Every election we hear the same stories. A long term incumbent says that his/her experience will help them to accomplish more for their constituents. The challenger says that the incumbent is too much of an insider and that the constituents deserve change.
Now, let's say, that in this example the challenger wins. Guess what? Two or three elections down the road that person is now the incumbent touting his/her experience.
Which is better? Experience or change? It all comes down to who you support and for what reasons other than that question.
If you haven't early voted.............get out there Tuesday.............don't waste your right and privilege.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Friday, October 29, 2010
Shawnee Voter Apapthy
With the upcoming election next Tuesday I am once again reminded about Shawnee's track record of voter apathy...........particularly in local elections.
It seems that when it comes to the "big ones" (presidential) the turnout is great...........when it comes to the local ones..........Shawnee's citizens sit on their rear ends and do nothing. Ironically, it is local government that has the greatest impact on our daily lives (public safety, sales and property taxes, road maintenance, etc)..........followed by county then state then federal.
Let the numbers speak for themselves:
2008 General Election (Presidential).....Shawnee as a whole and then Shawnee's ward 3, the ward with the highest number of registered voters:
Shawnee registered voters: 40,791
Shawnee voted: 32,266............ 79.10% (fairly good)
Ward 3 registered voters: 11,966
Ward 3 voted: 9,892................ 82.67% (best of the four wards)
2010 General Election (Council):
Shawnee registered voters: 39,862
Shawnee voted: 3,901............. 9.79% (disgusting)
Ward 3 registered voters: 11,930
Ward 3 voted: 893............. 7.49% (worst of the four wards)
What actually happened here locally is that using ward 3 as the example, 470 people elected their council member to represent 11,930 voters. Or, to put it another way, 3.9% of the voters made the decision for the other 96.1% .
Next week's election is for governor, congress, senate and some state legislative seats. I'd guess there will be about a 50% turnout...............better than the city elections...........not as good as the presidential election, and still too low. At the next city election (2012) I would hope that we as a city have a better turn out than the less than 10% we had this year.
Voting is a right, that many have served to protect. There are literally hundreds of millions of people worldwide that would like to be able to have that right. Remember that also the following week, on Veteran's Day, November 11.
It seems that when it comes to the "big ones" (presidential) the turnout is great...........when it comes to the local ones..........Shawnee's citizens sit on their rear ends and do nothing. Ironically, it is local government that has the greatest impact on our daily lives (public safety, sales and property taxes, road maintenance, etc)..........followed by county then state then federal.
Let the numbers speak for themselves:
2008 General Election (Presidential).....Shawnee as a whole and then Shawnee's ward 3, the ward with the highest number of registered voters:
Shawnee registered voters: 40,791
Shawnee voted: 32,266............ 79.10% (fairly good)
Ward 3 registered voters: 11,966
Ward 3 voted: 9,892................ 82.67% (best of the four wards)
2010 General Election (Council):
Shawnee registered voters: 39,862
Shawnee voted: 3,901............. 9.79% (disgusting)
Ward 3 registered voters: 11,930
Ward 3 voted: 893............. 7.49% (worst of the four wards)
What actually happened here locally is that using ward 3 as the example, 470 people elected their council member to represent 11,930 voters. Or, to put it another way, 3.9% of the voters made the decision for the other 96.1% .
Next week's election is for governor, congress, senate and some state legislative seats. I'd guess there will be about a 50% turnout...............better than the city elections...........not as good as the presidential election, and still too low. At the next city election (2012) I would hope that we as a city have a better turn out than the less than 10% we had this year.
Voting is a right, that many have served to protect. There are literally hundreds of millions of people worldwide that would like to be able to have that right. Remember that also the following week, on Veteran's Day, November 11.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Travel. Travel. Travel
A luxury Shawnee can apaprently afford, NOT.
How about this? The upcoming National League of Cities Convention that has 6 people from Shawnee attending will have zero, nada, none from Topeka and KCK Unified Gov't. Two much larger, major cities are not sending anybody, but little old Shawnee is sending six people.
Now, if you remember I thought that we should send two (the mayor and the city manager). And in this case, a council member who was supposed to go on a previous trip and had to cancel would be going since the previous funds were not refunded but would be applied to this trip. So, in my opinion we have at least three too many people going.
But I guess that is OK...............our city, unlike Topeka and KCK can afford the luxury of sending a large delegation to Denver. The three who IMHO, should stay home are Vaught, Sandifer and Neighbor. And yet, we cannot afford (according to council member Dawn Kuhn) the luxury of full transcript minutes of council meetings.
Pop quiz: Which council member said last week that they did not want full transcript council meeting minutes because "........they use them against us" ?
How about this? The upcoming National League of Cities Convention that has 6 people from Shawnee attending will have zero, nada, none from Topeka and KCK Unified Gov't. Two much larger, major cities are not sending anybody, but little old Shawnee is sending six people.
Now, if you remember I thought that we should send two (the mayor and the city manager). And in this case, a council member who was supposed to go on a previous trip and had to cancel would be going since the previous funds were not refunded but would be applied to this trip. So, in my opinion we have at least three too many people going.
But I guess that is OK...............our city, unlike Topeka and KCK can afford the luxury of sending a large delegation to Denver. The three who IMHO, should stay home are Vaught, Sandifer and Neighbor. And yet, we cannot afford (according to council member Dawn Kuhn) the luxury of full transcript minutes of council meetings.
Pop quiz: Which council member said last week that they did not want full transcript council meeting minutes because "........they use them against us" ?
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Letter to the Council, Mayor and City Manager
The email below was sent this afternoon:
This email is being sent to the Mayor, Council Members and the City Manager of Shawnee, KS.
Dear Mr. Mayor, Members of the Shawnee City Council and the City Manager:
Below are some expanded and some reiterated comments about the council committee meeting that was held on 10/19/10.
I felt the need to express my thoughts to all the members of the governing body, and the city manager. Since Tuesday’s meeting was running long, I kept my comments that night to a minimum.
A copy of this email will be posted on line at http://www.shawneeray.blogspot.com
Should anyone desire to respond I will give consideration to posting those responses.
Committee Structure:
The current committee structure is a borderline farce. As pointed out many items appear before each committee, that based on subject matter belong to the other committee. Many council members still attend the committee meetings that they do not serve on for educational and informational purposes. Then, during budget sessions council members usually also attend all committee meetings.
As stated at the meeting of 10/19 why not go to a "Committee of the Whole Structure"? It would simplify things immensely. It could be chaired by the council president, or as suggested, rotated among the council members. Over a two year period each council member could chair (and vice-chair) each committee for three months.
Meeting Minutes:
Primarily the publication of full meeting minutes is the best way to preserve transparency. It is very simple............it provides a contemporaneous record of who said what. Does the council want the community to know what goes on or not?
Information was given to the city manager about four companies that could possibly provide transcription services at a lower cost than what we are paying now. Modern technology being what it is there probably are more out there. I was totally offended that Dawn Kuhn said that full transcriptions were a luxury the city could not afford. The city cannot afford not to be transparent.
Excessive council travel is a luxury we can do without.
With regards to the audio CDs, it is felt that requiring the public to purchase them is ridiculous. They can be posted on line and people could download them as they see fit. Additionally, the printed minutes could be annotated every 10 pages or so with minute markings so that individuals could proceed to those areas of the audio.
There were comments about video feed of the meetings. Simultaneous internet transmission of the meetings might, at this time be a cost not acceptable. Creating a video, though, and posting it on line for download by the community could be a viable alternative. One of the council members, Jeff Vaught, seemed concerned about folks downloading a video and then posting “snippets” on the web. Is he concerned that a video would show the good, the bad and the ugly of council meetings? As for “snippets”, TV news stations do that all the time. They video tape a council meeting and may only show 30 seconds on the nightly news. Seems Mr. Vaught has not as yet fully grasped what it means to be a public official. This reminds me of his stated dislike for posting advance travel of council members on the web.
Public Comment at Meetings:
The only problem I see here is, as stated by some of the council members, is that there is not enough input from members of the community.
Mandatory time restraints should only be used when there are a large number of people who want to address the council on a particular subject, like the smoking ordinance. Requiring folks to sign in to speak ahead of time can make things run smoother, but should not be a restriction to someone desiring to speak when they had not originally planned on it. Practice has shown that in most cases the presiding official at most meetings has been able to control speaker times.
Actually, in many cases, some members of the council have themselves been overly verbose when discussing issues. Ms Kuhn sort of alluded to this at this meeting, and that she was culpable of that. Amen…………no joke. Maybe time restraints need to be applied to council members?
Dawn Kuhn seemed to be obsessed with the possibility that some people might use the city’s overhead projection system to display images that were “inappropriate” and the possibility of subjecting the city to a lawsuit. Is that possible? Could the city be sued for that? More importantly, what does she mean by “inappropriate”? That is a term that is subject to broad interpretation. So much so, that various courts have nullified laws that use that term (much of the original Internet Decency Act in the Clinton administration got tossed because of that). In the 3+ years that I have been attending meetings I personally don’t remember seeing anything displayed that could be interpreted as being “inappropriate” Having this woman talk about restrictions reminds me of a few years ago when she favored a local ordinance that would give the mayor the authority to declare emergencies and restrict/confiscate weapons. Actually, that would have I believe contradicted state law. It never flew.
Well, this has been one person’s thoughts
Sincerely,
Ray Erlichman
This email is being sent to the Mayor, Council Members and the City Manager of Shawnee, KS.
Dear Mr. Mayor, Members of the Shawnee City Council and the City Manager:
Below are some expanded and some reiterated comments about the council committee meeting that was held on 10/19/10.
I felt the need to express my thoughts to all the members of the governing body, and the city manager. Since Tuesday’s meeting was running long, I kept my comments that night to a minimum.
A copy of this email will be posted on line at http://www.shawneeray.blogspot.com
Should anyone desire to respond I will give consideration to posting those responses.
Committee Structure:
The current committee structure is a borderline farce. As pointed out many items appear before each committee, that based on subject matter belong to the other committee. Many council members still attend the committee meetings that they do not serve on for educational and informational purposes. Then, during budget sessions council members usually also attend all committee meetings.
As stated at the meeting of 10/19 why not go to a "Committee of the Whole Structure"? It would simplify things immensely. It could be chaired by the council president, or as suggested, rotated among the council members. Over a two year period each council member could chair (and vice-chair) each committee for three months.
Meeting Minutes:
Primarily the publication of full meeting minutes is the best way to preserve transparency. It is very simple............it provides a contemporaneous record of who said what. Does the council want the community to know what goes on or not?
Information was given to the city manager about four companies that could possibly provide transcription services at a lower cost than what we are paying now. Modern technology being what it is there probably are more out there. I was totally offended that Dawn Kuhn said that full transcriptions were a luxury the city could not afford. The city cannot afford not to be transparent.
Excessive council travel is a luxury we can do without.
With regards to the audio CDs, it is felt that requiring the public to purchase them is ridiculous. They can be posted on line and people could download them as they see fit. Additionally, the printed minutes could be annotated every 10 pages or so with minute markings so that individuals could proceed to those areas of the audio.
There were comments about video feed of the meetings. Simultaneous internet transmission of the meetings might, at this time be a cost not acceptable. Creating a video, though, and posting it on line for download by the community could be a viable alternative. One of the council members, Jeff Vaught, seemed concerned about folks downloading a video and then posting “snippets” on the web. Is he concerned that a video would show the good, the bad and the ugly of council meetings? As for “snippets”, TV news stations do that all the time. They video tape a council meeting and may only show 30 seconds on the nightly news. Seems Mr. Vaught has not as yet fully grasped what it means to be a public official. This reminds me of his stated dislike for posting advance travel of council members on the web.
Public Comment at Meetings:
The only problem I see here is, as stated by some of the council members, is that there is not enough input from members of the community.
Mandatory time restraints should only be used when there are a large number of people who want to address the council on a particular subject, like the smoking ordinance. Requiring folks to sign in to speak ahead of time can make things run smoother, but should not be a restriction to someone desiring to speak when they had not originally planned on it. Practice has shown that in most cases the presiding official at most meetings has been able to control speaker times.
Actually, in many cases, some members of the council have themselves been overly verbose when discussing issues. Ms Kuhn sort of alluded to this at this meeting, and that she was culpable of that. Amen…………no joke. Maybe time restraints need to be applied to council members?
Dawn Kuhn seemed to be obsessed with the possibility that some people might use the city’s overhead projection system to display images that were “inappropriate” and the possibility of subjecting the city to a lawsuit. Is that possible? Could the city be sued for that? More importantly, what does she mean by “inappropriate”? That is a term that is subject to broad interpretation. So much so, that various courts have nullified laws that use that term (much of the original Internet Decency Act in the Clinton administration got tossed because of that). In the 3+ years that I have been attending meetings I personally don’t remember seeing anything displayed that could be interpreted as being “inappropriate” Having this woman talk about restrictions reminds me of a few years ago when she favored a local ordinance that would give the mayor the authority to declare emergencies and restrict/confiscate weapons. Actually, that would have I believe contradicted state law. It never flew.
Well, this has been one person’s thoughts
Sincerely,
Ray Erlichman
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Meeting Reminder - Tonight
Just a reminder about the meeting tonight at city hall at 7:00PM. See my post below from 10/16/10.
Conduct of public meetings is on the agenda. This is important because there could be changes proposed that could affect how members of the community can address the council, any of its committees, or any boards.
Protect your rights...................be there.
Conduct of public meetings is on the agenda. This is important because there could be changes proposed that could affect how members of the community can address the council, any of its committees, or any boards.
Protect your rights...................be there.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Lake Quivira Inspection Contract
As pointed out by the Shawnee Dispatch, the city council on 10/11/10 authorized the rates to be charged to Lake Quivira for inspection services. See the complete info at:
http://www.shawneedispatch.com/news/2010/oct/13/citys-inspection-services-remain-same-price-lake-q/
These fees are the same as they have been for ten years.
Some interesting things were brought up at the council meeting:
1. Councilmember Pflumm was concerned that this item never went to a committee first, befor coming to the council. He was also concerned that if the fees have been the same for ten years, we need to look at possible increases. Two valid points.
2. It was brought out that the hourly rate was charged when the inspector hits the gate at Lake Quivira and ends when the inspector leaves. This writer got up and suggested that the hourly rate start when the inmspector leaves their last location. Councilmember Sawyer seemed to concur. In his line of work, when he calls for a service rep the time starts when they leave their previous lcoation, not when they hit his location. Subsequesntly, it came out that in some cases the actual charges were for only 20 or 30 minutes because of the "gate in gate out" concept. Wow, methinks we need an adjustment here. Not only on when the "meter starts" but maybe even a minimum time charge (like one hour minimum). Mr. Sawyer also asked for info as to what a private contractor would charge for these services. I believe he is on the right track on this one.
3. And last but not least it came out that Lake Quivira had already approved the new agreement because "their council meeting came first". Huh??? Council meetings are ongoing events.
Couldn't this have been brought to our council first, before going to Lake Quivira's council?
It was approved with council asking for a review in six months. There is one out.........either party can end the 2 year contract prior to that time with 60 days notice.
http://www.shawneedispatch.com/news/2010/oct/13/citys-inspection-services-remain-same-price-lake-q/
These fees are the same as they have been for ten years.
Some interesting things were brought up at the council meeting:
1. Councilmember Pflumm was concerned that this item never went to a committee first, befor coming to the council. He was also concerned that if the fees have been the same for ten years, we need to look at possible increases. Two valid points.
2. It was brought out that the hourly rate was charged when the inspector hits the gate at Lake Quivira and ends when the inspector leaves. This writer got up and suggested that the hourly rate start when the inmspector leaves their last location. Councilmember Sawyer seemed to concur. In his line of work, when he calls for a service rep the time starts when they leave their previous lcoation, not when they hit his location. Subsequesntly, it came out that in some cases the actual charges were for only 20 or 30 minutes because of the "gate in gate out" concept. Wow, methinks we need an adjustment here. Not only on when the "meter starts" but maybe even a minimum time charge (like one hour minimum). Mr. Sawyer also asked for info as to what a private contractor would charge for these services. I believe he is on the right track on this one.
3. And last but not least it came out that Lake Quivira had already approved the new agreement because "their council meeting came first". Huh??? Council meetings are ongoing events.
Couldn't this have been brought to our council first, before going to Lake Quivira's council?
It was approved with council asking for a review in six months. There is one out.........either party can end the 2 year contract prior to that time with 60 days notice.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Very Important Meeting - Tue 10/19/10
The Public Works and Safety Committee Meeting scheduled for Tue 10/19/10 at 7:00PM could be one of the most important meetings of the year.
Why do I say that? Because policies could be proposed that would affect citizen comments at council and committee meetings. We must insure that our rights to speak out are not infringed upon.
The wording of the notice is so innocuous as to make it seem almost unimportant.
Over the past several months questions have been raised about
committee meeting structure and public comment during meetings. Staff
has researched neighboring cities meeting structure, as well as more
cost effective methods of delivering a record of the meeting minutes
to the Council and the public.
See info at:
http://www.cityofshawnee.org/Meetings/AGENDAS.NSF/vwNews/2B18F85C6A3245B5862577BC007107A6/$FILE/SNOS-8A8S5M.pdf
Why do I say that? Because policies could be proposed that would affect citizen comments at council and committee meetings. We must insure that our rights to speak out are not infringed upon.
The wording of the notice is so innocuous as to make it seem almost unimportant.
Over the past several months questions have been raised about
committee meeting structure and public comment during meetings. Staff
has researched neighboring cities meeting structure, as well as more
cost effective methods of delivering a record of the meeting minutes
to the Council and the public.
See info at:
http://www.cityofshawnee.org/Meetings/AGENDAS.NSF/vwNews/2B18F85C6A3245B5862577BC007107A6/$FILE/SNOS-8A8S5M.pdf
Friday, October 15, 2010
A Reminder to Veterans
With Veteran's Day approaching I'd like to remind veterans about some changes in federal law in 2008 & 2009.
Veterans (and active duty military) in civilian clothes now have the right to render the military hand salute when:
1. The national anthem is played
2. The flag is raised or lowered
3. The flag passes in review
This is as opposed to the civilian salute of placing one's right hand over one's heart. If you are wearing a hat, and render the hand salute, the hat stays on.
Veterans (and active duty military) in civilian clothes now have the right to render the military hand salute when:
1. The national anthem is played
2. The flag is raised or lowered
3. The flag passes in review
This is as opposed to the civilian salute of placing one's right hand over one's heart. If you are wearing a hat, and render the hand salute, the hat stays on.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Saturday, October 09, 2010
Two New Links
We have added two links in the link section (lower left side of the blog)
Shawnee Mission Times
Kansas Federalist
Both are projects of the well respected retired sheriff of Johnson County, Currie Myers.
Shawnee Mission Times
Kansas Federalist
Both are projects of the well respected retired sheriff of Johnson County, Currie Myers.
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
Shawnee's Own "Bridge to Nowhere"
Or is it a road to nowhere?
On Monday, 9/27/10 the city council voted to remove entirely the Monticello Road project from the 6 year capital improvement plan. This was the planned reconstruction from Midland Drive to the 7900 block. The idea was to create a four lane roadway.
Let's do a quick recap..............
The residents of the area did not want the project. They bought these homes, most on acreage, so they could be in the country. Vehicle traffic is very limited on that road
The city said too bad.
The residents said there would be a problem with a buried 8 inch high pressure gas pipeline. The city was very cavalier on this......almost passing it off as a non-issue.Then, negotiations with Southern Star took so long, that that was a contributing factor in the original delay....whcih eventually necessitated the city returning CARS money.
By the way, under the terms of the negotiations with Southern Star, it is the city I believe who will have to pay the major portion for the movement of the gas pipeline.And, I believe, that is subject to renegotiation after a cerain point in time. What will be the costs down the road?
Whoooops and what else also happened?
Well, let's see, the city had to buy out two homeowners completely and get them relocated. Remember, that most of these homes sit on large lots, mostly acreage. Believe the city also had to buy lots of front yard, rear yard, side yard areas as additional rights of way for the larger road.
Oh yes, and then there were some new easements that the city paid for. They were so that construction equipment could encroach on what was left of those yards. Easements with time restraints that will probably have to be renegotiated because of the construction delays...............unless, as some dreamers think, those homeowners would donate the eaements without compensation. Fat chance on that one.
Should we even talk about the street lights that were taken down (to make way for the larger road) that have had to be replaced with temporary street lights? Hmmmmm, and what about yard maintenance? Believe the city has to rev up a bunch of mowers now for their newly acquired home sites.
So what has the city gotten for its 3+ million dollars already spent? A road project, that many were against, and that is now not even listed on the capital improvement plan? Land that they must now take care of for weed control etc.
What was the impetus for this? Did it have anything to do with a chunk of land on the south end? Land bordering on Lenexa that could some day be developed or sold to developers for commercial property? But, that development can't be done without a wider road?
On Monday, 9/27/10 the city council voted to remove entirely the Monticello Road project from the 6 year capital improvement plan. This was the planned reconstruction from Midland Drive to the 7900 block. The idea was to create a four lane roadway.
Let's do a quick recap..............
The residents of the area did not want the project. They bought these homes, most on acreage, so they could be in the country. Vehicle traffic is very limited on that road
The city said too bad.
The residents said there would be a problem with a buried 8 inch high pressure gas pipeline. The city was very cavalier on this......almost passing it off as a non-issue.Then, negotiations with Southern Star took so long, that that was a contributing factor in the original delay....whcih eventually necessitated the city returning CARS money.
By the way, under the terms of the negotiations with Southern Star, it is the city I believe who will have to pay the major portion for the movement of the gas pipeline.And, I believe, that is subject to renegotiation after a cerain point in time. What will be the costs down the road?
Whoooops and what else also happened?
Well, let's see, the city had to buy out two homeowners completely and get them relocated. Remember, that most of these homes sit on large lots, mostly acreage. Believe the city also had to buy lots of front yard, rear yard, side yard areas as additional rights of way for the larger road.
Oh yes, and then there were some new easements that the city paid for. They were so that construction equipment could encroach on what was left of those yards. Easements with time restraints that will probably have to be renegotiated because of the construction delays...............unless, as some dreamers think, those homeowners would donate the eaements without compensation. Fat chance on that one.
Should we even talk about the street lights that were taken down (to make way for the larger road) that have had to be replaced with temporary street lights? Hmmmmm, and what about yard maintenance? Believe the city has to rev up a bunch of mowers now for their newly acquired home sites.
So what has the city gotten for its 3+ million dollars already spent? A road project, that many were against, and that is now not even listed on the capital improvement plan? Land that they must now take care of for weed control etc.
What was the impetus for this? Did it have anything to do with a chunk of land on the south end? Land bordering on Lenexa that could some day be developed or sold to developers for commercial property? But, that development can't be done without a wider road?
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)