Previously I wrote and indicated what our council members spent while in Denver. Now, it's time to break down some of those expenses.
Let's look at hotel costs. This is one area that definitely needs to be looked at much closer. As previously pointed out, the rooms are primarily for sleeping, showering and changing clothes. Most of the folks' time is taken up eating, attending seminars and socializing with individuals from other cities.
Our people stayed at the Hyatt Regency. That is the hotel directly across from the Denver Convention Center. The discounted group rate was $240/night. Now if we take the mayor and city manager out of the equation we had 4 council members who between them had 16 nights at the hotel. At $240/night (including taxes) that becomes $3,840.
Now, the folks who went from Lenexa got a group rate of $137/night (including taxes) at the Crowne Plaza. Granted that was a block or so away. Golly, they had to walk a little. If our council reps had stayed there, they could have saved $1,648. And how much could those four have saved if they doubled up? Allowing for a $30 surcharge for 2 in a room they would have paid approximately $1,336 or a savings of approximately $2,500.
How much would have been saved if the mayor and the city manager had also stayed at the lower priced hotel? Naturally in separate rooms, I’m still estimating another $500 could have been saved.
The Crowne Plaza is not exactly a notel motel………it would have served the primary functionality.
The next question is how much more could have been saved if we didn't have a six person delegation? Reduced per diem charges, reduced transportation charges, reduced registration charges for the conference and reduced charges for the number of people attending the various paid seminars. That could have been in the thousands.
This becomes important for another reason. In less than two months, the National League of Cities "biggie" is going to be in Washington, DC. And, considering the time line, arrangements are probably being made right now. Will we be sending another oversized delegation? Will they be staying in the most expensive of all the convention hotels, in individual rooms?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Representation at these conferences is good. We just don't need to send an army. And, they can walk a little and stay at a better priced hotel.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Letter to Council 1/20/11
Below is a copy of an email I sent earlier today to all members of the City Council, the Mayor and the City Manager. If any of them decide to respond I'll be happy to post the response(s) here, without editing it(them).
This email is being sent to the City Council, Mayor and City Manager
Just prior to the end of the recent PW & Safety Committee meeting, Messrs. Sandifer & Vaught thought to mention the importance of the NLC conference with regards to info about audio capture of meetings.
Immediately following their comments, the committee Chair, Ms Kuhn, advised that there would be no comments about any items that were not on the agenda. What I wanted to say at that time would have been relevant, but decided not to push it.
The record needs to be set straight. Or, shall I say a reminder.
At the 11/8/10 City Council meeting these same items (method of preserving and communicating meeting minutes) came up after previously being reviewed by the PW&S committee.
Various items were then presented at that council meeting, to include the use of audio similar to the way Fairway was doing it. And, yes, it was me that brought that up. At that time, because of that and other info, Mr Neighbor moved that the item be tabled until staff had reviewed the additional info. This can be confirmed with the item in the Shawnee Dispatch from 11/10/2010 at:
http://www.shawneedispatch.com/news/2010/nov/10/council-delays-vote-cutting-minutes/
I bring this up, because the use of audio was brought up well in advance of the NLC conference. Naturally, I wouldn't expect either Messr. Sandifer or Vaught to mention that. Especially considering who brought it up. I will concede that the info from the NLC conference did show other methods of audio capture which could be better than the one currently employed by Fairway. The question is: If the item had not been tabled because of citizen input would the city even have looked at the audio concepts at the NLC conference? And if yes, to what extent?
Ray Erlichman
This email is being sent to the City Council, Mayor and City Manager
Just prior to the end of the recent PW & Safety Committee meeting, Messrs. Sandifer & Vaught thought to mention the importance of the NLC conference with regards to info about audio capture of meetings.
Immediately following their comments, the committee Chair, Ms Kuhn, advised that there would be no comments about any items that were not on the agenda. What I wanted to say at that time would have been relevant, but decided not to push it.
The record needs to be set straight. Or, shall I say a reminder.
At the 11/8/10 City Council meeting these same items (method of preserving and communicating meeting minutes) came up after previously being reviewed by the PW&S committee.
Various items were then presented at that council meeting, to include the use of audio similar to the way Fairway was doing it. And, yes, it was me that brought that up. At that time, because of that and other info, Mr Neighbor moved that the item be tabled until staff had reviewed the additional info. This can be confirmed with the item in the Shawnee Dispatch from 11/10/2010 at:
http://www.shawneedispatch.com/news/2010/nov/10/council-delays-vote-cutting-minutes/
I bring this up, because the use of audio was brought up well in advance of the NLC conference. Naturally, I wouldn't expect either Messr. Sandifer or Vaught to mention that. Especially considering who brought it up. I will concede that the info from the NLC conference did show other methods of audio capture which could be better than the one currently employed by Fairway. The question is: If the item had not been tabled because of citizen input would the city even have looked at the audio concepts at the NLC conference? And if yes, to what extent?
Ray Erlichman
Monday, January 17, 2011
Don't Forget Tuesday 1/18/11 Meeting
Don't forget the Public Works and Safety Committee meeting at city hall Tuesday 1/18/11 at 7PM.
Changes in how the minutes of city council and council committee meetings are kept will be voted on. Transparency must be kept.
Be there.
For info on exactly what is going to be on the agenda see the post with the link below.
Changes in how the minutes of city council and council committee meetings are kept will be voted on. Transparency must be kept.
Be there.
For info on exactly what is going to be on the agenda see the post with the link below.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Important Meeting - Council Transparency 1/18/11 Tuesday
There will be a meeting of the Public Works and Safety Committee on Tuesday 1/18/11 at 7:00PM.
Agenda and packet information is available at
http://www.cityofshawnee.org/WEB/ShawneeCMS.nsf/vwContent/Agendas?OpenDocument
Item 2 on the agenda would appear to be very important with regards to council transparency. This is where they will be discussing the format that the minutes of meetings will be taking. Minutes are the primary memorialization of what goes on at these meetings. Disclosure to the public is keeping within our framework of democracy. One item also includes the possibility of online audio availability.
Another part of item 2 (eventhough it doesn't show on the agenda, it is in the packet for that item) are rules for public participation in meetings. You would think that one short sentence about that could have been included in the agenda. Guess there wasn't enough room to mention that.
It is important to maintain maximum tranparency about what goes on in these meetings. It is also important to preserve citizen rights.
It would be nice to see a good public turnout for this meeting.
Agenda and packet information is available at
http://www.cityofshawnee.org/WEB/ShawneeCMS.nsf/vwContent/Agendas?OpenDocument
Item 2 on the agenda would appear to be very important with regards to council transparency. This is where they will be discussing the format that the minutes of meetings will be taking. Minutes are the primary memorialization of what goes on at these meetings. Disclosure to the public is keeping within our framework of democracy. One item also includes the possibility of online audio availability.
Another part of item 2 (eventhough it doesn't show on the agenda, it is in the packet for that item) are rules for public participation in meetings. You would think that one short sentence about that could have been included in the agenda. Guess there wasn't enough room to mention that.
It is important to maintain maximum tranparency about what goes on in these meetings. It is also important to preserve citizen rights.
It would be nice to see a good public turnout for this meeting.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
I Hated To Do It................But...............
............because of Vaught's letter to the editor of the Shawnee Dispatch of 12/22, I just had to respond there. http://www.shawneedispatch.com/news/2011/jan/12/letters-word-play/
His original letter is at http://www.shawneedispatch.com/news/2010/dec/22/letter-witness-or-see-wording-question-affects-res/
Back in 1974 at the Academy Awards a streaker ran across the stage. David Niven, a very gifted British actor, handled the situation with much aplomb and said “The only laugh that man will ever get in his life is by stripping ... and showing his shortcomings.”
So, why did Vaught want to show off his vocabulary shortcomings to the world?
His original letter is at http://www.shawneedispatch.com/news/2010/dec/22/letter-witness-or-see-wording-question-affects-res/
Back in 1974 at the Academy Awards a streaker ran across the stage. David Niven, a very gifted British actor, handled the situation with much aplomb and said “The only laugh that man will ever get in his life is by stripping ... and showing his shortcomings.”
So, why did Vaught want to show off his vocabulary shortcomings to the world?
Thursday, January 06, 2011
Mile High Madness
In previous posts it was mentioned that 6 individuals were going to represent Shawnee at the recent National League of Cities conferenec in Denver.
First, let's see how Shawnee compared to some other communities in the area with regards to number of individuals sent. In the past, listening to various presentations, there seems to be a trend to compare our city with some of the others. So why not this one? OK, so, how many folks represented each city?
Olathe...........................8
Lenexa..........................7
Shawnee.......................6
Mission.........................3
Merriam.......................3
Prairie Village..............3
Overland Park..............1
Roeland Park................1
Leawood........................0
Topeka..........................0
UG WyCo&KCK.............0
Now, what did this cost the citizens of Shawnee?
Jim Neighbor, Ward 1................................$2,711.60 5 nights
Mickey Sandifer, Ward 4..........................$2,677.60 5 nights
Jeff Vaught, Ward 3..................................$1,544.52 3 nights
Jeff Meyers, Mayor....................................$1,459.52 3 nights
Carol Gonzales, City Mgr.........................$1,254.57 3 nights
Neal Sawyer, Ward 2...............................$1,044.52 3 nights
=======
Total......................................................$10,692.33
I've always felt that conferences of this kind can be useful. The big question is, in these tough times how many folks do we need to send? I said it before the conference and I'll say it again, my opinion is that two would have been enough, 3 for this one since Mr Sawyer's registration was covered by a previous conference that he couldn't attend.
Note that 2 reps (33% of the city's delegation) accounted for over 50% of the expenses. This is not the first conference where Mickey Sandifer's expenses were near the top of the group's.
Another interesting note is the cost of the hotel rooms. At $240/night why couldn't the four council reps have done what private comapnies have gone to? Doubling up. Neighbor and Sandifer were there for 5 nights, they could have doubled up. Sawyer and Vaught were there for 3 nights. They could have doubled up. Even if there was a surcharge over the $240 for a second person, in most hotels that would not be anywhere near the cost of a separate room. Also, at a conference like this what is the need for separate rooms? One gets up, showers, has breakfast, goes to meetings, has lunch, goes to meetings, has dinner, socializes, then hits the sack. Unless the rooms are being used for mini-conferences/lectures what's the need?
My original comments, months ago suggested that just the mayor, city manager and Councilmember Sawyer should go. Look at the numbers above............the city could have saved approximately $7,000.
In March there will be another National League of Cities conference in Washington DC. It will be interesting to see how many of our city officials go to that one, and what the cost factor will be.
First, let's see how Shawnee compared to some other communities in the area with regards to number of individuals sent. In the past, listening to various presentations, there seems to be a trend to compare our city with some of the others. So why not this one? OK, so, how many folks represented each city?
Olathe...........................8
Lenexa..........................7
Shawnee.......................6
Mission.........................3
Merriam.......................3
Prairie Village..............3
Overland Park..............1
Roeland Park................1
Leawood........................0
Topeka..........................0
UG WyCo&KCK.............0
Now, what did this cost the citizens of Shawnee?
Jim Neighbor, Ward 1................................$2,711.60 5 nights
Mickey Sandifer, Ward 4..........................$2,677.60 5 nights
Jeff Vaught, Ward 3..................................$1,544.52 3 nights
Jeff Meyers, Mayor....................................$1,459.52 3 nights
Carol Gonzales, City Mgr.........................$1,254.57 3 nights
Neal Sawyer, Ward 2...............................$1,044.52 3 nights
=======
Total......................................................$10,692.33
I've always felt that conferences of this kind can be useful. The big question is, in these tough times how many folks do we need to send? I said it before the conference and I'll say it again, my opinion is that two would have been enough, 3 for this one since Mr Sawyer's registration was covered by a previous conference that he couldn't attend.
Note that 2 reps (33% of the city's delegation) accounted for over 50% of the expenses. This is not the first conference where Mickey Sandifer's expenses were near the top of the group's.
Another interesting note is the cost of the hotel rooms. At $240/night why couldn't the four council reps have done what private comapnies have gone to? Doubling up. Neighbor and Sandifer were there for 5 nights, they could have doubled up. Sawyer and Vaught were there for 3 nights. They could have doubled up. Even if there was a surcharge over the $240 for a second person, in most hotels that would not be anywhere near the cost of a separate room. Also, at a conference like this what is the need for separate rooms? One gets up, showers, has breakfast, goes to meetings, has lunch, goes to meetings, has dinner, socializes, then hits the sack. Unless the rooms are being used for mini-conferences/lectures what's the need?
My original comments, months ago suggested that just the mayor, city manager and Councilmember Sawyer should go. Look at the numbers above............the city could have saved approximately $7,000.
In March there will be another National League of Cities conference in Washington DC. It will be interesting to see how many of our city officials go to that one, and what the cost factor will be.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Vaught Answers But...May Need an English Lesson
I'm happy to see that Jeff Vaught finally answered my question, with a letter to the editor of the Shawnee Dispatch. The letter is shown below. Eventhough he didn't respond to me directly I thought in all fairness his response should appear here also.
But, before you read it, keep in mind that Mr Vaught may need an English lesson. Read what he says about the words "witness" and "seen" then read one of the definitions for "witness" from Webster's on line.
From Webster's:
to have personal or direct cognizance of : see for oneself
But, before you read it, keep in mind that Mr Vaught may need an English lesson. Read what he says about the words "witness" and "seen" then read one of the definitions for "witness" from Webster's on line.
From Webster's:
to have personal or direct cognizance of : see for oneself
Now, here's Vaught's letter to the editor. Now, even after seeing that, he still wasn't concerned about safety? Oh well:
To the editor,
Shawnee resident Ray Erlichman recently asked me at a city council meeting “have you ever ‘SEEN’ a gas explosion.” My answer was simply “yes.”
A few days later Mr. Erlichman sent me an e-mail with the following line: “…I asked you if you had ever ‘WITNESSED’ a gas ‘PIPELINE’ explosion.” He then went on to ask me when and where that was in an attempt to imply that I was lying, and is now trying really hard to make an issue of it.
Adding a word and switching a word totally changes the question. There is a vast difference between the word ‘witness’ and ‘seen.’
I think Mr. Erlichman needs to review the recording. I would be more than happy to send it to him.
And by the way, I have witnessed a gas explosion, the Gates City Glass Company explosion, July 2, 1990, at 126 W. 5th St. in Kansas City, Mo. I was in my loft across a parking lot less than 300 feet away. I have not witnessed a gas pipeline explosion though, but I have seen one or two.
Jeff Vaught
Member, Shawnee City Council – Ward III
Link is
http://www.shawneedispatch.com/news/2010/dec/22/letter-witness-or-see-wording-question-affects-res/
Monday, December 20, 2010
Vaught Avoiding Verification
Well it looks like councilmember Jeff Vaught has not responded with verification of which gas line explosion he has witnessed.
At the November 22d council meeting when he and I got into it over dollars versus safety he was asked if he had ever witnessed a gas line explosion and he responded that he had.
In my blog post of 12/5 I asked for verification of that. Thinking maybe he didn't read that blog post, I sent him a personal email on 12/15 asking for that info and also posted a copy of that email to this blog. Still no response.
When a member of the council makes a statement about an event they need to be able to back it up.
So, why hasn't Jeff Vaught responded with verification of when and where he witnessed a gas line explosion? I can think of a couple of reasons:
1. He doesn't feel he has to respond to anybody that doesn't live in Ward 3 (not a valid reason)
2. He doesn't like me (still not a valid reason)
For both of the above he needs a refresher course in Civics 101. He is responsible to the citizens, it is not the other way around. OK, let's continue:
3. He didn't read the personal email I sent him. (Possible, but not too smart on his part, and highly unlikely. Go back to 1 or 2 above)
4. Or maybe he can't answer the question because he never did witness a gas explosion and is lacking the intestinal fortitude to admit that he misspoke (polite way of saying he lied). If that is the case, the people of Shawnee have a problem. A city councilmember who can't back up his statements of supposed factual situations is basically misleading the public. Or maybe this arrogant self absorbed person thinks we should just take whatever he says at face value without question? Wrong............that ain't gonna happen..................
I heard from a Ward 3 resident that he bumped into Vaught at a coffee shop this morning and asked him the same question. According to that resident the response that he received was to the effect that Vaught was there to buy coffee not answer questions.
At the November 22d council meeting when he and I got into it over dollars versus safety he was asked if he had ever witnessed a gas line explosion and he responded that he had.
In my blog post of 12/5 I asked for verification of that. Thinking maybe he didn't read that blog post, I sent him a personal email on 12/15 asking for that info and also posted a copy of that email to this blog. Still no response.
When a member of the council makes a statement about an event they need to be able to back it up.
So, why hasn't Jeff Vaught responded with verification of when and where he witnessed a gas line explosion? I can think of a couple of reasons:
1. He doesn't feel he has to respond to anybody that doesn't live in Ward 3 (not a valid reason)
2. He doesn't like me (still not a valid reason)
For both of the above he needs a refresher course in Civics 101. He is responsible to the citizens, it is not the other way around. OK, let's continue:
3. He didn't read the personal email I sent him. (Possible, but not too smart on his part, and highly unlikely. Go back to 1 or 2 above)
4. Or maybe he can't answer the question because he never did witness a gas explosion and is lacking the intestinal fortitude to admit that he misspoke (polite way of saying he lied). If that is the case, the people of Shawnee have a problem. A city councilmember who can't back up his statements of supposed factual situations is basically misleading the public. Or maybe this arrogant self absorbed person thinks we should just take whatever he says at face value without question? Wrong............that ain't gonna happen..................
I heard from a Ward 3 resident that he bumped into Vaught at a coffee shop this morning and asked him the same question. According to that resident the response that he received was to the effect that Vaught was there to buy coffee not answer questions.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Request to Jeff Vaught for Info
A copy of today's email to Councilmember Jeff Vaught:
"Mr Vaught,
At the 11/22/10 council meeting when you indicated that you were not concerned about safety I asked you if you had ever witnessed a gas pipeline explosion. You responded in the affirmative.
I again asked..."You have?" and again you responded in the affirmative, as you leaned back in your chair and nodded your head also in an affirmative motion.
Anyway, there are two very simple pieces of information that I would ask you to provide.
What was the location of the explosion and when did it happen?
Thank you,
Ray Erlichman"
"Mr Vaught,
At the 11/22/10 council meeting when you indicated that you were not concerned about safety I asked you if you had ever witnessed a gas pipeline explosion. You responded in the affirmative.
I again asked..."You have?" and again you responded in the affirmative, as you leaned back in your chair and nodded your head also in an affirmative motion.
Anyway, there are two very simple pieces of information that I would ask you to provide.
What was the location of the explosion and when did it happen?
Thank you,
Ray Erlichman"
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Southern Star Was MIA
Remember my posting aboutg the 11/22 council meeting? And how it was mentioned that some members of the council were interested in finding out if a representative from Southern Star was there to answer questions?
Well, I submitted a KORA request (Kansas Open Records Act) and the documentation I received back definitely indicated that Southern Star was notified about the item being on the agenda for that night. They could have had a rep there and for public relations value they should have.
Now, if they had had a representative there would that have really made any difference? Not really, because the city was obligated to perform as indicated in the final agreement. Posturing on the part of some of the council looks good........but that's all it could have been......posturing.
Sidebar: Jeff Vaught has not provided me with the date and location of the gas pipeline explosion that he said he witnessed. Well, maybe he didn't read my blog. Guess I'll just have to email him to try and get an answer.
Well, I submitted a KORA request (Kansas Open Records Act) and the documentation I received back definitely indicated that Southern Star was notified about the item being on the agenda for that night. They could have had a rep there and for public relations value they should have.
Now, if they had had a representative there would that have really made any difference? Not really, because the city was obligated to perform as indicated in the final agreement. Posturing on the part of some of the council looks good........but that's all it could have been......posturing.
Sidebar: Jeff Vaught has not provided me with the date and location of the gas pipeline explosion that he said he witnessed. Well, maybe he didn't read my blog. Guess I'll just have to email him to try and get an answer.
Tuesday, December 07, 2010
False Alarms
At tonight's F&A Committee meeting the police department will be giving a presentation regarding false alarm responses.
Last week they had a community meeting on this topic.
The amount of money being expended and the loss of manpower because of false alarms is very disturbing.
The PD has some suggestions on how to reduce the losses. Methinks the council needs to listen to them.
Last week they had a community meeting on this topic.
The amount of money being expended and the loss of manpower because of false alarms is very disturbing.
The PD has some suggestions on how to reduce the losses. Methinks the council needs to listen to them.
Sunday, December 05, 2010
Boom or Bucks
Well, at the Nov 22d council meeting the item mentioned below about the Southern Star pipeline relocation came up.
Needless to say, many on the council were upset about the cost, feeling that Southern Star was taking advantage of the situation.
When I brought up the safety issue things got quite contentious between council member Jeff Vaught and me. First, when I gave my address, Vaught got real picky. Wanted me to give my complete address. Guess he doesn't like people who live in apartments addressing the council. Also, when I mentioned the safety issue he thought I should be more concerned about the money. When asked if he was concerned about the safety issue regarding the construction beginning before all easement and pipeline movements were handled he indicated that he was not concerned about the safety issue. Also, he lived in the area and I didn't.
His reasoning for not being concerned about the safety issue was, he said, because the contractor was a professional company. Well, professional companies can and have had accidents. That is why they are called accidents and not "on purposes".
I asked Vaught if he had ever witnessed a gas line explosion, and he replied in the affirmative. Now, if he reads this blog, I will ask him here and now to provide us with the info as to when and where he witnessed a gas line explosion. That should prove interesting. If I don't get a reply from him about that I guess I'll have to email him for an answer.
Ya don't mess around an 8" high pressure gas pipeline until ya get all the easements and any necessary relocations done first.
A couple of council members (Vaught included) expressed concern that nobody from Southern Star was at the meeting to answer any questions. Valid point. Question: Since their headquarters is in Kentucky were they notified that the item was going to be on the agenda and that the council might have questions for a representative of theirs?
A side note: If Vaught is so concerned about costs why did he join five (5) others on the recent National League of Cities conference in Denver from 11/30-12/4? Our council does like to compare us to other cities. So, how did other cities handle that conference? I sent inquiries to six, and received replies from three:
Unified Government Wy Co and KCK sent.........................0
Topeka, our state capital, sent..............................................0
Overland Park, sent................................................................1
Comedy line of the night at that council meeting; Kuhn stating that others were being flippant.
Needless to say, many on the council were upset about the cost, feeling that Southern Star was taking advantage of the situation.
When I brought up the safety issue things got quite contentious between council member Jeff Vaught and me. First, when I gave my address, Vaught got real picky. Wanted me to give my complete address. Guess he doesn't like people who live in apartments addressing the council. Also, when I mentioned the safety issue he thought I should be more concerned about the money. When asked if he was concerned about the safety issue regarding the construction beginning before all easement and pipeline movements were handled he indicated that he was not concerned about the safety issue. Also, he lived in the area and I didn't.
His reasoning for not being concerned about the safety issue was, he said, because the contractor was a professional company. Well, professional companies can and have had accidents. That is why they are called accidents and not "on purposes".
I asked Vaught if he had ever witnessed a gas line explosion, and he replied in the affirmative. Now, if he reads this blog, I will ask him here and now to provide us with the info as to when and where he witnessed a gas line explosion. That should prove interesting. If I don't get a reply from him about that I guess I'll have to email him for an answer.
Ya don't mess around an 8" high pressure gas pipeline until ya get all the easements and any necessary relocations done first.
A couple of council members (Vaught included) expressed concern that nobody from Southern Star was at the meeting to answer any questions. Valid point. Question: Since their headquarters is in Kentucky were they notified that the item was going to be on the agenda and that the council might have questions for a representative of theirs?
A side note: If Vaught is so concerned about costs why did he join five (5) others on the recent National League of Cities conference in Denver from 11/30-12/4? Our council does like to compare us to other cities. So, how did other cities handle that conference? I sent inquiries to six, and received replies from three:
Unified Government Wy Co and KCK sent.........................0
Topeka, our state capital, sent..............................................0
Overland Park, sent................................................................1
Comedy line of the night at that council meeting; Kuhn stating that others were being flippant.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Happy Thanksgiving
To all who visit this blog a Happy Thanksgiving.
Side note: Will be changing computers over the next couple of days, and as such, the email notifications that are sent out about blog changes might not be going out for awhile. so, check back periodically for updates until the emails begin again.
Side note: Will be changing computers over the next couple of days, and as such, the email notifications that are sent out about blog changes might not be going out for awhile. so, check back periodically for updates until the emails begin again.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
More Pipeline Problems
Well folks, it looks like the city blew another one regarding a gas pipeline relocation. Remember the problem with the Monticello Rd (south) project? Well, at least no construction was started on that one without the relocation of the pipeline.
Now, look at tomorrow’s city council agenda, item 20, by clicking here. Then, read the background in the packet by clicking here and then scrolling to page 265.
Looks like the Roberts Street roundabout was started without having certain portions of the pipeline rerouted. It also looks like the cost now to the city will be approximately $220K. And, a delay in the completion of the project.
But more importantly what about the safety issue? You don’t mess with construction around a high pressure gas pipeline until you have it properly secured and moved if necessary. These things can go bump in the night. Don’t believe me? Read what happened in Florida just a few weeks ago by clicking here.
IMHO, there are some questions that need to be answered. And the answers need to be straight forward with no Tijuana Two Stepping.
1. Why wasn't this done prior to the start of construction?
2. Could this have created a danger to the public? (re-read the info from Florida)
3. Who approved the construction to start without remediation of the pipeline?
4. Who is going to be held accountable for this?
With two problem instances concerning Southern Star, street construction and pipelines, it is time for the citizens of Shawnee to stand up and ask for accountability. It is time for the city council to do their job to protect the citizens and not allow, condone or perpetrate a whitewash. And, IMHO the responsibility needs to fall on top level shoulders.
Now, look at tomorrow’s city council agenda, item 20, by clicking here. Then, read the background in the packet by clicking here and then scrolling to page 265.
Looks like the Roberts Street roundabout was started without having certain portions of the pipeline rerouted. It also looks like the cost now to the city will be approximately $220K. And, a delay in the completion of the project.
But more importantly what about the safety issue? You don’t mess with construction around a high pressure gas pipeline until you have it properly secured and moved if necessary. These things can go bump in the night. Don’t believe me? Read what happened in Florida just a few weeks ago by clicking here.
IMHO, there are some questions that need to be answered. And the answers need to be straight forward with no Tijuana Two Stepping.
1. Why wasn't this done prior to the start of construction?
2. Could this have created a danger to the public? (re-read the info from Florida)
3. Who approved the construction to start without remediation of the pipeline?
4. Who is going to be held accountable for this?
With two problem instances concerning Southern Star, street construction and pipelines, it is time for the citizens of Shawnee to stand up and ask for accountability. It is time for the city council to do their job to protect the citizens and not allow, condone or perpetrate a whitewash. And, IMHO the responsibility needs to fall on top level shoulders.
Kansas Open Meetings Act (Press ONE for English)
Another blogger's opinion of full minutes for council meetings:
Kansas Open Meeting Act (Press ONE for English)
Go here: http://nolathe.net/2010/11/20/kansas-open-meeting-act-press-one-for-english/
Kansas Open Meeting Act (Press ONE for English)
Go here: http://nolathe.net/2010/11/20/kansas-open-meeting-act-press-one-for-english/
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Police Response to Private Alarms
The below info was received in an email sent out by the city to all those who subscribe to the city's email update service. Based on the figures below the police department responded to over 3,200 false alarms. That is a terrible waste of time, manpower and money. Folks who have private alram systems need to be held accountable when those systems cause false alarms to be sent out.
Suggest folks attend the meeting listed in the email.
The City will host a meeting regarding police response to private alarms and to solicit input from the public. The meeting will be held on Monday, November 29 at 7:00 p.m. at the Justice Center in the Training Room, 5850 Renner Road.
The topic of the meeting will introduce possible changes to handling burglar alarms. In 2009, the Police Department responded to 3,291 alarms, 98% of which were false. Possible changes could involve procedure changes and/or fee increases to alarm holders. The proposed changes do not include responses to bank alarms, robbery alarms or medical alarms. For more information, contact Lieutenant Jodi Andrews at 742-6891.
Suggest folks attend the meeting listed in the email.
The City will host a meeting regarding police response to private alarms and to solicit input from the public. The meeting will be held on Monday, November 29 at 7:00 p.m. at the Justice Center in the Training Room, 5850 Renner Road.
The topic of the meeting will introduce possible changes to handling burglar alarms. In 2009, the Police Department responded to 3,291 alarms, 98% of which were false. Possible changes could involve procedure changes and/or fee increases to alarm holders. The proposed changes do not include responses to bank alarms, robbery alarms or medical alarms. For more information, contact Lieutenant Jodi Andrews at 742-6891.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
What Some Others Are Saying
Well, it looks like in the "Point of View" section of the Shawnee Dispatch that folks seem to think the cost of preserving council meetings with full minutes is well worth it.
http://www.shawneedispatch.com/onthestreet/2010/nov/17/do-you-think-detailed-type-written-records-city-me/
There are other places that the council could save the $17,000 without taking government transparency away from the people.
How many transcripts (and the resulting governmental transparency) could have been covered by Dawn Kuhn's trip to Vegas this year?
Good starts with a city council that is not scared of transparency.
http://www.shawneedispatch.com/onthestreet/2010/nov/17/do-you-think-detailed-type-written-records-city-me/
There are other places that the council could save the $17,000 without taking government transparency away from the people.
How many transcripts (and the resulting governmental transparency) could have been covered by Dawn Kuhn's trip to Vegas this year?
Good starts with a city council that is not scared of transparency.
Thanks for the Verification
While entering the city council chambers last night I was confronted by member Dawn Kuhn. She advised me that she had had an opportunity to read my blog. She said she found it entertaining (not sure if that was honest or sarcastic) and wanted to let me know that she had not been referred to as a motormouth since third grade. She then walked off not giving me an opportunity to reply.
Thank you for verifying that that personality trait was even recognizable at a young and tender age.
Thank you for verifying that that personality trait was even recognizable at a young and tender age.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Transparency - To Be Or Not To Be
Last Monday's council meeting was quite interesting with one of the major topics being an attempt to reduce the minutes of council proceedings from verbatim to summary.
The meeting was covered by the Shawnee Dispatch
http://www.shawneedispatch.com/news/2010/nov/10/council-delays-vote-cutting-minutes/
and the KC Star
http://www.kansascity.com/2010/11/12/2423133/shawnee-looks-at-audio-minutes.html
Basically those who wanted to change the minutes to summary form kept using the ridiculous reason of cutting costs. This is ridiculous, because, as pointed out the costs are negligible and there are transcription services (including local) that can provide full minutes at lower costs.
Then why do some want the minutes format changed from verbatim to summary? Could it be as Councilmember Mickey Sandifer once said because "they use them against us"? Could it be because Councilmember Dawn Kuhn does not want the public to see how she attempts to monopolize meetings? (Former Councilmember Kevin Straub stated his research showed that overall she was responsible for 38% of the dialog).
Full meeting minutes provide the public with complete info and transparency as to what the council does. They also provide info as to what members of the public might say at these meetings. Reducing the minutes to summary format takes all of that away. Thoughts regarding this had previously been strongly mentioned by Council Members Distler and Pflumm and alluded to by others (Sawyer, and Morris) and finally echoed by Vaught.
Additionally, it took yours truly to show that other cities are also making the results of the meetings available on the web in both audio and video format for extremely low costs, to include virtually free.
Ironically, after it was obvious that seven of the eight wanted to postpone any action (even Sandifer saw the handwriting on the wall), Dawn "Motormouth" Kuhn still tried to get the item pushed through. Methinks that maybe she not only does not want folks to see how much she rattles on, but also how she does not chair committee meetings in a fair manner. That's right.....go to a meeting that she chairs. Watch, and listen. If you agree with her you can speak all you want. Be in disagreement with her, and she'll cut you off. Her facial expressions are a dead giveaway. Also, in keeping with her motormouth know it all attitudes, she has to, most of the time, add her two cents in to everybody else’s comments.
Detailed minutes are very important and need to be maintained. The argument of cost is not valid. More info on this can be provided, but one out of town trip by the council members (like the upcoming one to Denver) would cover a year’s worth of minutes.
The meeting was covered by the Shawnee Dispatch
http://www.shawneedispatch.com/news/2010/nov/10/council-delays-vote-cutting-minutes/
and the KC Star
http://www.kansascity.com/2010/11/12/2423133/shawnee-looks-at-audio-minutes.html
Basically those who wanted to change the minutes to summary form kept using the ridiculous reason of cutting costs. This is ridiculous, because, as pointed out the costs are negligible and there are transcription services (including local) that can provide full minutes at lower costs.
Then why do some want the minutes format changed from verbatim to summary? Could it be as Councilmember Mickey Sandifer once said because "they use them against us"? Could it be because Councilmember Dawn Kuhn does not want the public to see how she attempts to monopolize meetings? (Former Councilmember Kevin Straub stated his research showed that overall she was responsible for 38% of the dialog).
Full meeting minutes provide the public with complete info and transparency as to what the council does. They also provide info as to what members of the public might say at these meetings. Reducing the minutes to summary format takes all of that away. Thoughts regarding this had previously been strongly mentioned by Council Members Distler and Pflumm and alluded to by others (Sawyer, and Morris) and finally echoed by Vaught.
Additionally, it took yours truly to show that other cities are also making the results of the meetings available on the web in both audio and video format for extremely low costs, to include virtually free.
Ironically, after it was obvious that seven of the eight wanted to postpone any action (even Sandifer saw the handwriting on the wall), Dawn "Motormouth" Kuhn still tried to get the item pushed through. Methinks that maybe she not only does not want folks to see how much she rattles on, but also how she does not chair committee meetings in a fair manner. That's right.....go to a meeting that she chairs. Watch, and listen. If you agree with her you can speak all you want. Be in disagreement with her, and she'll cut you off. Her facial expressions are a dead giveaway. Also, in keeping with her motormouth know it all attitudes, she has to, most of the time, add her two cents in to everybody else’s comments.
Detailed minutes are very important and need to be maintained. The argument of cost is not valid. More info on this can be provided, but one out of town trip by the council members (like the upcoming one to Denver) would cover a year’s worth of minutes.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)