting Act, since it is the standard for transparency.
Lastly, participation is, according to Webster’s Dictionary, “to have or take a part or share with others (in some activity, enterprise, etc.).” Sitting at home viewing a council meeting is not participating. Being there, being involved, now that’s participating. It is not like the public is being held back from being informed, if they want to be informed.
Thomas L. Winarski
To the Editor:
As a friend of mine and I went for a ride around Gladwin on Friday, we looked for a little park that we had found previously on another ride. We found it on first street.
There is now a place for skate boarding there. As we drove into the little park on a tar road, all of a sudden my friend said, “stop, stop!” So I stopped. To the left of me, I saw a small child who had ridden his little peddle apparatus right in front of me. He came out from some tall grass to the left and I did not see him as he was lower than the car, but he went out right in front of us. What would have happened if my friend had not seen him? I shudder to think of it.
As we drove out, a lady with another child was walking with the little boy riding his little whatever it was. Did she see what happened? Did she call to him and tell him to stop?
Many children do not pay attention and it is sad because it could have cost him his life and me, the driver, possibly a prison term and with regrets that would haunt me the rest of my life.
Where is your child? Do they listen to you? Please keep an eye on them and make sure they listen for their own safety.
To the Editor:
I would like to express to readers my frustration over Mid Michigan College. Currently the Dean of Health Sciences has mandated the COVID-19 vaccine in order for completion of all health care programs, including those students who are currently in their second years and approaching graduation. No shot equals a failure of the program along with all of the progress that these second year students have already made.
Unlike traditional college courses, those that are part of healthcare programs are not transferable. Once you are in a program with that school you must stick it out to the end or start the whole program all over again, and acceptance into these programs is never guaranteed.
I am more open to the idea of a mandate for first year students; they have not yet committed to the program and have the alternative option to wait and apply again in a year or apply to another college or universities’ equivalent healthcare program. No one is strong-arming them like those who are already well into the program.
However, those second year students were not required to receive this vaccine when entering into their program and completing their first year. Yes the vaccine was not available to students a year ago, but students locked into their program stipulations none the less. Now they are being asked to do something to their body that not every student may agree with and if they do not comply then they will lose out on thousands of dollars spent on completion of their first year.
I am not against vaccinations and have nothing against those who have chosen to get the shot. But I believe it should remain just that, a choice.
Now students at Mid Michigan College are being forced to get the vaccine in order to receive a passing grade. Telling a student to put something into their body that they are not ok with in order to graduate is no different than telling a student that they need to bunk up with a professor in order to graduate. Students are feeling violated.
The reasoning behind the Dean of Health Science’s mandate for the vaccine? It has nothing to do with vaccine efficacy. She is claiming that since some of the clinical sites (not all) are requiring employee vaccines that it is discrimination against vaccinated students if no mandate is in place. Makes absolutely zero sense, these students voluntarily received the vaccine. And if there are clinical sites without a requirement wouldn’t this be discrimination against the unvaxed students?
My goal is to inform tax paying readers what kinds of agendas are being forced upon students right now at MMC and hope that if any other students or family members are feeling as angry as I am that they feel encouraged to express their outrage. I hope word goes back to our local board members, Jason Wentworth’s office, and any clinical sites associated with Mid Michigan College. Thank you.