RED ALERT! RED ALERT! RED ALERT! FLUORIDE ON THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL AGENDA FOR THURSDAY, DEC. 15, 2011
Now, before we get too excited by this news, let's understand that this is simply the City Council's latest attempt to screw us. Still, it's progress because we've forced them to respond in a way they never imagined they'd have to throughout their three years of sullen rudeness and ignoring us (or trying to) from the dias. Poor things, we're distracting them from their joy: the joys of wheeling and dealing; of social climbing and endless grant getting and lavishly spending the taxpayers' money. What an inconvenience! They all must be gnashing their fluoride-perfect (grin) teeth right now.
Friday, the following item appeared on the draft agenda for next Thursday's City Council meeting:
*****************
RESOLUTION NO.___________________
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN:
The City Council supports the City Manager’s recommendation to do the following:
• to continue to keep Austin water fluoridated because fluoridation of public drinking waters is good, population based public health per the CDC and ATCHHSD
• to post information on Fluoride and Infants on the City’s website and at ATCHHSD Neighborhood Centers and WIC Stations, in English and Spanish; and
• to mail information to Austin Water Utility customers highlighting Fluoride and Infant information from the City’s website
ADOPTED: _____________ ,2011
ATTEST: _______________________ Shirley A. Brown
City Clerk
****************
Since it's a draft agenda, it won't be absolutely final until Monday, but we can expect to see something comparable to this at that time. The item is very curious in that it includes a resolution to do what they are already doing - surely a first. Beyond that, they propose to disseminate the spun-out-of-recognition pseudo-information on the City's website to a wider audience. Wouldn't want to miss the large and vulnerable Spanish-speaking population, after all.
The development has several important ramifications. First, we don't know at exactly what time Thursday it will come up. Unlike citizens communication, which always takes place very close to noon, agenda items can be and often are moved around with abandon. As Item #11, it theoretically should come early in the day, and be dealt with in short order. (Since the wording would appear to make it a package deal, I'd expect a unanimous vote in favor - that is, keeping fluoridation and spreading bilingual misinformation about infant formula in a systematic way.)
The fly in their ointment, though, is that we get a chance to talk prior to the vote. And, again unlike citizens communication, there is no limit to the number of speakers, and people can assign their 3-minute slots to others, thus giving some individuals enough time to actually say something. If enough of us show up to annoy them, they could decide to put Item 11 off until 10 p.m. Or next month. There's no overestimating the vindictiveness of this bunch. But hopefully, that won't happen.
Despite its nearness to Christmas and the time investment involved, we'd like a good turnout for this, the last Austin City Council of the year. For those able to take a day off to observe our city government in action, we recommend you arrive at City Hall at 10 a.m. - starting time - and promptly sign up at the computer kiosk to speak on Item #11. (If you don't want to speak yourself, that's OK; you can give away your 3-minute slot to someone else). Come prepared for a long day: bring a book or your knitting or whatever you'll need to amuse yourself during those times when watching the antics of our elected and unelected "civil servants" becomes unbearable and you need to step out for a break. Then settle down to enjoy the show, either within chambers or on the large screens generously provided out in the atrium. With luck, they'll get to it in the morning and then we can all go home.
Although the Council can be expected to rubber-stamp whatever shoddy proposal city staff comes up with, it won’t do them any good. We’ll be back in 2012, energized and ready for the next round.
Merry Christmas, and hope to see you on Thursday.


Yes their goal is to screw you at the city commission. They resent deeply your activity to inform them about their flawed failed fluoridation policy. They want to pull the rug out from under you after inviting you to stand on it. They do not want to see you speak ever again as they already have a position and facts and science only confuse their already stated position. They do not like looking like fools but are expert at it. They think that is your fault as you bring up the issue. You make their life complicated and they want it simple. You will win sooner or later. They know that so want you to lose faith by their delays. Good work. You have a far better team with far more knowledge and skill then theirs. But they control the way the game is played and can change the rules to their advantage. A single lawsuit can tip the scales over nite when it happens.
Reply to this
You are so right, Jim. They have the money, but we have the brains! Thanks for commenting. - Rae
Reply to this
Nov 16 2011 Daytona Beach Fl also had as a agenda item a statement on fluoridation reaffirming in a two page position statement. Really just policy statements and list of endorsements. Item 6C with comments allowed in 7 Public comments.
No good reason either that I can figure out.
One commissioner Gilliland did make a comment prior about my presence to argue against and that there were 100 studies for fluoridation for every one against. Dr Bonnie Sorensen Public Health boss did agree that I was correct about babies not needing fluoridated water because of cosmetic risk. She then went on to claim but really any damage was from poor parent supervision of toothpaste in brushing. She did not see this as a total exposure issue and has said fluoridation is the foundation of all public health policy. Is that the lies or lack of any benefit I wonder?
The utilities manager is lost and clueless, Mitt Tidwell who did the presentation. You can go directly to the segments on the website. See how poorly fluoridation is defended. And why a agenda item for no good reason. The packet did include the old charter language with the commission claiming fluoridation harmless at 1ppm. That is what had to be changed back in 2007 but they never admitted that reason either even under repeated questions by one commissioner. The manager is dishonest as a rule for Mr Chissom.
Reply to this