jmj42

Having served on a public body "governed" by Robert's Rules, there's one very important aspect of Robert's Rules that the author seems to be overlooking. While the default case certainly does constrain brainstorming, that is not a necessary case. Robert's Rules contains, at the very least, provisions for suspending or altering the rules temporarily for just this sort of reason.

I can't count the number of times the body I served on did just this. Admittedly, this was before COVID and the ensuing discussions were easier to manage in a live, in-person, format, regardless, Robert's Rules does allow for it.

As for public meeting's law, I can only speak for Illinois' Open Meetings Act, but yes, in fact, even email can be considered a meeting in some cases. In Illinois, what constitutes a meeting is a little more limiting. According to the OMA, a meeting occurs when a majority of quorum is present. In the 30 member instance discussed in the article, that's only 8 members (one half quorum plus one); In the case of our 8 member board, that was only 3.

Now, I understand the author's frustration, but these sunshine laws are important in keeping the public's business public, so, as frustrating as it may seem, these should not be relaxed.

Some rando law?

Public performance isn't really some random law pulled out of the aether. It's one of the basic tenets of copyright and serves as the basis for the majority of copyright licensing in the U.S. Even the take-down process that the officer is looking to exploit exists because of the the rights holder's right to public performance (an Instagram video is a public performance).

That it is illegal (criminal) to willfully perform a copyrighted work in public is well established law and not the least bit random.

Public performance of a copyrighted work. Unless the officer has a license to play the music for public consumption, it is illegal for him/her to do so.

TIF is a property tax financing scheme. Abuse or not, its use has very little impact on sales tax.

The same over here. I stayed at a DoubleTree (also a Hilton hotel) in Monrovia CA a few weeks ago. They also had a bottle of water on the desk with a $5 USD price tag.

Ironically, they gave me at least $5 worth of chocolate chip cookies when I checked in.

> but he was the founder in every respect that matters.

Except actually being a founder. He provided money to an existing company, resulting in a controlling stake in that company. Certainly he is important aspect of Tesla as it is today, I'm not disputing that, but being important, perhaps even the single most critical aspect of Tesla today, does not make him a founder. It only makes him important.

Even Musk doesn't claim to have founded Tesla. He's said in the past the he was looking for a company like Tesla to become involved in. That Eberhard's dream (an electric sports car) overlapped Musk's (build affordable electric cars, but start with a high end sports car) is what brought them together.

No it isn't. Musk isn't a co-founder either. He came in on Tesla's A round.