Due to a law passed by the state legislature in 1985, these secret meetings are legal and not a violation of the Open Meetings Law. Elected members of the same political party are allowed to hold a private political caucus meeting, where they can discuss political party business and public business. The political party in control of a public body can hold a private meeting, bring in staff and department heads, run through the night’s public meeting agenda and work everything out in secret before the public meeting occurs.

These secret meetings, make the public meeting a sham as the real discussion has already occurred in private.

Shared eScooter and bicycle rental companies have pioneered efforts to make cleaner methods of transportation readily available to meet the needs of the community. This reduces carbon emissions, road maintenance expenses, traffic congestion and noise pollution; meanwhile generating millions of dollars in tax revenue. City Officials have labeled the micromobility industry a necessary business that supports social distancing.

Theft and vandalism of eScooters and bicycles is a major problem with an impact and magnitude that is often overlooked. The International Crime Victim Survey has repeatedly found that the rate of car theft holds a strong inversely proportional relationship with the rate of bicycle and scooter theft.

Businesses that invest upwards of $1200 per vehicle are unable to solicit police assistance to protect their company assets.

• In violation of New York State law, the 2016, 2017 and 2018 National Boards failed to codify into PRSA’s new Nominating Policies & Procedures provisions as mandated to support the 2016 bylaw change, relative to the National Board’s new role to prepare its own officer slate. New York law requires establishing a legal quorum for each year’s board-based Nominating Committee, including a formal recusal vote of all board members who themselves were running for PRSA national offices or other National Board seats. Only in 2019 did the National Board comply with New York State Law to conduct the necessary recusal vote (See May 2019 national board minutes). No such vote occurred in 2017 or 2018, in violation of law. This oversight presented potential conflicts-of-interest and now calls into question the validity of officer slates presented in 2017 and 2018 to the PRSA National Leadership Assemblies in Boston and Austin, respectively, which accepted both slates from the National Board in good faith, that each had been developed in full accordance with state law.

• In violation of New York State law, PRSA national leadership provided no online-posted / member-accessible Whistleblower Policy that would have allowed a process for any member to register a whistleblower complaint against PRSA leadership for breaches of federal or state law, PRSA bylaws, policies / procedures or the PRSA Code of Ethics – including whistleblower reports tied to Nominating-process violations and policy or legal breaches. On May 23, 2019, a request was made by a PRSA officer candidate for the current Whistleblower Policy. On May 29, 2019, a response indicated that a whistleblower policy existed, but it access was not provided. Only on June 7, 2019 (the day prior to 2019 officer-candidate interviews) did the National Board pass a formal Whistleblower Policy in compliance with New York State law, and only on June 18, 2019, did PRSA post the policy online for members to access.
o A candidate Whistleblower Complaint submitted in June 2019 to the Nominating Committee was acknowledged by PRSA’s then-CEO, who informed the complainant in writing on June 17, 2019 that, “Your letter will be evaluated in accordance with PRSA’s Whistleblower Policy, which is under the purview of the Audit Committee of the PRSA Board of Directors, to determine the appropriate actions in response.” Six weeks thereafter and to date ongoing (and until events merit revision of this rationale point), the complainant has still received no due-process / adjudication by PRSA of their Whistleblower action, nor has any transparency been afforded relative to the process to be engaged by the Audit Committee (or what individuals, by name, even comprise the Audit Committee).

• In violation of written PRSA Nominating Committee policy in both 2019 and 2018, the National Board withheld full board candidate applications from online member view. In 2018, this withholding included the entirety of the Nominating Committee timeline. In 2019, this withholding continued for nearly a month into the nominations process, until intervention transpired by PRSA’s Board of Ethics & Professional Standards (BEPS), at which time, the National Board finally opted to comply.

• On March 20, 2019, the 2019 PRSA National Immediate Past Chair (who served as Nominating Committee Chair for the board-based officer slate process), PRSA National Nominating Committee Chair and PRSA staff all asserted to national officer candidates on a PRSA-recorded candidate call erroneous information about policies / procedures for the 2019 NomCom process, including how many 2019 board members would be entitled to vote and falsely asserting – in violation of stated P&Ps – that the PRSA National Nominating Committee Chair would be entitled to place tie-breaking votes for the board-based NomCom (pre-existing written P&Ps stated otherwise). Other unconfirmed or false information provided on the March 20, 2019 call included:
o Assertions that candidate campaigning rules existed (later information provided by PRSA’s paid Parliamentarian stated no such rules exist);
o Discrepancies about whether tie-breaking votes would be determined by majority or plurality vote;
o Assertions that tie-breaking votes could potentially be resolved by games of “chance,” such as drawing straws or flipping a coin (for which there is no mention in any standing rules).

• Earlier board rationales in favor of the 2016 bylaw change as provided by the national board included incomplete and misleading commentary that did not provide an accurate, complete picture as to the politicized and damaging conflicts of interest of the board selecting its own officer slate. Their rationales stated that members should simply “trust” the National Board to complete this function.

• The board’s desire to choose officer candidates is all about power-consolidation, politicized control and stacking the deck against other democratic bodies and processes within PRSA, placing them at a disadvantage. . . most notably, marginalizing independent officer candidates who have not served most recently in current board or officer positions (some 100+ PRSA members have served on the national board in recent decades and are therefore qualified to apply for officer positions).

We have seen the ways regulated cannabis can impact not only people, but also a nations economy. For the first time in history, families are seen taking advantage of pro-cannabis laws and completely uprooting their lives to move to marijuana friendly states in order to increase the quality of life of their chronically ill children or loved one.

States have see an unprecedented increase in tax revenue, as literally millions of dollars are being made at dispensaries. The job sector has also benefited, as this new industry is creating many work opportunities at all levels of cannabis production- farming jobs, production and packaging jobs, retail jobs etc.

The first nation to adopt this approach was the Netherlands, and we can all see the amazing impact that made to the country's tourism; to imagine an already desirable place like Bermuda doing the same, would mean an incredible boost in our economy in so many ways. So many small businesses can thrive so many new jobs and careers and industries.
The country's debt can be erased. We have the potential, we have the facilities. There are locals who are taking steps to stay on par with international indoor growing standards in hydroponic/soil/soil-less etc. marijuana production on both small and large scales.

We don't want the island to fall behind and "miss the train" on an emerging new industry that is doing amazing things for the jurisdictions that have legalized it. We have many people on the island suffering from various forms of cancer. We have an ageing population that can benefit tremendously.

We don't have to be fearful anymore, lets erase the stigma, lets be apart of world change.

Lets regulate recreational and medicinal marijuana in Bermuda!

We believe that small-scale chicken keeping is a healthy, economical and sustainable way to feed and enrich our families and our community. Besides making great pets, hens provide us with fresh eggs and encourage local sustainable living. The ability to raise chickens offers educational opportunities for our children.

Chickens serve as a natural alternative to pesticides by eating bugs and insects, including fleas and disease-spreading ticks. Chickens also eat weeds and chicken manure serves as an excellent fertilizer for lawns and gardens. Backyard chickens provide many benefits, which is why many towns and cities across the country now permit their residents to raise backyard chickens.

The two most common concerns residents have regarding urban chickens are noise and smell.

Hens are very quiet animals. Compared to a dog's bark which can reach over 90 decibels, chickens can hardly be called a noisy animal. The best way to keep your hens content (and reduce any noises of irritation!) is to keep them in the perfect chicken house.

As for the smell, it is true that any animal leaves behind waste. Just as dog owners are expected to clean up their pet's waste, so should chicken owners. In fact, the very same ordinances that allow for chickens in our surrounding communities require chickens to be kept in sanitary conditions just as other pet owners are expected to do.