Well, Dawn Kuhn responded to my email, which necessitated a response back by me:
Her response:
My maiden name is Dawn White.
I am paid appropriately by both the City of Shawnee and my private employer. I file the correct Federal and State tax forms accordingly.
Dawn Kuhn
Council Member Ward 3
City of Shawnee
My reply to that:
Ms. Kuhn,
You are still not answering the questions. Why are you using two different names for payment from the City of Shawnee? Your payroll is White and your expenses are Kuhn.
As for your private employer, which is it? Are they paying you under your maiden name as the city does? Or are they paying you as Kuhn?
Very simple questions.
Ray Erlichman
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Is it Kuhn or is it White?
This thing with the last names for Council Member Kuhn (see my previous posts of 3/22/12 & 3/28/12) was sticking out like a sore thumb. Decided to go straight to the source and get the info direct from the horse's mouth. Sent Ms Kuhn the following email this afternoon:
Dear Ms. Kuhn,
Based on information contained at the web site http://www.kansasopengov.org I submitted some KORA requests to the City of Shawnee.
The Kansas Open Gov site does not list “Dawn Kuhn” as a council member for Shawnee but does list a “Dawn White”.
I found this to be perplexing, since you have filed on multiple occasions for the position as “Kuhn”, are registered to vote as such, and won elections under that name. It also appears that you may have signed some of the campaign finance reports as such.
The KORA requests came back and verified that:
a. You appear on payroll for your council member’s salary with the surname of “White”
b. You receive reimbursements for expenses as a council member with the surname ‘Kuhn”
Would you care to explain why the multiple names for various reimbursements by the city to you?
Additionally, I cannot inquire of Bank Midwest as to how you appear on their payroll, but it would be interesting if you would supply that information. You are designated I believe as a Vice-President and Banking Center Manager as “Dawn Kuhn”. Do they pay you as “Kuhn” or do they pay you as “White”?
Thank you,
Ray Erlichman
Dear Ms. Kuhn,
Based on information contained at the web site http://www.kansasopengov.org I submitted some KORA requests to the City of Shawnee.
The Kansas Open Gov site does not list “Dawn Kuhn” as a council member for Shawnee but does list a “Dawn White”.
I found this to be perplexing, since you have filed on multiple occasions for the position as “Kuhn”, are registered to vote as such, and won elections under that name. It also appears that you may have signed some of the campaign finance reports as such.
The KORA requests came back and verified that:
a. You appear on payroll for your council member’s salary with the surname of “White”
b. You receive reimbursements for expenses as a council member with the surname ‘Kuhn”
Would you care to explain why the multiple names for various reimbursements by the city to you?
Additionally, I cannot inquire of Bank Midwest as to how you appear on their payroll, but it would be interesting if you would supply that information. You are designated I believe as a Vice-President and Banking Center Manager as “Dawn Kuhn”. Do they pay you as “Kuhn” or do they pay you as “White”?
Thank you,
Ray Erlichman
Where Are the Line Items?
Well, the "Minutes" package for the 5/22/12 committee meeting has been posted, but without the line item budgets, just the summary minutes.
Where are they? Hmmmmm, there were some items that Councilmember Sawyer questioned and he was told they could be discussed by contacting the city manager later.
Maybe some members of the community have questions. Why not post them on line?
Do we know how to spell transparency? I know, it's spelled "contact me later".
Where are they? Hmmmmm, there were some items that Councilmember Sawyer questioned and he was told they could be discussed by contacting the city manager later.
Maybe some members of the community have questions. Why not post them on line?
Do we know how to spell transparency? I know, it's spelled "contact me later".
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Vacancy in Ward II
In a surprise move, David Morris resigned last Thursday night as council member from Ward II.
The process for filling that position has started, and the information is available at
http://www.cityofshawnee.org/Web/ShawneeCMS.nsf/vwNews/F183A8791A7F497686257A0D0059B887?OpenDocument
The process for filling that position has started, and the information is available at
http://www.cityofshawnee.org/Web/ShawneeCMS.nsf/vwNews/F183A8791A7F497686257A0D0059B887?OpenDocument
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Budget Meeting - What Happened 5/22/12?
I waited until today to post my comments because I wanted to see when the minutes and the minutes packet would be posted on the city's web site. Usually it is done within 2 days of a meeting. As of this morning they have not been posted.
There were some interesting items brought up at the meeting and folks need to read and hear the info.
One thing that I found strange was that at the beginning of the meeting the city manager handed out line item budgets for each department. (What is in the agenda packet for each department are not line item budgets). She then told the council members that they would not be discussing them and if anybody had any questions they could contact her individually.
Well, Council member Sawyer questioned the overtime expenditures for some of the departments. Not because he felt they were unjustified, just wanted some clarification. That's normal. The third time he asked, the repartee between him and the city manager got quite contentious. She informed him he could contact her later and they would discuss. He then made some comment about would that be a back room discussion.
So, where are these line item budgets? Why aren't they or the minutes package on line? Why couldn't council members discuss line items in open session? Why would they have to contact the city manager away from the meeting? You can (or should be able to hear) the back and forth on this on the audio version of the meeting.
Historical date: Jeff Vaught actually expressed concern about something that I agree with. He was concerned about the city continuing to use Lotus Notes as the basis for various databases and other computer functions. Definitely something that needs to be researched further.
There were some interesting items brought up at the meeting and folks need to read and hear the info.
One thing that I found strange was that at the beginning of the meeting the city manager handed out line item budgets for each department. (What is in the agenda packet for each department are not line item budgets). She then told the council members that they would not be discussing them and if anybody had any questions they could contact her individually.
Well, Council member Sawyer questioned the overtime expenditures for some of the departments. Not because he felt they were unjustified, just wanted some clarification. That's normal. The third time he asked, the repartee between him and the city manager got quite contentious. She informed him he could contact her later and they would discuss. He then made some comment about would that be a back room discussion.
So, where are these line item budgets? Why aren't they or the minutes package on line? Why couldn't council members discuss line items in open session? Why would they have to contact the city manager away from the meeting? You can (or should be able to hear) the back and forth on this on the audio version of the meeting.
Historical date: Jeff Vaught actually expressed concern about something that I agree with. He was concerned about the city continuing to use Lotus Notes as the basis for various databases and other computer functions. Definitely something that needs to be researched further.
Friday, May 18, 2012
Budget Meeting - Tuesday 5/22/12
7:00PM Tue 3/22/12 at city hall
From the city's email announcement:
"This budget meeting will be a review of the General Fund including:
revenues, background and options related to critical issues,
Information Technology program; and, department presentations"
From the city's email announcement:
"This budget meeting will be a review of the General Fund including:
revenues, background and options related to critical issues,
Information Technology program; and, department presentations"
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Economic Development..............Who Pays?
Pretty buzz words aren't they? Economic development..................wow............gotta have it...........maybe..........sometimes..............who pays for it? What is the return?
OK, here is an opinion piece that was in the KC Star today. Now, it is a little on the lengthy side, but definitely deserves a read. And yes, it is regarding a situation between KCMO and Overland Park, but certain items satnd out.
http://www.kansascity.com/2012/05/09/3603413/picking-taxpayers-pockets-for.html
Now, when you read that article, pay particular attention to this portion of it:
Teva Neuroscience soon will get what it wants which, according to the city staff report, is “proximity to the Overland Park convention center and the city’s other amenities.”
Wait a minute.
Didn’t the public help build all those amenities partly to attract companies like Teva, per Eilert’s tactics many years ago? Absolutely. But now taxpayers will have to shell out again to actually get the businesses to come to Overland Park. Disgraceful
Taxpayer money to build the attractions that were supposed to attract new businesses, and now taxpayer money to pay those new businesses for coming into the area?????
Interesting, huh?
Each and every future economic development plan for Shawnee needs to be gone over with a fine tooth comb. Bully tactics against those who raise objections are not to be tolerated. Some plans are good, some are typical "stick it to the taxpayers". The bully tactics are like "if you're not in favor of this economic development plan then you are anti-Shawnee". Complete analysis is needed of each plan pur forth.
OK, here is an opinion piece that was in the KC Star today. Now, it is a little on the lengthy side, but definitely deserves a read. And yes, it is regarding a situation between KCMO and Overland Park, but certain items satnd out.
http://www.kansascity.com/2012/05/09/3603413/picking-taxpayers-pockets-for.html
Now, when you read that article, pay particular attention to this portion of it:
Teva Neuroscience soon will get what it wants which, according to the city staff report, is “proximity to the Overland Park convention center and the city’s other amenities.”
Wait a minute.
Didn’t the public help build all those amenities partly to attract companies like Teva, per Eilert’s tactics many years ago? Absolutely. But now taxpayers will have to shell out again to actually get the businesses to come to Overland Park. Disgraceful
Taxpayer money to build the attractions that were supposed to attract new businesses, and now taxpayer money to pay those new businesses for coming into the area?????
Interesting, huh?
Each and every future economic development plan for Shawnee needs to be gone over with a fine tooth comb. Bully tactics against those who raise objections are not to be tolerated. Some plans are good, some are typical "stick it to the taxpayers". The bully tactics are like "if you're not in favor of this economic development plan then you are anti-Shawnee". Complete analysis is needed of each plan pur forth.
Sunday, May 06, 2012
Budget Items for 2013
Some of the budget items for 2013 will be discussed at the council committee meeting Tuesday, 5/8/12 at city hall at 7:00PM
Go here and click on the agenda packet for 5/8/12 to see the items to be discussed that evening:
http://www.cityofshawnee.org/WEB/ShawneeCMS.nsf/vwContent/AgendasMinutes?OpenDocument&navKey=AgendasMinutesGovernment
Go here and click on the agenda packet for 5/8/12 to see the items to be discussed that evening:
http://www.cityofshawnee.org/WEB/ShawneeCMS.nsf/vwContent/AgendasMinutes?OpenDocument&navKey=AgendasMinutesGovernment
Wednesday, May 02, 2012
Repeating Info For Veterans
Memorial Day this year is Monday, the 28th. There will be various activities in the metro area.
Some of these activities will most likely include the playing of the national anthem and the colors being raised or marching by.
As such, I'd like to repeat a post from last year:
The Defense Authorization Acts of 2008 and 2009 had some interesting changes.
Veterans, and active duty military in civilian clothing now have the option of rendering the military style hand salute instead of the civilian hand over the chest salute. This applies to the raising, lowering or passing of the colors as well as during the playing of the National Anthem.
Those individuals who are wearing cover (hats/caps for the uninformed civilians) may keep the cover on while rendering the hand salute. If they choose to perform the civilian hand over the chest then they should remove their cover, and hold it over their chest.
Some of these activities will most likely include the playing of the national anthem and the colors being raised or marching by.
As such, I'd like to repeat a post from last year:
The Defense Authorization Acts of 2008 and 2009 had some interesting changes.
Veterans, and active duty military in civilian clothing now have the option of rendering the military style hand salute instead of the civilian hand over the chest salute. This applies to the raising, lowering or passing of the colors as well as during the playing of the National Anthem.
Those individuals who are wearing cover (hats/caps for the uninformed civilians) may keep the cover on while rendering the hand salute. If they choose to perform the civilian hand over the chest then they should remove their cover, and hold it over their chest.
Tuesday, May 01, 2012
Budget for 2013
Are you interested in the city's budget and how your tax dollars are spent?
The list of meeting dates for this item are on line at http://www.cityofshawnee.org/WEB/ShawneeCMS.nsf/vwContent/2013BudgetCalendar?OpenDocument
Get involved..................
The list of meeting dates for this item are on line at http://www.cityofshawnee.org/WEB/ShawneeCMS.nsf/vwContent/2013BudgetCalendar?OpenDocument
Get involved..................
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Coming Soon, to A Computer Near You
In the not too distant future there will be videos of the city council and committee meetings posted on line.
If you remember, certain members of the city council voted to do away with the detailed council minutes. The audio versions of council meetings are nice, but unless one knows who is speaking it is sometimes hard to tell who it is. Granted, the mayor is supposed to reognize council members and folks that come to the podium usually identify themselves, but sometimes there are cross conversations.
Anyway, some cities already provide videos of council meetings and some even provide live web streaming.
Shawnee is not going to do either, so a group of individuals have gotten together and will be doing it.
Now for the laugh of the week.......last week one of the councilmembers was overheard to say something to the effect that folks who sit around taking videos of council meetings must lead pathetic lives. Gee, if the city would do it, then folks would not have to get together on their own to do it. Making disparaging comments about folks who are willing to, on their own, provide a service that the city won't provide should be commended, not ridiculed. Wonder if the taking of these videos would count towards the city's new volunteer program? Just kidding
Anyway, down the road, once this really gets going, the folks involved will be providing their time and some funds for this civic endeavor. Just hope that the rest of the city finds the info helpful and useful.
If you remember, certain members of the city council voted to do away with the detailed council minutes. The audio versions of council meetings are nice, but unless one knows who is speaking it is sometimes hard to tell who it is. Granted, the mayor is supposed to reognize council members and folks that come to the podium usually identify themselves, but sometimes there are cross conversations.
Anyway, some cities already provide videos of council meetings and some even provide live web streaming.
Shawnee is not going to do either, so a group of individuals have gotten together and will be doing it.
Now for the laugh of the week.......last week one of the councilmembers was overheard to say something to the effect that folks who sit around taking videos of council meetings must lead pathetic lives. Gee, if the city would do it, then folks would not have to get together on their own to do it. Making disparaging comments about folks who are willing to, on their own, provide a service that the city won't provide should be commended, not ridiculed. Wonder if the taking of these videos would count towards the city's new volunteer program? Just kidding
Anyway, down the road, once this really gets going, the folks involved will be providing their time and some funds for this civic endeavor. Just hope that the rest of the city finds the info helpful and useful.
Sunday, April 22, 2012
After The Smoke Has Cleared
Well, it’s been almost three weeks since the Shawnee city elections.
Sometimes, certain things are best said after the election when people aren’t so hung up on emotions and can think.
During the campaign, Jeff Vaught, 3d Ward councilmember accused State Rep. John Rubin of meddling in city elections. Apparently we have another instance in which Vaught needs a refresher course (that is if he ever took the original) on civics 101.
Representative Rubin has every right to speak out on Shawnee elections. He is a resident of the city, and as such who gets elected to what positions concerns him. Additionally, by claiming that Mr. Rubin is meddling Vaught is contradicting some of his own previous statements. Remember he (Vaught) said I didn’t have a stake in Shawnee because I rented, and unlike him (Vaught) I didn’t have a property tax statement. Guess what? Mister Rubin does own a residence in Shawnee, and he does have a property tax statement. So he is entitled to speak out on candidates running for office in Shawnee. And, he has done a lot more to preserve and protect our rights as citizens to speak out than Vaught has ever done. Individuals such as Mr. Rubin who have served in the military are the ones who have protected those rights.
Sidebar: Another updated civics lesson for Vaught……..people who rent are still entitled to vote, and to voice their opinion. Reminder: they pay property taxes included in their rent, they pay property taxes on their vehicles, sales taxes, franchise fees, etc., of which the city gets its share. Unless Mr. Vaught would like to support exempting renters from these taxes? Additionally there are many renters who have served this country to protect those voting and free speech rights.
Sometimes, certain things are best said after the election when people aren’t so hung up on emotions and can think.
During the campaign, Jeff Vaught, 3d Ward councilmember accused State Rep. John Rubin of meddling in city elections. Apparently we have another instance in which Vaught needs a refresher course (that is if he ever took the original) on civics 101.
Representative Rubin has every right to speak out on Shawnee elections. He is a resident of the city, and as such who gets elected to what positions concerns him. Additionally, by claiming that Mr. Rubin is meddling Vaught is contradicting some of his own previous statements. Remember he (Vaught) said I didn’t have a stake in Shawnee because I rented, and unlike him (Vaught) I didn’t have a property tax statement. Guess what? Mister Rubin does own a residence in Shawnee, and he does have a property tax statement. So he is entitled to speak out on candidates running for office in Shawnee. And, he has done a lot more to preserve and protect our rights as citizens to speak out than Vaught has ever done. Individuals such as Mr. Rubin who have served in the military are the ones who have protected those rights.
Sidebar: Another updated civics lesson for Vaught……..people who rent are still entitled to vote, and to voice their opinion. Reminder: they pay property taxes included in their rent, they pay property taxes on their vehicles, sales taxes, franchise fees, etc., of which the city gets its share. Unless Mr. Vaught would like to support exempting renters from these taxes? Additionally there are many renters who have served this country to protect those voting and free speech rights.
Monday, April 16, 2012
New Budget Process Starts
The new budget process begins with some presentations to the Council Committee tomorrow, Tue, 4/17/12 at 7:00PM
For a schedule of the meetings that will have budget items/reviews etc go to
http://www.cityofshawnee.org/WEB/ShawneeCMS.nsf/vwContent/2013BudgetCalendar?OpenDocument
For a schedule of the meetings that will have budget items/reviews etc go to
http://www.cityofshawnee.org/WEB/ShawneeCMS.nsf/vwContent/2013BudgetCalendar?OpenDocument
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Missing Girl
Received information about a girl missing in Merriam, KS
For the press release and photo from the Meriam PD please click here
http://savemission.net/Documents/04-09-2012%20Keely%20Alder-Merriam%20PD.pdf
For the press release and photo from the Meriam PD please click here
http://savemission.net/Documents/04-09-2012%20Keely%20Alder-Merriam%20PD.pdf
Sunday, April 08, 2012
Riding the Circuit
Yesterday, Saturday, I did another ride along with the Shawnee PD. This was a day shift ride along (6:30AM-2:30PM), so I have now ridden all three shifts.
I observed a variety of field situations including an arrest on a burglary charge. As a result of that item, and the officer being involved in a procedural action that was going to take time, I actually had the opportunity to ride with a different officer. The arrested individual appeared to have a medical problem, possibly drug related. It was imperative that a medical exam be performed in a hospital environment, prior to transport to JoCo Detention.
I found yesterday's experience to be very informative. The officers appear to be educated and well trained. And, IMHO, something that is just as important is that they seem to possess a high degree of common sense. In many jobs today folks seem to have let common sense go out the window. I personally think that when it comes to law enforcement and dealing with the public that common sense becomes important, and these officers exhibited that.
My previous rides were the midnight shift from 10:30PM to 6:30AM, and an evening shift from 6:30pm to 10:30pm. Because of time constraints on my part I couldn't start at 2:30PM. Six months from now I will probably request another ride with the evening shift.
I observed a variety of field situations including an arrest on a burglary charge. As a result of that item, and the officer being involved in a procedural action that was going to take time, I actually had the opportunity to ride with a different officer. The arrested individual appeared to have a medical problem, possibly drug related. It was imperative that a medical exam be performed in a hospital environment, prior to transport to JoCo Detention.
I found yesterday's experience to be very informative. The officers appear to be educated and well trained. And, IMHO, something that is just as important is that they seem to possess a high degree of common sense. In many jobs today folks seem to have let common sense go out the window. I personally think that when it comes to law enforcement and dealing with the public that common sense becomes important, and these officers exhibited that.
My previous rides were the midnight shift from 10:30PM to 6:30AM, and an evening shift from 6:30pm to 10:30pm. Because of time constraints on my part I couldn't start at 2:30PM. Six months from now I will probably request another ride with the evening shift.
Thursday, April 05, 2012
A Reader's Comment
Received this yesterday from a reader of this blog:
"I'm really disappointed in turnout and voting standards of Shawnee voters. Returning ALL the incumbents just shows how apathetic voter knowledge has become. I read both the post cards from the Coalition for Better Cities and the retort presented by Anonymous. The Coalition's cases were well documented and easy for anyone to follow up on to determine the accuracy of the information they presented. On the other hand, the followup post card just stated they these were lies with no real facts to back up their claims. It was obvious by the polls that voters are making their decisions based on the latest information they receive regardless of whether it is true or not. Of course this isn't new in American politics, which would explain the "flavor of the week" Republican Primary over the past year. It is really sad that with all the modern conveniences we have to access information today, that most American would rather use it to learn more about Kim Kardashian's divorce than the wasteful spending that is occurring in their own city government.
A B, Shawnee, KS"
"I'm really disappointed in turnout and voting standards of Shawnee voters. Returning ALL the incumbents just shows how apathetic voter knowledge has become. I read both the post cards from the Coalition for Better Cities and the retort presented by Anonymous. The Coalition's cases were well documented and easy for anyone to follow up on to determine the accuracy of the information they presented. On the other hand, the followup post card just stated they these were lies with no real facts to back up their claims. It was obvious by the polls that voters are making their decisions based on the latest information they receive regardless of whether it is true or not. Of course this isn't new in American politics, which would explain the "flavor of the week" Republican Primary over the past year. It is really sad that with all the modern conveniences we have to access information today, that most American would rather use it to learn more about Kim Kardashian's divorce than the wasteful spending that is occurring in their own city government.
A B, Shawnee, KS"
Wednesday, April 04, 2012
Yesterday's Election
Looks like all Shawnee incumbents were returned to office.
Congratulations are in order.
Congratulations are in order.
Tuesday, April 03, 2012
Endorsements by the Shawnee Mission Times
The Shawnee Mission Times has endorsed:
Mayor Eric Jenkins
Ward 1 Charles Macheers
Ward 2 Mike Kemmling
Ward 3 James Ferris
Ward 4 Dylan McAfee
To view the endorsement, go here:
http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=m9gaaniab&v=001PAHSyKgq2IqRkeM0IiCtlLMqlU-ZLsH6hQGAMcnsHJwUrsthoy4Mw4P0R6SAzqy6jP6TH9QuhKw-icpDFQfcz__8TWBZYSOPsPXNqt0X48A%3D
If you haven't read the previous post, "Tomorrow's the Day" please scroll down to read it. Thank you.
Mayor Eric Jenkins
Ward 1 Charles Macheers
Ward 2 Mike Kemmling
Ward 3 James Ferris
Ward 4 Dylan McAfee
To view the endorsement, go here:
http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=m9gaaniab&v=001PAHSyKgq2IqRkeM0IiCtlLMqlU-ZLsH6hQGAMcnsHJwUrsthoy4Mw4P0R6SAzqy6jP6TH9QuhKw-icpDFQfcz__8TWBZYSOPsPXNqt0X48A%3D
If you haven't read the previous post, "Tomorrow's the Day" please scroll down to read it. Thank you.
Monday, April 02, 2012
Tomorrow's The Day
Election day 2012. In the post immediately preceding this one is the press release about the CBC filing campaign ethics complaints. I sincerely hope that folks of intelligence don't buy into the garbage mailer that the CBC is filing against.
Can you believe? Somebody, sends out a mailer accusing the challengers for city office of lying. Yet, the challengers all cite dates of votes that the incumbents made. Verifiable by city meeting minutes. How can those be lies? The incumbents have not once defended their council voting record. And then that mailer goes out with nobody saying who paid for it. Gee, an anonymous hit piece. With no verifiable facts stated.
What do we have for incumbents? A councilmember who gets her paycheck under an entirely different name, but her expenses reimbursed under her known name. And voting for various burdens to be placed on the population and to eliminate tranparency. A councilmember who has no problem in taking many, many trips at the taxpayer's expense. And voting for various burdens to be placed on the population and eliminating tranparency. An appointed councilmember who apparently was rewarded for his previous losing election campaign. And voting for burdens to be placed on the population and eliminating tranparency. And he wasn't even elected to represent his ward. And then a councilmember who has voted for various tax increases and a reduction in transparency. The mayor, has broken many tie votes, to cause the citizens of the city to get hit with additional tax and fee burdens.
It's time that the people took back the city:
Eric Jenkins for Mayor
Charles Macheers for Council Ward I
Mike Kemmling for Council Ward II
Jim Ferris for Council Ward III
Dylan McAfee for Council Ward IV
Can you believe? Somebody, sends out a mailer accusing the challengers for city office of lying. Yet, the challengers all cite dates of votes that the incumbents made. Verifiable by city meeting minutes. How can those be lies? The incumbents have not once defended their council voting record. And then that mailer goes out with nobody saying who paid for it. Gee, an anonymous hit piece. With no verifiable facts stated.
What do we have for incumbents? A councilmember who gets her paycheck under an entirely different name, but her expenses reimbursed under her known name. And voting for various burdens to be placed on the population and to eliminate tranparency. A councilmember who has no problem in taking many, many trips at the taxpayer's expense. And voting for various burdens to be placed on the population and eliminating tranparency. An appointed councilmember who apparently was rewarded for his previous losing election campaign. And voting for burdens to be placed on the population and eliminating tranparency. And he wasn't even elected to represent his ward. And then a councilmember who has voted for various tax increases and a reduction in transparency. The mayor, has broken many tie votes, to cause the citizens of the city to get hit with additional tax and fee burdens.
It's time that the people took back the city:
Eric Jenkins for Mayor
Charles Macheers for Council Ward I
Mike Kemmling for Council Ward II
Jim Ferris for Council Ward III
Dylan McAfee for Council Ward IV
Sunday, April 01, 2012
Press Release - Coalition For Better Cities To File Ethics Complaints
This afternoon the Coalition for Better Cities issued a press release regarding the recent undocumented mailers sent out in Shawnee and Mission KS. The press release speaks for itself and does not necessitate any editorializing on my part.
The text of the press release follows:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 1, 2012
Contact: Jacob Swisher
Phone: (913) 575-2759
Coalition for Better Cities Files Campaign Ethics Charges Against Opponents
Local elections in the cities of Shawnee and Mission in Johnson County, Kansas, are upon us. But now the heat of these elections may have produced violations in Kansas election law.
In the races for Shawnee mayor and city council as well as for city council seats in Mission, there has been plenty of passion on the issues that matter most to voters. On Tuesday, April 3, citizens will have the opportunity to select their preference for mayor in Shawnee, and for city council seats there, while residents of Mission will vote on positions for their city council.
This week, certain election activities in both these cities very well may have crossed the line to possible violations of Kansas governmental ethics rules. Therefore, a formal filing of three separate complaints will be lodged with Carol Williams, Executive Director of the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission tomorrow, Monday, April 2, 2012, as well as with Brian Newby, Johnson County Election Commissioner.
Coalition for Better Cities (CBC) is filing these complaints of possible violations of Kansas election law, two from within the current city of Shawnee political establishment and one from the city of Mission.
These complaints are as follows: 1) the use of governmental resources going to campaigns of incumbents, using time during a Shawnee city council meeting to campaign, by current Councilman Jeff Vaught; 2) the improper distribution of electioneering materials via the U.S. mail to voters in the City of Shawnee; and 3) a similar mailing to voters in the City of Mission.
The mailings in question did not state the organization which sent the mailings, itself a clear violation of Kansas law. As for the allegations in these mailings, the issues which they reference were clearly stated in Shawnee city council minutes and are dully notated on the respective mailers. Evidently, these parties have enough finances to conduct mailings, but at no time have they utilized any of their mailings to respond on the actual issues CBC has publicly brought forward, but only to try and smear those who oppose them.
The group in favor of the status quo in Mission and Shawnee city governments blatantly lied. It falsely asserted that outside organizations were involved in the funding of previous CBC mailings and activities, basing these false accusations on what they admit in the Shawnee mailing were mere rumors.
CBC finds it ironic that the questionable mailings from our opponents bear a return address from a Kansas City, Missouri post office box. And therefore, we believe it is appropriate to ask the question of why the citizens of the cities of Shawnee and Mission should allow parties from across the state line to try to tell them how matters should be handled?
Coalition for Better Cities
Currie Myers – Chairman
Michael Swisher, CPA - Treasurer
The text of the press release follows:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 1, 2012
Contact: Jacob Swisher
Phone: (913) 575-2759
Coalition for Better Cities Files Campaign Ethics Charges Against Opponents
Local elections in the cities of Shawnee and Mission in Johnson County, Kansas, are upon us. But now the heat of these elections may have produced violations in Kansas election law.
In the races for Shawnee mayor and city council as well as for city council seats in Mission, there has been plenty of passion on the issues that matter most to voters. On Tuesday, April 3, citizens will have the opportunity to select their preference for mayor in Shawnee, and for city council seats there, while residents of Mission will vote on positions for their city council.
This week, certain election activities in both these cities very well may have crossed the line to possible violations of Kansas governmental ethics rules. Therefore, a formal filing of three separate complaints will be lodged with Carol Williams, Executive Director of the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission tomorrow, Monday, April 2, 2012, as well as with Brian Newby, Johnson County Election Commissioner.
Coalition for Better Cities (CBC) is filing these complaints of possible violations of Kansas election law, two from within the current city of Shawnee political establishment and one from the city of Mission.
These complaints are as follows: 1) the use of governmental resources going to campaigns of incumbents, using time during a Shawnee city council meeting to campaign, by current Councilman Jeff Vaught; 2) the improper distribution of electioneering materials via the U.S. mail to voters in the City of Shawnee; and 3) a similar mailing to voters in the City of Mission.
The mailings in question did not state the organization which sent the mailings, itself a clear violation of Kansas law. As for the allegations in these mailings, the issues which they reference were clearly stated in Shawnee city council minutes and are dully notated on the respective mailers. Evidently, these parties have enough finances to conduct mailings, but at no time have they utilized any of their mailings to respond on the actual issues CBC has publicly brought forward, but only to try and smear those who oppose them.
The group in favor of the status quo in Mission and Shawnee city governments blatantly lied. It falsely asserted that outside organizations were involved in the funding of previous CBC mailings and activities, basing these false accusations on what they admit in the Shawnee mailing were mere rumors.
CBC finds it ironic that the questionable mailings from our opponents bear a return address from a Kansas City, Missouri post office box. And therefore, we believe it is appropriate to ask the question of why the citizens of the cities of Shawnee and Mission should allow parties from across the state line to try to tell them how matters should be handled?
Coalition for Better Cities
Currie Myers – Chairman
Michael Swisher, CPA - Treasurer
A Disgusting Mailer
Yesterday (Saturday) I received a mailer stating that recent mailers expressing dissatisfaction with the current council members and mayor contained lies.
Well, maybe because of my zip code I had received two of those dissatisfaction mailers. The ones about Sandifer and Sawyer.
Looking at those two mailers they mention votes that the council members made on various issues. How are those lies? One of the mailers mentioned Sandifer’s trips at the city’s expense. Heck, I’ve actually documented many of them here.
Anyway, what concerns me the most about the one received yesterday, the one that claims the others contained lies, is that whoever sent them does not have the intestinal fortitude to say who they are.
They are mailed with a post office box number as a return address but no name to go with it. At the bottom of the mailer it says “Not paid for by any candidate or campaign committee” Well if they feel so strongly about their views why can’t they tell us who they are? Why are they being so secretive?
Anyway, I checked with some friends and they had not received the mailer, yet. I’m guessing they might receive it Monday. If you have received it, or if you do receive it, look at it. There is no way to tell who sent it. Kind of cowardly if you ask me, and makes the veracity of their statements questionable.
My opinion: The original mailers sent out expressing dissatisfaction with the current incumbents states verifiable facts. The item received yesterday is even more reason to vote out the incumbents.
Well, maybe because of my zip code I had received two of those dissatisfaction mailers. The ones about Sandifer and Sawyer.
Looking at those two mailers they mention votes that the council members made on various issues. How are those lies? One of the mailers mentioned Sandifer’s trips at the city’s expense. Heck, I’ve actually documented many of them here.
Anyway, what concerns me the most about the one received yesterday, the one that claims the others contained lies, is that whoever sent them does not have the intestinal fortitude to say who they are.
They are mailed with a post office box number as a return address but no name to go with it. At the bottom of the mailer it says “Not paid for by any candidate or campaign committee” Well if they feel so strongly about their views why can’t they tell us who they are? Why are they being so secretive?
Anyway, I checked with some friends and they had not received the mailer, yet. I’m guessing they might receive it Monday. If you have received it, or if you do receive it, look at it. There is no way to tell who sent it. Kind of cowardly if you ask me, and makes the veracity of their statements questionable.
My opinion: The original mailers sent out expressing dissatisfaction with the current incumbents states verifiable facts. The item received yesterday is even more reason to vote out the incumbents.
Friday, March 30, 2012
Another Response by the KSRA to Jeff Vaught
Councilman Jeff Vaught sent out an email and posted an item on his blog with some comments directed towards the KSRA (Kansas State Rifle Assoc.). Patricia Stoneking, President of the KSRA has responded to those comments, a copy of which is posted below:
Mr. Vaught, again you have your facts wrong and I’ll be happy to answer your questions.
The KSRA PAC had 55 donors in 2011, not 12. Certainly as someone who ran for office you must know that your Campaign Finance report reflects donations that are not itemized. So if you are going to espouse specific figures, let’s get them right. I would want to believe that your level of education affords you the knowledge of what it means to take things out of context and that is exactly what you have done.
The KSRA PAC was established by the KSRA in 2009 for the purposes of being more effective in promoting pro Second Amendment individuals to local and state offices. The KSRA is a 501(c)4 affording it the privilege of being involved in politics and legislation. The PAC was established as the vehicle to use for those ends so that we could achieve what our 8000+ members expect us to. Apparently you find something insidious about the organization donating to its own efforts. We are accountable only to our members and to the Ethics Commission and it is absolutely absurd to insinuate that there is something wrong with the KSRA allocating money to a wing of its organization to assist in achieving its goals. You might wish to check your math as well because the PAC raised $5501.52 in 2011 whereas your figures add up to $4600.00. I digress for a moment and point out you must have forgotten about all of those small donations that are not itemized. I’m sure to the logical person these facts shed a different light.
Additionally Mr. Vaught, individuals who care deeply about their Constitutional Second Amendment rights and have the means to make sizeable donations will always be the largest donors. When the first Ethics Commission Report for 2012 is filed on July 30, 2012 for the period January 1, 2012 through July 26, 2012 you can then add a few more equally large donors to your list of people who you can accuse of trying to buy the elections. Your rhetoric in this regard is deplorable.
Regarding your comments as follows: “First, you need to know about me. I'm a long time NRA member, conceal carry supporter, avid sportsman, and I have always been a defender of the Constitution, especially the 2nd Amendment. My concern with Ms. Stoneking's comments is the implication that Shawnee has tried to pass ordinances taking away resident's gun rights. Where and when?? The last thing we did was lessened the restrictions on deer management (led by me). Here is a link to Shawnee's ordinances. Enter 3003 in the search box or the word 'gun'.” “There has been any nonsense coming out of Shawnee City Council regarding firearms nor has there been any controversy in recent years. In fact, City Manager Carol Gonzales has never gotten a complaint on a weapons issue, never! If this is such an issue, why has no one ever addressed it to the city manager? Also, when we updated some language in late 2011 in regards to firearms, I attempted to contact Mike Egan to get his input. He never returned my calls. And, not one person form KSRA or any other pro gun organization was at the meeting to voice their concerns. I read the language of it carefully to make sure that we weren't infringing on the rights of gun owners and I don't believe we did. So again Ms. Stoneking, can you please give me some examples of what you are talking about.”
Considering that you were only elected in 2010 and sworn in to office on April 12, 2010 you are obviously not aware of all of the issues that we have dealt with. Here are just two examples.
On September 1, 2011 I was contacted by a concerned party about AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 9.13 OF THE SHAWNEE MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATING THE USE, DISCHARGE, AND POSSESSION OF WEAPONS AND FIREARMS WITHIN THE CITY OF SHAWNEE. I have attached a copy for your reference. I was asked to review the ordinance, which I did, and I found that proper exemptions for those with Concealed Carry Permits were not in place on several provisions. I then contacted the City Attorney and received a call back from Karen Torline on September 6, 2011 and spent a great deal of time reviewing the changes that needed to be made with her. On September 13, 2011 I received a copy of the revised ordinance incorporating the changes and corrections I asked for. I have attached a copy of that for your records as well. I will suggest to you that a Second Amendment friendly administration would have easily known that the exemptions would be a critical part of the ordinance. Of course it was not hard to reach that conclusion and based upon the fact that you state “I read the language of it carefully to make sure that we weren't infringing on the rights of gun owners and I don't believe we did.”, it’s a good thing I reviewed it and requested the changes as you obviously did not identify the need.
During the 2008 Kansas Legislative Session KSRA supported the passage of The Emergency Powers Act. It became law July 1, 2008. This Act expressly prohibits any jurisdiction of this state regarding confiscation of firearms during a disaster or national, state or local emergency. On August 11, 2008 your City Manager and Councilwoman Dawn Kuhn advocated for changes to the Shawnee Emergency Preparedness for Disasters ordinance that allowed for the confiscation of firearms during those times of emergency. Councilwoman Michelle Distler brought to everyone’s attention that the provisions in 2.04.065 possibly needed to be changed to be in line with state law. Even City Attorney Rainey conceded there were “obviously very significant and substantial questions”. However, disturbing discussion took place at that meeting as well as the September 8, 2008 meeting with several wanting to go ahead and pass it with the illegal provisions and that was brought to our attention by a concerned party, after which we felt intervention was necessary. I provided Councilwoman Michelle Distler with copies of the state statute concerning this subject so that she could present that material to the City Manager, City Attorney, Mayor and City Council Members. We had multiple lengthy discussions to ensure that she understood the state law and could present it to the interested parties. Following are links to the minutes from the three meetings in which this matter was discussed. The discussion that took place should be an eye opener for you.
http://www.cityofshawnee.org/WEB/MINUTES.NSF/57ea996d63a33ee3862573de0071f123/3bca7bde4f8babc3862574b2006633ab?OpenDocument
http://www.cityofshawnee.org/WEB/MINUTES.NSF/57ea996d63a33ee3862573de0071f123/cd7bffd4437d584b862574d0007315d1?OpenDocument
http://www.cityofshawnee.org/WEB/MINUTES.NSF/57ea996d63a33ee3862573de0071f123/3df77296ed67e80e862574e300741b88?OpenDocument
Mr. Vaught, I don’t need to attend your meetings. The KSRA has eyes and ears everywhere in this state. It’s called grassroots activism. When something is awry I always hear about it and I will always respond as appropriate. My time is valuable sir and the work that needs to be done is accomplished without having to attend your meetings to police everything you do. Our interest is only in Second Amendment issues and we don’t feel compelled to sit through hours of business having nothing to do with that. Our members are going to call us. It’s why they are members. I cannot answer for them as to why they did not complain to your City Manager other than to say the average citizen is not an expert in Second Amendment legislation or ordinances and they are members so they can depend on professionals who have a great deal of expertise and knowledge such as I and my board have.
This public dialogue began with your vitriolic and unwarranted statements at the council meeting earlier this week because you are obviously unhappy that the KSRA PAC has endorsed candidates that you do not like. As I’ve already stated, we have every legitimate right to make endorsements and/or grade candidates for any office we choose. It is quite perplexing that you have made such blatantly false and serious accusations. As a sitting councilman who is not up for reelection you do so at great peril as you might find yourself having to work with those folks. Your actions are obviously personally motivated.
As a side note, I have read your blog and I also received an email from you and you disparage the Kansas Legislature, the Republican Party Leadership, the Republican Caucus, “a State Representative”, “several organizations and associations” and calling people liars, calling members of the Republican Party “rogue” and “righter than right” all in the light that they have committed some terrible offense but claim you are concerned about the perception of your city. YOU are a representative of your city, the others are not. Couple that with your statements regarding KSRA and I’ll just close by giving you a morsel of wisdom. If you think someone has done something wrong, doing wrong yourself is never the solution and only makes you as guilty as those you accuse. Those who wish to truly bring people together pave the path to peace, not throw gasoline on the fire.
Mr. Vaught, again you have your facts wrong and I’ll be happy to answer your questions.
The KSRA PAC had 55 donors in 2011, not 12. Certainly as someone who ran for office you must know that your Campaign Finance report reflects donations that are not itemized. So if you are going to espouse specific figures, let’s get them right. I would want to believe that your level of education affords you the knowledge of what it means to take things out of context and that is exactly what you have done.
The KSRA PAC was established by the KSRA in 2009 for the purposes of being more effective in promoting pro Second Amendment individuals to local and state offices. The KSRA is a 501(c)4 affording it the privilege of being involved in politics and legislation. The PAC was established as the vehicle to use for those ends so that we could achieve what our 8000+ members expect us to. Apparently you find something insidious about the organization donating to its own efforts. We are accountable only to our members and to the Ethics Commission and it is absolutely absurd to insinuate that there is something wrong with the KSRA allocating money to a wing of its organization to assist in achieving its goals. You might wish to check your math as well because the PAC raised $5501.52 in 2011 whereas your figures add up to $4600.00. I digress for a moment and point out you must have forgotten about all of those small donations that are not itemized. I’m sure to the logical person these facts shed a different light.
Additionally Mr. Vaught, individuals who care deeply about their Constitutional Second Amendment rights and have the means to make sizeable donations will always be the largest donors. When the first Ethics Commission Report for 2012 is filed on July 30, 2012 for the period January 1, 2012 through July 26, 2012 you can then add a few more equally large donors to your list of people who you can accuse of trying to buy the elections. Your rhetoric in this regard is deplorable.
Regarding your comments as follows: “First, you need to know about me. I'm a long time NRA member, conceal carry supporter, avid sportsman, and I have always been a defender of the Constitution, especially the 2nd Amendment. My concern with Ms. Stoneking's comments is the implication that Shawnee has tried to pass ordinances taking away resident's gun rights. Where and when?? The last thing we did was lessened the restrictions on deer management (led by me). Here is a link to Shawnee's ordinances. Enter 3003 in the search box or the word 'gun'.” “There has been any nonsense coming out of Shawnee City Council regarding firearms nor has there been any controversy in recent years. In fact, City Manager Carol Gonzales has never gotten a complaint on a weapons issue, never! If this is such an issue, why has no one ever addressed it to the city manager? Also, when we updated some language in late 2011 in regards to firearms, I attempted to contact Mike Egan to get his input. He never returned my calls. And, not one person form KSRA or any other pro gun organization was at the meeting to voice their concerns. I read the language of it carefully to make sure that we weren't infringing on the rights of gun owners and I don't believe we did. So again Ms. Stoneking, can you please give me some examples of what you are talking about.”
Considering that you were only elected in 2010 and sworn in to office on April 12, 2010 you are obviously not aware of all of the issues that we have dealt with. Here are just two examples.
On September 1, 2011 I was contacted by a concerned party about AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 9.13 OF THE SHAWNEE MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATING THE USE, DISCHARGE, AND POSSESSION OF WEAPONS AND FIREARMS WITHIN THE CITY OF SHAWNEE. I have attached a copy for your reference. I was asked to review the ordinance, which I did, and I found that proper exemptions for those with Concealed Carry Permits were not in place on several provisions. I then contacted the City Attorney and received a call back from Karen Torline on September 6, 2011 and spent a great deal of time reviewing the changes that needed to be made with her. On September 13, 2011 I received a copy of the revised ordinance incorporating the changes and corrections I asked for. I have attached a copy of that for your records as well. I will suggest to you that a Second Amendment friendly administration would have easily known that the exemptions would be a critical part of the ordinance. Of course it was not hard to reach that conclusion and based upon the fact that you state “I read the language of it carefully to make sure that we weren't infringing on the rights of gun owners and I don't believe we did.”, it’s a good thing I reviewed it and requested the changes as you obviously did not identify the need.
During the 2008 Kansas Legislative Session KSRA supported the passage of The Emergency Powers Act. It became law July 1, 2008. This Act expressly prohibits any jurisdiction of this state regarding confiscation of firearms during a disaster or national, state or local emergency. On August 11, 2008 your City Manager and Councilwoman Dawn Kuhn advocated for changes to the Shawnee Emergency Preparedness for Disasters ordinance that allowed for the confiscation of firearms during those times of emergency. Councilwoman Michelle Distler brought to everyone’s attention that the provisions in 2.04.065 possibly needed to be changed to be in line with state law. Even City Attorney Rainey conceded there were “obviously very significant and substantial questions”. However, disturbing discussion took place at that meeting as well as the September 8, 2008 meeting with several wanting to go ahead and pass it with the illegal provisions and that was brought to our attention by a concerned party, after which we felt intervention was necessary. I provided Councilwoman Michelle Distler with copies of the state statute concerning this subject so that she could present that material to the City Manager, City Attorney, Mayor and City Council Members. We had multiple lengthy discussions to ensure that she understood the state law and could present it to the interested parties. Following are links to the minutes from the three meetings in which this matter was discussed. The discussion that took place should be an eye opener for you.
http://www.cityofshawnee.org/WEB/MINUTES.NSF/57ea996d63a33ee3862573de0071f123/3bca7bde4f8babc3862574b2006633ab?OpenDocument
http://www.cityofshawnee.org/WEB/MINUTES.NSF/57ea996d63a33ee3862573de0071f123/cd7bffd4437d584b862574d0007315d1?OpenDocument
http://www.cityofshawnee.org/WEB/MINUTES.NSF/57ea996d63a33ee3862573de0071f123/3df77296ed67e80e862574e300741b88?OpenDocument
Mr. Vaught, I don’t need to attend your meetings. The KSRA has eyes and ears everywhere in this state. It’s called grassroots activism. When something is awry I always hear about it and I will always respond as appropriate. My time is valuable sir and the work that needs to be done is accomplished without having to attend your meetings to police everything you do. Our interest is only in Second Amendment issues and we don’t feel compelled to sit through hours of business having nothing to do with that. Our members are going to call us. It’s why they are members. I cannot answer for them as to why they did not complain to your City Manager other than to say the average citizen is not an expert in Second Amendment legislation or ordinances and they are members so they can depend on professionals who have a great deal of expertise and knowledge such as I and my board have.
This public dialogue began with your vitriolic and unwarranted statements at the council meeting earlier this week because you are obviously unhappy that the KSRA PAC has endorsed candidates that you do not like. As I’ve already stated, we have every legitimate right to make endorsements and/or grade candidates for any office we choose. It is quite perplexing that you have made such blatantly false and serious accusations. As a sitting councilman who is not up for reelection you do so at great peril as you might find yourself having to work with those folks. Your actions are obviously personally motivated.
As a side note, I have read your blog and I also received an email from you and you disparage the Kansas Legislature, the Republican Party Leadership, the Republican Caucus, “a State Representative”, “several organizations and associations” and calling people liars, calling members of the Republican Party “rogue” and “righter than right” all in the light that they have committed some terrible offense but claim you are concerned about the perception of your city. YOU are a representative of your city, the others are not. Couple that with your statements regarding KSRA and I’ll just close by giving you a morsel of wisdom. If you think someone has done something wrong, doing wrong yourself is never the solution and only makes you as guilty as those you accuse. Those who wish to truly bring people together pave the path to peace, not throw gasoline on the fire.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
A Few Items
Has anyone else noticed that the incumbents and their spokesperson(s) have avoided the challengers' comments about the incumbents' votes on certain issues? The challengers apparently disagree with the way some of the incumbents have voted on the council. Yet the incumbents do not answer as to why they voted for those items and refuse to defend their actions as such. Maybe it's because they can't defend some of those votes. For some of those votes check the post "The Real Voting Record" 3/21/12 by scrolling down.
Daily chuckle: Jim Neighbor's ad this week in the Shawnee Dispatch where he references his "reelection campaign". Jim, you can't be in a reelection campaign, because you never were elected in the first place. You were appointed. So this is your "election campaign". Stop trying to mislead people by making them think you had been elected.
Will Jeff Vaught query his ward mate and get the questions about who she is answered?
Daily chuckle: Jim Neighbor's ad this week in the Shawnee Dispatch where he references his "reelection campaign". Jim, you can't be in a reelection campaign, because you never were elected in the first place. You were appointed. So this is your "election campaign". Stop trying to mislead people by making them think you had been elected.
Will Jeff Vaught query his ward mate and get the questions about who she is answered?
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Letter to Mayor Jeff Meyers
I have just sent the following by email to the mayor. If he responds, I will publish that here.
- -- --- --- --- --- ---- --- -- ------ - ---------------- -------------- ------------
Dear Jeff,
Reference is made to the recent council meeting of Monday 3/26/12 and Council Member Jeff Vaught’s comments. And, I will explain how I feel this reflects on you.
I am sure you are aware that it is upsetting that he said I had no stake in Shawnee since I do not pay property taxes direct. He did say he realizes that the amount is included in the rent but unlike him I do not have a statement showing that type of item.
Vaught’s comments were indicative of an individual who believes that renters as opposed to owners are in a different class and cannot have a stake in the city they live in. Apparently he truly does not understand the concept of the property taxes being included in the rent. Nor does he probably understand that renters pay personal property taxes on their vehicles, sales taxes, franchise fees, ad nauseam, all to the benefit of the city. And, by renting, in my case, contributing to $235,000 in property taxes.
Using Vaught’s concept that renters don’t have a stake makes me wonder what his feelings are about the current State Rep in the 23rd District, Brett Hildabrand (Shawnee/Merriam) and his immediate predecessor, Milack Talia. Mr. Hildabrand currently resides in an apartment, and did so at the time of his election.
If my memory serves me correctly, Mr. Talia also lived in an apartment at the time of his election and then subsequently moved into a private residence. Would he care to tell these two gentlemen that they don’t/didn’t have a stake in the 23rd District because they are/were renters?
Now how does this reflect upon you? As the mayor of Shawnee you are supposed to be the mayor of Shawnee, not the mayor of one group of residents. When a council member says that just because a person rents they do not have a stake in their city, then it was incumbent upon you to set him straight. That all persons living in Shawnee have a stake in the city. You failed to say anything about that? Does that mean that you agree with him that renters do not have a stake in the city? Over the years I have heard you admonish speakers who, in your opinion, were disrespectful to members of the council. In this case a member of the council disrespected an entire group of people and you sir, said nothing.
Your silence and inaction at the meeting on this item would lead me to believe that you give tacit approval to his commentary on that subject.
Ray
- -- --- --- --- --- ---- --- -- ------ - ---------------- -------------- ------------
Dear Jeff,
Reference is made to the recent council meeting of Monday 3/26/12 and Council Member Jeff Vaught’s comments. And, I will explain how I feel this reflects on you.
I am sure you are aware that it is upsetting that he said I had no stake in Shawnee since I do not pay property taxes direct. He did say he realizes that the amount is included in the rent but unlike him I do not have a statement showing that type of item.
Vaught’s comments were indicative of an individual who believes that renters as opposed to owners are in a different class and cannot have a stake in the city they live in. Apparently he truly does not understand the concept of the property taxes being included in the rent. Nor does he probably understand that renters pay personal property taxes on their vehicles, sales taxes, franchise fees, ad nauseam, all to the benefit of the city. And, by renting, in my case, contributing to $235,000 in property taxes.
Using Vaught’s concept that renters don’t have a stake makes me wonder what his feelings are about the current State Rep in the 23rd District, Brett Hildabrand (Shawnee/Merriam) and his immediate predecessor, Milack Talia. Mr. Hildabrand currently resides in an apartment, and did so at the time of his election.
If my memory serves me correctly, Mr. Talia also lived in an apartment at the time of his election and then subsequently moved into a private residence. Would he care to tell these two gentlemen that they don’t/didn’t have a stake in the 23rd District because they are/were renters?
Now how does this reflect upon you? As the mayor of Shawnee you are supposed to be the mayor of Shawnee, not the mayor of one group of residents. When a council member says that just because a person rents they do not have a stake in their city, then it was incumbent upon you to set him straight. That all persons living in Shawnee have a stake in the city. You failed to say anything about that? Does that mean that you agree with him that renters do not have a stake in the city? Over the years I have heard you admonish speakers who, in your opinion, were disrespectful to members of the council. In this case a member of the council disrespected an entire group of people and you sir, said nothing.
Your silence and inaction at the meeting on this item would lead me to believe that you give tacit approval to his commentary on that subject.
Ray
Part II of Is Dawn Kuhn Really Dawn Kuhn?
The original post on this subject was last Thursday 3/22/12 and can be viewed by just scrolling down to it.
We know now, and verified by the city that Dawn Kuhn is getting paid as Dawn White. This despite the fact that all of her documents (including financials) connected with her filings for office are listed as Kuhn..
It gets stranger. After submitting a KORA (Kansas Open Records Act) request the city has confirmed that she has submitted reimbursements for expenses and been paid accordingly under the name of Dawn Kuhn.
So, she gets paid her city council salary as White, but gets her city expenses as Kuhn.
Since she represents her bank as Kuhn, I wonder: Are they paying her as Kuhn or as White? This could get real interesting.
We know now, and verified by the city that Dawn Kuhn is getting paid as Dawn White. This despite the fact that all of her documents (including financials) connected with her filings for office are listed as Kuhn..
It gets stranger. After submitting a KORA (Kansas Open Records Act) request the city has confirmed that she has submitted reimbursements for expenses and been paid accordingly under the name of Dawn Kuhn.
So, she gets paid her city council salary as White, but gets her city expenses as Kuhn.
Since she represents her bank as Kuhn, I wonder: Are they paying her as Kuhn or as White? This could get real interesting.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
KSRA Responds to Vaught's Comments
I have received an email from the President of the KSRA (Kansas State Rifle Association) in regards to Councilmember Vaught's comments last night. The KSRA is the local affiliate of the NRA.
Here are those comments:
Over the last several years the Mayor and certain members of the City Council of Shawnee, KS have repeatedly moved to pass city ordinances regarding firearms that are NOT legal, contrary to state law and not
even in the purview of local control. Those actions have resulted in the KSRA receiving a multitude of complaints from members who live in Shawnee. The KSRA has intervened each time to stop those ordinances from being passed.
When elected officials try to run over its citizens on Second Amendment issues it is our job to promote candidates for election that will not waste the tax payers money trying to promote gun control.
Jeff Vaught, Shawnee Councilman, had the audacity to declare in the council meeting March 26th that the KSRA PAC is doing the bidding of Shawnee resident Mike Egan because he is one of our biggest
contributors and alleged that we are trying to "buy the election". No Mr. Vaught, you are dead wrong and your statement is ludicrous. There is NO "secret" agenda. We've been quite public about it. We are
promoting Second Amendment friendly candidates so we can quit spending our time keeping you in check. We've grown weary of the nonsense coming out of the Shawnee City Council regarding firearms laws.
We are not the only group who seems to have a problem with the actions of the current officials. There are other organizations and interested parties who are also supporting the opposing candidates. To hear Mr.
Vaught tell it we have some kind of grand conspiracy going on that even includes Representative John Rubin. The KSRA PAC has every right to endorse candidates that it feels will protect the Second Amendment.
It is the reason the KSRA PAC exists and what our contributors and members expect us to do, none of which, including Mike Egan, have any say whatsoever on who is endorsed. We have a specific and logical
method for evaluating candidates and endorsements are a result of that evaluation. It is commonplace for organizations such as the KSRA PAC to make endorsements in any race it feels elected officials should be
replaced.
For those who would like to hear Mr. Vaught's statements, you can listen to the audio recording here. It is towards the end of the audio recording at about 25:00.
http://shawneecityks.iqm2.com/Citizens/VideoMain.aspx?MeetingID=1160
Here are those comments:
Over the last several years the Mayor and certain members of the City Council of Shawnee, KS have repeatedly moved to pass city ordinances regarding firearms that are NOT legal, contrary to state law and not
even in the purview of local control. Those actions have resulted in the KSRA receiving a multitude of complaints from members who live in Shawnee. The KSRA has intervened each time to stop those ordinances from being passed.
When elected officials try to run over its citizens on Second Amendment issues it is our job to promote candidates for election that will not waste the tax payers money trying to promote gun control.
Jeff Vaught, Shawnee Councilman, had the audacity to declare in the council meeting March 26th that the KSRA PAC is doing the bidding of Shawnee resident Mike Egan because he is one of our biggest
contributors and alleged that we are trying to "buy the election". No Mr. Vaught, you are dead wrong and your statement is ludicrous. There is NO "secret" agenda. We've been quite public about it. We are
promoting Second Amendment friendly candidates so we can quit spending our time keeping you in check. We've grown weary of the nonsense coming out of the Shawnee City Council regarding firearms laws.
We are not the only group who seems to have a problem with the actions of the current officials. There are other organizations and interested parties who are also supporting the opposing candidates. To hear Mr.
Vaught tell it we have some kind of grand conspiracy going on that even includes Representative John Rubin. The KSRA PAC has every right to endorse candidates that it feels will protect the Second Amendment.
It is the reason the KSRA PAC exists and what our contributors and members expect us to do, none of which, including Mike Egan, have any say whatsoever on who is endorsed. We have a specific and logical
method for evaluating candidates and endorsements are a result of that evaluation. It is commonplace for organizations such as the KSRA PAC to make endorsements in any race it feels elected officials should be
replaced.
For those who would like to hear Mr. Vaught's statements, you can listen to the audio recording here. It is towards the end of the audio recording at about 25:00.
http://shawneecityks.iqm2.com/Citizens/VideoMain.aspx?MeetingID=1160
Monday, March 26, 2012
An Interesting Evening
The council meeting was really interesting this evening. And, as Jeff Vaught said, I’d probably be blogging about it.
First, he questioned the KSRA (Kansas State Rifle Assoc.) endorsements of certain challengers for city office. He wanted to know what did that have to do with Shawnee? Suffice it to say over the years there have been various items that have come up before council about the use of firearms. And most recently about hunting within the city limits. Also, a couple of years ago his ward mate attempted to introduce an ordinance that would allow for the confiscation of weapons if the mayor declared a state of emergency. If my memory serves me, that got shot down (no pun intended) because it violated state law.
He also ranted and raved about Mike Egan, quoting from comments that Egan made at a 2009 council meeting. Ironically, he wouldn’t be able to do that now, since we no longer have detailed minutes (he voted against them). That is, unless we want to listen to the audio CD and then play transcriber ourselves.
He alleges that Egan was running a slate against the incumbents, and that Egan owned the KSRA and the KFL (Kansans for Life). If that is the case, how come the KFL endorsed Sandifer?
Then he proceeded to rant about me. He said that I do not have a stake in Shawnee because I don’t have a tax receipt. He admitted that the taxes were part of my rent but because I didn’t have a tax statement that made a difference. That is the height of arrogant snobbishness. History lesson Mr. Vaught…….there was a time when only white, male, landowners could vote in this country, but that got changed, over a period of time. Would Vaught have us go backwards? When property taxes go up, rents go up. When franchise fees, sales taxes, etc. are levied, we pay them too.
Now, what stake does he have in this country? Did he ever serve in the military? Even in peace time? Even in the guard or reserve, ready to go if necessary? I personally did four years, including a year in Nam. But let’s bring it to his generation. He is 2 years/4 months older than my oldest son. Now my oldest did his four years from ’88 to ’92, including Desert Storm (1/34th Armor, 1st Inf Division – The Big Red One). Did Vaught serve, or was he one of those who let other people’s sons, daughters, husbands, wives, brothers, sisters, serve in his stead? Maybe we should make that a requirement to be able to vote?
If you have time, read the info below:
When the Constitution was written, only white male property owners (about 10 to 16 percent of the nation's population) had the vote. Over the past two centuries, though, the term "government by the people" has become a reality. During the early 1800s, states gradually dropped property requirements for voting. Later, groups that had been excluded previously gained the right to vote. Other reforms made the process fairer and easier.
1790
1790 Only white male adult property-owners have the right to vote.
1800
1810
1810 Last religious prerequisite for voting is eliminated.
1820
1840
1850 Property ownership and tax requirements eliminated by 1850. Almost all adult white males could vote.
1855 Connecticut adopts the nation's first literacy test for voting. Massachusetts follows suit in 1857. The tests were implemented to discriminate against Irish-Catholic immigrants.
1860
1870 The 15th Amendment is passed. It gives former slaves the right to vote and protects the voting rights of adult male citizens of any race.
1880
1890 Mississippi adopts a literacy test to keep African Americans from voting. Numerous other states—not just in the south—also establish literacy tests. However, the tests also exclude many whites from voting. To get around this, states add grandfather clauses that allow those who could vote before 1870, or their descendants, to vote regardless of literacy or tax qualifications.
1900
1910
1913 The 17th Amendment calls for members of the U.S. Senate to be elected directly by the people instead of State Legislatures.
1915 Oklahoma was the last state to append a grandfather clause to its literacy requirement (1910). In Guinn v. United States the Supreme Court rules that the clause is in conflict with the 15th Amendment, thereby outlawing literacy tests for federal elections.
1920
1924 Indian Citizenship Act grants all Native Americans the rights of citizenship, including the right to vote in federal elections.
1930
1940
1944 The Supreme Court outlaws "white primaries" in Smith v. Allwright (Texas). In Texas, and other states, primaries were conducted by private associations, which, by definion, could exclude whomever they chose. The Court declares the nomination process to be a public process bound by the terms of 15th Amendment.
1950
1957 The first law to implement the 15th amendment, the Civil Rights Act, is passed. The Act set up the Civil Rights Commission—among its duties is to investigate voter discrimination.
1960
1961 The 23rd Amendment allows voters of the District of Columbia to participate in presidential elections.
1964 The 24th Amendment bans the poll tax as a requirement for voting in federal elections.
1965 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., mounts a voter registration drive in Selma, Alabama, to draw national attention to African-American voting rights.
1965 The Voting Rights Act protects the rights of minority voters and eliminates voting barriers such as the literacy test. The Act is expanded and renewed in 1970, 1975, and 1982.
1966 The Supreme Court, in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, eliminates the poll tax as a qualification for voting in any election. A poll tax was still in use in Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia.
1966 The Court upholds the Voting Rights Act in South Carolina v. Katzenbach.
1970
1970 Literacy requirements are banned for five years by the 1970 renewal of the Voting Rights Act. At the time, eighteen states still have a literacy requirement in place. In Oregon v. Mitchell, the Court upholds the ban on literacy tests, which is made permanent in 1975. Judge Hugo Black, writing the court's opinion, cited the "long history of the discriminatory use of literacy tests to disenfranchise voters on account of their race" as the reason for their decision.
1971 The 26th amendment sets the minimum voting age at 18.
1972 In Dunn v. Blumstein, the Supreme Court declares that lengthy residence requirements for voting in state and local elections is unconstitutional and suggests that 30 days is an ample period.
1980
1990
2000
2003 Federal Voting Standards and Procedures Act requires states to streamline registration, voting, and other election procedures.
Ward IV Election....McAfee is a Breath of Fresh Air
Yep, Dylan McAfee is young. He hasn't learned how to snow folks like the incumbent, Mickey Sandifer.
Anyway, without going into total detail today, I'll refer you to three recent posts in this blog. Just scroll down to read them, and you'll see why Dylan McAfee would be a breath of fresh air for Ward IV on the Shawnee City Council.
"Sandifer Should Be Ashamed" 3/14/12
"Sandifer Gets an "F" in Understanding Property Taxes" 3/10/12
"Did Sandifer Stick His Foot in His Mouth?" 3/8/12
Anyway, without going into total detail today, I'll refer you to three recent posts in this blog. Just scroll down to read them, and you'll see why Dylan McAfee would be a breath of fresh air for Ward IV on the Shawnee City Council.
"Sandifer Should Be Ashamed" 3/14/12
"Sandifer Gets an "F" in Understanding Property Taxes" 3/10/12
"Did Sandifer Stick His Foot in His Mouth?" 3/8/12
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Who is Jim Neighbor Kidding?
Gee Jim, do you really think you can tap dance around and fool people?
In his ad that appeared in the hard copy of the Shawnee Dispatch 3/21/12 on page 7 he makes some statements in his bid to get votes:
"Jim Neighbor retired as a Captain with United Airlines after 34 years of flying. He prepares for Council meetings with the same attention to detail as he did planning each flight."
How do we know that you are well prepared? Because you say so? Because a member of the community said that a few weeks ago (see my post Macheers Makes Sense, below).? We don't know how well prepared you are because you hardly ever say anything. We very seldom know why you vote the way you do, because you do not express your opinions. You function more like a wind up doll, casting a vote based on possibly what you've been told to do. By the way, civility at council meetings does not mean keeping your mouth shut.
Jim Neighbor has never missed a budget planning session or a council meeting vote on the budget or when tax dollars are spent.
It's nice to know that you get a perfect attendance award. But it is obvious that you do not wish to publicize your voting record. Why do you emphasize your attendance record rather than your voting record? Is it because your voting record would be considered not to be in Shawnee's best interests? Like voting for the CID at 10 Quivira Plaza? Like voting to eliminate detailed meeting minutes?
Tell us, how do you feel about the way you were appointed to the council, rather than an election being called? What about Cheryl Scott's delayed resignation? What do you think about that? And then, when there was no election scheduled, that it would appear you were not the best qualified to be appointed?
Folks in Ward 1, please strongly consider Charles Macheers over Jim Neighbor on election day, April 3, 2012.
In his ad that appeared in the hard copy of the Shawnee Dispatch 3/21/12 on page 7 he makes some statements in his bid to get votes:
"Jim Neighbor retired as a Captain with United Airlines after 34 years of flying. He prepares for Council meetings with the same attention to detail as he did planning each flight."
How do we know that you are well prepared? Because you say so? Because a member of the community said that a few weeks ago (see my post Macheers Makes Sense, below).? We don't know how well prepared you are because you hardly ever say anything. We very seldom know why you vote the way you do, because you do not express your opinions. You function more like a wind up doll, casting a vote based on possibly what you've been told to do. By the way, civility at council meetings does not mean keeping your mouth shut.
Jim Neighbor has never missed a budget planning session or a council meeting vote on the budget or when tax dollars are spent.
It's nice to know that you get a perfect attendance award. But it is obvious that you do not wish to publicize your voting record. Why do you emphasize your attendance record rather than your voting record? Is it because your voting record would be considered not to be in Shawnee's best interests? Like voting for the CID at 10 Quivira Plaza? Like voting to eliminate detailed meeting minutes?
Tell us, how do you feel about the way you were appointed to the council, rather than an election being called? What about Cheryl Scott's delayed resignation? What do you think about that? And then, when there was no election scheduled, that it would appear you were not the best qualified to be appointed?
Folks in Ward 1, please strongly consider Charles Macheers over Jim Neighbor on election day, April 3, 2012.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Is Dawn Kuhn Really Dawn Kuhn?
Why is the City of Shawnee paying councilmember Dawn Kuhn as Dawn White?
The Kansas Policy Institute has a web site http://www.kansasopengov.org and on the site they publish information about various Kansas government entities. For selected cities payroll information is published showing the employee’s name, position title and pay for the year designated.
For the years 2009 & 2010 (the only years showing for Shawnee) the site does not show Dawn Kuhn as a councilmember, but does show Dawn White. All other councilmember names were correct. When they were queried as to the possibility of a mistake, the response was that they used information as provided by the city under a KORA (Kansas Open Records Act) request.
Without going into an item by item breakdown of what occurred next (I do have the backup documents) the city confirmed that the information that was on the web site was the information they (the city) had provided. Additionally, the city confirmed that if I asked for the same information, that I would be given the same listing. Therefore, that means that White is who is showing up on city payroll records.
Let’s look at facts: Dawn Kuhn filed to run for public office as Dawn Kuhn. She is a registered voter under that name. She has taken the oath of office (verbally and in writing) as Dawn Kuhn. Her name is on the tax rolls for her property as such. She votes on the council on city issues under that name. She makes motions and seconds motions under that name. Most likely (since she is a registered voter) her driver’s license is probably Kuhn also.
Now, let’s look at what Kuhn does for a living in her non-governmental working environment. She is a Vice President/Banking Center Manager for Bank Midwest. And that shows on both the bio information she has submitted, and on her business card. Common sense is that in that capacity she has to from time to time sign various documents as an officer of the bank. So now the questions beg to be answered: Would a bank pay an officer under one name but let that person identify themselves under another name? Would a bank pay a person under one name and allow that person to sign on behalf of the bank under another name? Unlike government agencies, banks are not subject to KORA so there is no way I can ask them. But somebody needs to. If she is getting paid by the bank as Kuhn (which would make sense) then that brings up other questions.
Is this deception? Is it fraud? Or is it OK? I don’t know, but I think this situation needs to be reviewed by both the JoCo Election Office and the JoCo DA’s office.
Sidebar: As of today the 2011 information is now on that web site and it still shows Dawn M White.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
The Real Voting Record
Recently, the Shawnee Dispatch had an article about “voting records”. The article at http://www.shawneedispatch.com/news/2012/mar/21/how-do-candidates-voting-histories-stack/ referred to the voting habits of incumbent and challenger candidates for the city’s upcoming election for council and mayor. Basically which elections did they vote in.
Any reader of this blog knows that I feel very strongly about citizen participation in the electoral process.
By the same token, there is another voting record history that could possibly be just as, if not more important. That history is how the incumbents voted on various items that came before them. So, let’s look at some of those issues (ward numbers are in parentheses):
5/14/07 Voted to spend $3.5 million for the Monticello Rd fiasco which is going nowhere, and in which some citizens lost their homes:
Sandifer (4)
Kuhn (3)
Sawyer (2)
4/26/10 Voted to spend $67,500 to build a 115 foot temporary connection from 57th St to Oak Valley West Shopping Center:
Sandifer (4)
Kuhn (3)
Jeff Meyers, as mayor, voted for it to break a tie
Sandifer (4)
Sawyer (2)
Kuhn (3)
Jeff Meyers, as mayor, voted for it to break a tie
8/24/09 Voted to charge residents a 5% fee on their utilities
Sandifer (4)
Kuhn (3)
Sawyer (2)
Jeff Meyers, as mayor, voted for it to break a tie (actually four ties, four separate ordinances)
8/8/11 Voted to institute a ½% sales tax for shopping at the Ten Quivira Plaza Shopping Center
Sandifer (4)
Kuhn (3)
Neighbor (1)
2/14/11 Voted to eliminate detailed written minutes of council meetings
Sandifer (4)
Kuhn (3)
Sawyer (2)
Neighbor (1)
1/25/10 Voted for the new trash laws
Sandifer (4)
Kuhn (3)
Sawyer (2)
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Macheers Makes Sense
Charles Macheers makes alot of sense and should be elected as the new councuil member in Ward 1 to replace Jim Neighbor.
Want to know what he stands for? Just go here http://macheers.com/index.html
Funny thing happened prior to a council meeting a few weeks ago. Another member of the community came up to me and said regardless of how he got into office (Neighbor was the beneficiary of the Cheryl Scott debacle), that Neighbor was the most prepared of all the council people prior to each meeting. This person then added, that he felt that way, even though Neighbor hardly ever opened his mouth to explain his position or why he was in favor or against any item. He just usually keeps his mouth shut and then votes. So, how did this individual come to the conclusion that he was the "best prepared"?
Anyway, Charles Macheers would be a heck of an improvement. Especially when one considers that Neighbor voted for the 5% CID at 10 Quivira and voted to eliminate the detailed council meeting minutes. Naughty, naughty, Neighbor
Want to know what he stands for? Just go here http://macheers.com/index.html
Funny thing happened prior to a council meeting a few weeks ago. Another member of the community came up to me and said regardless of how he got into office (Neighbor was the beneficiary of the Cheryl Scott debacle), that Neighbor was the most prepared of all the council people prior to each meeting. This person then added, that he felt that way, even though Neighbor hardly ever opened his mouth to explain his position or why he was in favor or against any item. He just usually keeps his mouth shut and then votes. So, how did this individual come to the conclusion that he was the "best prepared"?
Anyway, Charles Macheers would be a heck of an improvement. Especially when one considers that Neighbor voted for the 5% CID at 10 Quivira and voted to eliminate the detailed council meeting minutes. Naughty, naughty, Neighbor
Thursday, March 15, 2012
What's Up Doc?
As we get closer to the election I feel it is necessary to comment again on the Ward 2 council race between Dr. Mike Kemmling and Neal Sawyer.
On Feb 8th this year I posted my primary reasons for supporting Mike Kemmling. To those reasons I feel it is important to add that Neal Sawyer voted for the 5% franchise fee.
Different items mean different things to people. Neal's vote for Jim Neighbor, was, to me, an insult to the folks in Ward 1, and to the democratic process itself. He, like some of his colleagues were basically turning a blind eye to the machinations that were occurring. And, his stand on the detail minutes elimination was also IMHO a swipe at the rights of the people.
So, again, I must say that I hope the voters of Ward 2 go with Mike Kemmling.
If you don't want to scroll down to my 2/8 posting I'll copy it below:
Mike Kemmling is challenging Neal Sawyer in the Ward 2 council race.
In an earlier post I indicated that I preferred Mike Kemmling over Neal Sawyer.
This was the toughest of the five positions for me to take sides. I like Neal. He always has acted like a gentleman on the council. So why would I choose Mike Kemmling for the council seat.
There have been many issues where Neal has said, what I feel to be the right things, but then has voted the opposite. On verious occasions before his vote he explains this.
Two items that he voted for stand out to me. He voted for the appointment of Jim Neighbor to the vacant Ward 1 seat caused by the Cheryl Scott debacle. He voted to eliminate full minutes of council poceedings.
These two items bother me as they, IMHO, take away certain rights of the citizens of the community. One right is to select their representative, the other being full transparency of what the governing body does.
I think it's time for a change in Ward 2 and feel that Mike Kemmling will bring a new perspective to the council.
On Feb 8th this year I posted my primary reasons for supporting Mike Kemmling. To those reasons I feel it is important to add that Neal Sawyer voted for the 5% franchise fee.
Different items mean different things to people. Neal's vote for Jim Neighbor, was, to me, an insult to the folks in Ward 1, and to the democratic process itself. He, like some of his colleagues were basically turning a blind eye to the machinations that were occurring. And, his stand on the detail minutes elimination was also IMHO a swipe at the rights of the people.
So, again, I must say that I hope the voters of Ward 2 go with Mike Kemmling.
If you don't want to scroll down to my 2/8 posting I'll copy it below:
Mike Kemmling is challenging Neal Sawyer in the Ward 2 council race.
In an earlier post I indicated that I preferred Mike Kemmling over Neal Sawyer.
This was the toughest of the five positions for me to take sides. I like Neal. He always has acted like a gentleman on the council. So why would I choose Mike Kemmling for the council seat.
There have been many issues where Neal has said, what I feel to be the right things, but then has voted the opposite. On verious occasions before his vote he explains this.
Two items that he voted for stand out to me. He voted for the appointment of Jim Neighbor to the vacant Ward 1 seat caused by the Cheryl Scott debacle. He voted to eliminate full minutes of council poceedings.
These two items bother me as they, IMHO, take away certain rights of the citizens of the community. One right is to select their representative, the other being full transparency of what the governing body does.
I think it's time for a change in Ward 2 and feel that Mike Kemmling will bring a new perspective to the council.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Sandifer Should Be Ashamed
Recently incumbent 4th Ward councilmember Mickey Sandifer sent out a mailer, and among other things, has said regarding his opponent Dylan McAfee:
My supporters tell me he has been spinning some fanciful tales about my record as your City Councilman. Unanswered, such tales can be damaging to a campaign. Please contact me with any questions you have regarding my bid for re-election. You can reach me at 913-268-5348.
Why does Mickey want folks to call him? Simple, so he can hand them a line of nonsense and not be held accountable. If he put his comments in writing then he could be held accountable.
Dylan McAfee has been basically saying the same things he has in his brochure. Here is a small sampling of them:
1. “Since April 2004 my opponent has taken numerous non-essential trips and spent tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars on travel during tough economic times and publicly stated during the September 14, 2009 City Council Meeting that his travel is nobody’s business.”
(I personally have detailed many of Sandifer’s trips on this blog, and heard first hand the comment he made at a council meeting, Dylan’s comment is accurate)
2. “July 24, 2006 my opponent voted to raise property tax 17% - The most in Shawnee History.”
(check the minutes….he did)
3. “On February 14, 2011 my opponent voted to remove the transparency of city council business by voting to remove detailed written minutes.” (check the minutes…he did)
4. “On April 25, 2010 my opponent voted to spend $67,500 to build a 115-foot temporary connection from 57th Street to Oak Valley West shopping center. “(he did…it’s in the minutes)
5. “On August 24, 2009 my opponent voted to charge residents a 5% fee on their utilities.” (he did…it’s in the minutes.)
6. “On August 8, 2011 my opponent voted to charge residents an extra 1/2% sales tax for shopping in the Ten Quivira Plaza shopping center to pay for the developers improvements.” (He did…it’s in the minutes)
So again, why does Sandifer want folks to call him? Because he can’t refute these statements in writing. Many of Sandifer’s actions have a negative effect on senior citizens. A group he says he cares about. He’s just upset that a “grandson” is more concerned about what happens to “grandma and grandpa” than he is.
Oh, if you go to Dylan’s web site he has links to the various city council minutes so you can see for yourself http://electdylanmcafee.blogspot.com
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)
