Recently, a former city council member, David Morris derided elected officials when they revert to "government speak". I have run into this when trying to get some council reps to answer some very basic, simple questions. Instead of providing simple, direct answers, they do everything to avoid a direct answer.
Examples:
Jim Neighbor, Ward I: Still hasn't answered the question as to why he did not acknowledge in a council meeting that he had received a $500 donation from a company that is interested in a CID in Shawnee.
Dawn Kuhn, Ward III: Remember this one? She gets her salary check as Dawn White (her maiden name) but her city expense checks as Dawn Kuhn. Now, many women get paid under their maiden name. But, how many get two different checks from the same employer, using both marriage and maiden names? When asked why, she danced around it and still hasn't answered that question.
Jeff Vaught, Ward III: Ahhh yes............the council member who expects people to answer his questions, but doesn't answer theirs. When he originally ran for office he refused to comment to the Shawnee Dispatch what his education level was. That was one of about 5 or 6 basic questions they asked. You know, a resumé question. But he probably doesn't know anything about resumés, since you don't need one when you work for daddy. When I asked him, he, like Kuhn above, Tijuana Two Stepped around it. But, in this case I think I figured it out. Is it possible that he didn't want to admit that he and I share something in common? What is that you ask? Well, I freely admit that I'm a high school drop out. Is that what he is also?
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Friday, September 14, 2012
Shedding Light on "Sunshine Review"
It’s really nice when the City of Shawnee receives a high rating in an area that has an effect on how people perceive our city.
Such could be the case with the recent release that “Sunshine Review” gave Shawnee an A+ rating in transparency of government.
At this past Monday’s city council meeting, I felt it necessary to menttion a few things about that rating. Basically what it was based on, so that there would be no confusion.
Today, I’d like to go into more detail. Keep in mind that on Monday the issue about returning to detail minutes of meetings was on the agenda. An item that many thought would provide more transparency to city proceedings. There were some who thought that the system that has been around for about 1 ½ years now of “less than action minutes” was sufficient. Even though those minutes basically did not do anything about explaining to folks what happened at the meetings.
OK, let’s start with the item posted Monday morning on the city’s website:
“Sunshine Review applauds Shawnee, Kansas for improving their transparency score from a ‘B‘ to an ‘A+.’ By enhancing their website and increasing access to information, Shawnee is proactively championing government openness and transparency.
Taxpayers in Shawnee should be proud that their government learned from Sunshine Review’s transparency checklist and made rapid improvements to allow more light into their government. We urge all of Kansas’ city and county governments to put the necessary resources into increasing their transparency like Shawnee has done.
Sunshine Review is a nonprofit organization dedicated to state and local government transparency. Sunshine Review collaborates with individuals and organizations throughout America in the cause of an informed citizenry and a transparent government. Since its inception in 2008, Sunshine Review has analyzed the websites of all 50 states and more than 6,000 state and local entities. In 2012, Sunshine Review at rated more than 1,500 websites."
What all of that means, is that in that organization’s opinion Shawnee scored high because of its website. Breaking that down, it means that Shawnee provides links on its web site to various items of information (i.e.meeting minutes, checkbook info, access info for government officials, etc.). But, what it does not do is rate the quality/transparency of those items. So, it is saying that there is transparency because there is a link to the minutes, but how good (transparent) are those minutes? That they do not rate.
Now here is something that I found interesting. If you go to the Sunshine Review page about Shawnee at http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Shawnee,_Kansas you will see this comment: “This site was evaluated on Sept. 7, 2012.” That is really interesting, as that was the Friday before the Monday (Sept. 10, 2012) that the question of the way the minutes were being done was scheduled. Wasn’t that neat that the city got that rating at that most propitious time?
Such could be the case with the recent release that “Sunshine Review” gave Shawnee an A+ rating in transparency of government.
At this past Monday’s city council meeting, I felt it necessary to menttion a few things about that rating. Basically what it was based on, so that there would be no confusion.
Today, I’d like to go into more detail. Keep in mind that on Monday the issue about returning to detail minutes of meetings was on the agenda. An item that many thought would provide more transparency to city proceedings. There were some who thought that the system that has been around for about 1 ½ years now of “less than action minutes” was sufficient. Even though those minutes basically did not do anything about explaining to folks what happened at the meetings.
OK, let’s start with the item posted Monday morning on the city’s website:
“Sunshine Review applauds Shawnee, Kansas for improving their transparency score from a ‘B‘ to an ‘A+.’ By enhancing their website and increasing access to information, Shawnee is proactively championing government openness and transparency.
Taxpayers in Shawnee should be proud that their government learned from Sunshine Review’s transparency checklist and made rapid improvements to allow more light into their government. We urge all of Kansas’ city and county governments to put the necessary resources into increasing their transparency like Shawnee has done.
Sunshine Review is a nonprofit organization dedicated to state and local government transparency. Sunshine Review collaborates with individuals and organizations throughout America in the cause of an informed citizenry and a transparent government. Since its inception in 2008, Sunshine Review has analyzed the websites of all 50 states and more than 6,000 state and local entities. In 2012, Sunshine Review at rated more than 1,500 websites."
What all of that means, is that in that organization’s opinion Shawnee scored high because of its website. Breaking that down, it means that Shawnee provides links on its web site to various items of information (i.e.meeting minutes, checkbook info, access info for government officials, etc.). But, what it does not do is rate the quality/transparency of those items. So, it is saying that there is transparency because there is a link to the minutes, but how good (transparent) are those minutes? That they do not rate.
Now here is something that I found interesting. If you go to the Sunshine Review page about Shawnee at http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Shawnee,_Kansas you will see this comment: “This site was evaluated on Sept. 7, 2012.” That is really interesting, as that was the Friday before the Monday (Sept. 10, 2012) that the question of the way the minutes were being done was scheduled. Wasn’t that neat that the city got that rating at that most propitious time?
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Tragedy in Libya
Please take a minute to remember the loss of four Americans murdered in Libya.
Something is wrong when people are killed for perceived insults to religious thoughts.
City Might Need to Listen to Citizens More Often
There are still some comments being made about the potential cost of returning to detailed minutes of city council proceedings.
There appears to be a strong possibility that the city's estimates for the costs might actually be on the high side.
All one has to do is go to the blog http://blog.shawneefwiw.com/ and read the post "Bittersweet victory: Detailed minutes restored" posted 9/12/12.
Tony Lauer's research into costs for this procedure are coming in substantially lower than the city's. Every day it becomes more evident that his research is complete and accurate. Witness his discovery of the substantial overcharges to the city for sewer fees.
Maybe certain individuals who have this "we know better than the people" attitude need to rethink that attitude. Maybe they need to stop acting like the "Father Knows Best" benevolent parent and start listening to their "children". It would be a travesty for the city not to follow some of Mr. Lauer's guidelines/research with regards to the cost of transcription services.
Why were the city's estimates for transcription services so high? Was it a move by certain individuals to inflate the potential costs so as to attempt to sabotage the return of the detailed minutes?
There appears to be a strong possibility that the city's estimates for the costs might actually be on the high side.
All one has to do is go to the blog http://blog.shawneefwiw.com/ and read the post "Bittersweet victory: Detailed minutes restored" posted 9/12/12.
Tony Lauer's research into costs for this procedure are coming in substantially lower than the city's. Every day it becomes more evident that his research is complete and accurate. Witness his discovery of the substantial overcharges to the city for sewer fees.
Maybe certain individuals who have this "we know better than the people" attitude need to rethink that attitude. Maybe they need to stop acting like the "Father Knows Best" benevolent parent and start listening to their "children". It would be a travesty for the city not to follow some of Mr. Lauer's guidelines/research with regards to the cost of transcription services.
Why were the city's estimates for transcription services so high? Was it a move by certain individuals to inflate the potential costs so as to attempt to sabotage the return of the detailed minutes?
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
The Minutes Are Back, The Minutes Are Back
Last night, the Shawnee City Council voted to bring back detailed minutes of council meetings.
This is a victory for transparency and democracy. The city will also keep the audio feed of the meetings and the ability for people to listen to the audio after the meeting.
Now individuals will once again be able to search the minutes to basically find out what happened, when and who said what. The current "action" minutes (mistakenly called summary minutes) were virtually useless for anyone wanting to find out what had transpired at any meeting.
The mayor indicated that in the past he had found the detailed minutes to be helpful in researching various items, and yours truly brought out statements made in November of 2010 by Jeff Vaught on how useful he had found the detailed minutes to be. That was ironic, since on Feb 14, 2011 Vaught then became one of the council members who had voted to eliminate the detailed minutes.
Anyway, Ward I Council Member Dan Pflumm made the motion and Ward IV Council Member Michelle Distler seconded it and when the vote came to bring the detailed minutes back, it passed 6 to 1. Jim Neighbor, Ward 1 Council Member apparently has problems with open government. (More on that in a separate post). Ward III Council Member Dawn Kuhn was absent. She was a strong proponent of not bringing back the detailed minutes. She has in the past followed the guidelines of the League of Kansas Municipalites, which are not citizen friendly. Based on previous council meetings, the one thing we were probably spared was probably 30-60 minutes of her ramblings.
I will contact the city manager to find out when the mechanism will be in place for the date the detailed minutes will resume.
Sidebar: Ironically, earlier yesterday it was announced and reiterated by the mayor that Shawnee had received an A+ rating in transparency from the Sunshine Review. It must be remembered that their ratings are based on city websites linking to specific areas (agendas, minutes, government officials etc). The ratings don not reflect whether certain info (i.e minutes) are themselves transparent. Action minutes are definitely not transparent.
This is a victory for transparency and democracy. The city will also keep the audio feed of the meetings and the ability for people to listen to the audio after the meeting.
Now individuals will once again be able to search the minutes to basically find out what happened, when and who said what. The current "action" minutes (mistakenly called summary minutes) were virtually useless for anyone wanting to find out what had transpired at any meeting.
The mayor indicated that in the past he had found the detailed minutes to be helpful in researching various items, and yours truly brought out statements made in November of 2010 by Jeff Vaught on how useful he had found the detailed minutes to be. That was ironic, since on Feb 14, 2011 Vaught then became one of the council members who had voted to eliminate the detailed minutes.
Anyway, Ward I Council Member Dan Pflumm made the motion and Ward IV Council Member Michelle Distler seconded it and when the vote came to bring the detailed minutes back, it passed 6 to 1. Jim Neighbor, Ward 1 Council Member apparently has problems with open government. (More on that in a separate post). Ward III Council Member Dawn Kuhn was absent. She was a strong proponent of not bringing back the detailed minutes. She has in the past followed the guidelines of the League of Kansas Municipalites, which are not citizen friendly. Based on previous council meetings, the one thing we were probably spared was probably 30-60 minutes of her ramblings.
I will contact the city manager to find out when the mechanism will be in place for the date the detailed minutes will resume.
Sidebar: Ironically, earlier yesterday it was announced and reiterated by the mayor that Shawnee had received an A+ rating in transparency from the Sunshine Review. It must be remembered that their ratings are based on city websites linking to specific areas (agendas, minutes, government officials etc). The ratings don not reflect whether certain info (i.e minutes) are themselves transparent. Action minutes are definitely not transparent.
Take A Minute To Remember
Today marks the 11th Anniversary of the tragedy of 9/11/2001.
Just take a minute to remember..............that's not hard to do.
Just take a minute to remember..............that's not hard to do.
Sunday, September 09, 2012
Citizen feedback to article about DA's evaluation
Regarding the post below about the DA's evaluation that too often public items are kept private, there has been some citizen response.
Visit the article at http://www.kansascity.com/2012/09/07/3803115/johnson-county-district-attorney.html and then scroll down to read the comments.
Keep in mind that Shawnee was not the only city mentioned in the article.
Visit the article at http://www.kansascity.com/2012/09/07/3803115/johnson-county-district-attorney.html and then scroll down to read the comments.
Keep in mind that Shawnee was not the only city mentioned in the article.
Saturday, September 08, 2012
Why does the JoCO DA say public business is too often private?
A recent article in the KC Star entitled "Johnson County district attorney says public business is too often private" is one indication of why folks need to get more involved in local government.
One item coming up locally is the Shawnee City Council meeting which is considering the reinstatement of full version minutes of its proceedings. That is important at it will add to transparency and better information to the citizens as to what their local elected representatives are doing. This meeting is scheduled for Monday, 9/10/12 at city hall at 7:30PM. Show up and see, listen, and even contribute your comments and thoughts.
The above mentioned KC Star article can be viewed at http://www.kansascity.com/2012/09/07/3803115/johnson-county-district-attorney.html
There are some references in the article to recent happenings in Shawnee.
One needs to be aware that the comment that the League of Kansas Municipalities is a taxpayer funded organization means that cities become members, using taxpayer dollars to join, but it is governing bodies that choose to join, not taxpayers themselves.
One item coming up locally is the Shawnee City Council meeting which is considering the reinstatement of full version minutes of its proceedings. That is important at it will add to transparency and better information to the citizens as to what their local elected representatives are doing. This meeting is scheduled for Monday, 9/10/12 at city hall at 7:30PM. Show up and see, listen, and even contribute your comments and thoughts.
The above mentioned KC Star article can be viewed at http://www.kansascity.com/2012/09/07/3803115/johnson-county-district-attorney.html
There are some references in the article to recent happenings in Shawnee.
One needs to be aware that the comment that the League of Kansas Municipalities is a taxpayer funded organization means that cities become members, using taxpayer dollars to join, but it is governing bodies that choose to join, not taxpayers themselves.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Shawnee PD Pays Tribute to Noah Davis
The Shawnee PD has shown an extremely high level of compassion and humanity in its recent honors in memory of Noah Davis.
Rather than repeat the story here, please allow me to direct your attention to just two of the many local media items about this.
An article in the Shawnee Dispatch at
http://www.shawneedispatch.com/news/2012/aug/28/honorary-officer/
An article and video at WDAF-TV Fox 4 at
http://fox4kc.com/2012/08/27/child-gives-his-life-named-honorary-police-officer/
Thank you Chief Larimore for showing that Shawnee cares, and understands.
Rather than repeat the story here, please allow me to direct your attention to just two of the many local media items about this.
An article in the Shawnee Dispatch at
http://www.shawneedispatch.com/news/2012/aug/28/honorary-officer/
An article and video at WDAF-TV Fox 4 at
http://fox4kc.com/2012/08/27/child-gives-his-life-named-honorary-police-officer/
Thank you Chief Larimore for showing that Shawnee cares, and understands.
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Sandifer is Confusing - Even to Himself
If council member (Ward IV) Mickey Sandifer ever did or said anything that made sense, or didn't contradict himself, I'd say hallelujah.
OK, at the 8/13/12 council meeting when the topic of a company asking to do an analysis for a CID for the Shawnee Pakway Plaza (Bonner Springs Partners II) came up, Sandifer said he was against CIDs.
Huh, he was one of the folks that voted for the CID at Ten Quivira Plaza. So, he votes for one, then says he is against them?
So, I check a few things. Now this is great. In his most recent run for reelection (this April) he received in March a contribution from Tri Land (the company that runs Ten Quivira) for $500. But, he did not receive any contributions from Bonner Springs Partners II (like Kuhn and Neighbor did). Did he feel left out? Were his feelings hurt? Was he jealous?
Go figure.......................
OK, at the 8/13/12 council meeting when the topic of a company asking to do an analysis for a CID for the Shawnee Pakway Plaza (Bonner Springs Partners II) came up, Sandifer said he was against CIDs.
Huh, he was one of the folks that voted for the CID at Ten Quivira Plaza. So, he votes for one, then says he is against them?
So, I check a few things. Now this is great. In his most recent run for reelection (this April) he received in March a contribution from Tri Land (the company that runs Ten Quivira) for $500. But, he did not receive any contributions from Bonner Springs Partners II (like Kuhn and Neighbor did). Did he feel left out? Were his feelings hurt? Was he jealous?
Go figure.......................
Saturday, August 25, 2012
Important Info From Another Blog
As mentioned in a previous post, there is another local blog in town "Shawnee, Kansas FWIW"
It can be viewed at http://blog.shawneefwiw.com/
There are two very recent posts there that can shed some light on open government, or lack thereof, in the City of Shawnee. One of these posts specifically covers the issue of detail minutes at city council meetings and the other post covers the issue of the trials and tribulations the author experienced in obtaining accurate and complete documents from city hall.
The post titles and dates of posting are as follows:
"Review of Minutes" Staff Report posted on 8/24/12
Then scroll down, skip a few others (unless you want to read them, as they are also interesting) and go to:
Crimson Ridge Rezoning Documents Requests April-June posted on 8/12/12
We have also created a permanent link to that blog in our list of links in the left margin
It can be viewed at http://blog.shawneefwiw.com/
There are two very recent posts there that can shed some light on open government, or lack thereof, in the City of Shawnee. One of these posts specifically covers the issue of detail minutes at city council meetings and the other post covers the issue of the trials and tribulations the author experienced in obtaining accurate and complete documents from city hall.
The post titles and dates of posting are as follows:
"Review of Minutes" Staff Report posted on 8/24/12
Then scroll down, skip a few others (unless you want to read them, as they are also interesting) and go to:
Crimson Ridge Rezoning Documents Requests April-June posted on 8/12/12
We have also created a permanent link to that blog in our list of links in the left margin
Friday, August 24, 2012
Answers to Questions
Apparently our mayor would rather attempt to take me down a notch as opposed to insuring that council responds in a truthful and forthcoming manner. (See the post immediately preceding this one)
As such I have sent the following email to our mayor, Jeff Meyers:
Jeff,
May I direct your attention to my blog post last night concerning Council member Jim Neighbor.
Now you can say whatever you want to the Shawnee Dispatch about how I react when questions are not answered.
But, you cannot deny that we have a problem when council members cannot answer simple questions with direct simple answers. Mr. Neighbor is just the latest one to dance around a question as opposed to a direct answer.
I remember a couple of years ago when I was trying to pinpoint how some dinner funds were spent in Washington, DC by members of the council that you seemed to be in favor of getting direct, specific answers. Maybe that was because they were members of the council that you were not fond of?
When members of the council Tijuana Two Step around questions, and fail to provide direct answers I will continue to challenge them. Maybe you need to assert your influence and advise them that they have an obligation to be forthcoming when dealing with the public.
Ray
As such I have sent the following email to our mayor, Jeff Meyers:
Jeff,
May I direct your attention to my blog post last night concerning Council member Jim Neighbor.
Now you can say whatever you want to the Shawnee Dispatch about how I react when questions are not answered.
But, you cannot deny that we have a problem when council members cannot answer simple questions with direct simple answers. Mr. Neighbor is just the latest one to dance around a question as opposed to a direct answer.
I remember a couple of years ago when I was trying to pinpoint how some dinner funds were spent in Washington, DC by members of the council that you seemed to be in favor of getting direct, specific answers. Maybe that was because they were members of the council that you were not fond of?
When members of the council Tijuana Two Step around questions, and fail to provide direct answers I will continue to challenge them. Maybe you need to assert your influence and advise them that they have an obligation to be forthcoming when dealing with the public.
Ray
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Is Council Member Neighbor Taking Lessons from Dawn Kuhn?
Background: In an article in the Shawnee Dispatch 8/8/12 Mayor Jeff Meyers had this to say about yours truly: Ray Erlichman, a resident who blogs about city affairs, “is another one who is going to try to make your life miserable if he doesn’t get the answer he wants,” Meyers said. He referred to Erlichman as “the season ticket holder who replaced Charlotte (Hargis),” a deceased former council member and leading critic of the governing body. Viewable at http://www.shawneedispatch.com/news/2012/aug/08/open-government-has-become-contentious-city-issue/
Moving forward - strange 1: At the city council meeting of 8/13/12 a development company wanted an analysis done to see if a CID was a viable way to proceed on a shopping center redevelopment. To do this, by ordinance, the developer needs to pay the city $20,000 for the study. No problem here. But the name on the check rang a bell, Bonner Springs Partners. So, I asked if any of the incumbents who ran for office this past April had received any contributions from them. It took a few seconds but Dawn Kuhn said she had but she couldn't remember if it was one of the principals individually or the company. I had to inform her it was the company, $500 maximum allowable. She indicated that she got so many contributions. OK, here's the "strange 1".......on the 3/26, 2/21, and 1/10 filings Kuhn ahd only received a total of 12 contributions...........and only two of them were for $500, the developer and Deffenbaugh. And, on the 3/26 filing which had the developer, Kuhn herself signed the report and appears to have also filled out the forms. But shee needed her memory jogged.
Moving forward - strange 2: I knew there was another one but couldn't remember, and no other council member came forward. So, when I got home I looked it back up. Lo and behold it was Jim Neighbor. Yet he didn't voluntarily admit to receiving the contribution.
So, I emailed Neighbor on 8/15/12:
Jim,
Curious, when I asked the question Monday night as to who of the
incumbents who ran for reelection had received donations from that
group Dawn Kuhn admitted it but I really don't remember you responding.
Would you care to answer as to why you didn't say anything Monday night?
Thank you
Ray
Neighbor replied on 8/16/12
OK. I'm going to try this on a different screen. My treasurer keeps track of all the financials, is recovering from back surgery, and I'll contact her next week, for details and forward them to you.
Regards, Jim Neighbor
So, I had to reply this way, also on the 16th.
Thank you for the response.
Attached please find a copy of the 3/26/12 financial for you to review.
It is interesting to note that this filing was signed by you and not your treasurer.
Also, as an FYI, on the 2/20 and 3/26 filings you received a total of 12 contributions……………and only two of them are for $500 (one from Bonner Springs Partners and one from Deffenbaugh).
One would think that an individual would remember the two “big” ones they got.
That is why I was curious as to why you didn’t mention it the other night when I asked.
Looking forward to your response
Thank you
Ray
Note, it also appears that not only did he sign that financial, but it looks like he too filled it out himself.
So, yes Mr. Mayor, if I don't get a reasonable answer I will come back with a follow up question (Neighbor has not responded back yet). Why do these elected officials have to do their little Tijuana Two Step around simple questions and not give direct, honest answers? I believe former council member David Morris alluded to what he called government speak in giving answers to the public which can do nothing but cause problems.
When elected officials dance around simple questions one has to wonder....why?
Moving forward - strange 1: At the city council meeting of 8/13/12 a development company wanted an analysis done to see if a CID was a viable way to proceed on a shopping center redevelopment. To do this, by ordinance, the developer needs to pay the city $20,000 for the study. No problem here. But the name on the check rang a bell, Bonner Springs Partners. So, I asked if any of the incumbents who ran for office this past April had received any contributions from them. It took a few seconds but Dawn Kuhn said she had but she couldn't remember if it was one of the principals individually or the company. I had to inform her it was the company, $500 maximum allowable. She indicated that she got so many contributions. OK, here's the "strange 1".......on the 3/26, 2/21, and 1/10 filings Kuhn ahd only received a total of 12 contributions...........and only two of them were for $500, the developer and Deffenbaugh. And, on the 3/26 filing which had the developer, Kuhn herself signed the report and appears to have also filled out the forms. But shee needed her memory jogged.
Moving forward - strange 2: I knew there was another one but couldn't remember, and no other council member came forward. So, when I got home I looked it back up. Lo and behold it was Jim Neighbor. Yet he didn't voluntarily admit to receiving the contribution.
So, I emailed Neighbor on 8/15/12:
Jim,
Curious, when I asked the question Monday night as to who of the
incumbents who ran for reelection had received donations from that
group Dawn Kuhn admitted it but I really don't remember you responding.
Would you care to answer as to why you didn't say anything Monday night?
Thank you
Ray
Neighbor replied on 8/16/12
OK. I'm going to try this on a different screen. My treasurer keeps track of all the financials, is recovering from back surgery, and I'll contact her next week, for details and forward them to you.
Regards, Jim Neighbor
So, I had to reply this way, also on the 16th.
Thank you for the response.
Attached please find a copy of the 3/26/12 financial for you to review.
It is interesting to note that this filing was signed by you and not your treasurer.
Also, as an FYI, on the 2/20 and 3/26 filings you received a total of 12 contributions……………and only two of them are for $500 (one from Bonner Springs Partners and one from Deffenbaugh).
One would think that an individual would remember the two “big” ones they got.
That is why I was curious as to why you didn’t mention it the other night when I asked.
Looking forward to your response
Thank you
Ray
Note, it also appears that not only did he sign that financial, but it looks like he too filled it out himself.
So, yes Mr. Mayor, if I don't get a reasonable answer I will come back with a follow up question (Neighbor has not responded back yet). Why do these elected officials have to do their little Tijuana Two Step around simple questions and not give direct, honest answers? I believe former council member David Morris alluded to what he called government speak in giving answers to the public which can do nothing but cause problems.
When elected officials dance around simple questions one has to wonder....why?
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Another Former Council Member Voices His Opinion
The below appears in today's Shawnee Dispatch, and on line at:
http://www.shawneedispatch.com/news/2012/aug/22/doghouse-dwellers/
To the editor,
As a former Shawnee City Council member I would like to add some personal observations to the Dispatch article on open government.
I requested information from the city manager. Many times I received only partial information and at other times no information. Basically, I was being stonewalled.
It got to the point where I had to submit requests under the Kansas Open Records Act. Still, responses were not timely or forthcoming at all, and sometimes there would be fees. Council members should not have to endure that. City documents should be readily available for their review.
When I brought this up at various meetings, one of the other council members would say something to the effect of, “Well, I always get the information I request.”
Yes Ms. Kuhn, we can understand that, and why.
There is a definite good ol’ boy network on the council, coupled with a city manager run amok with power and forgetting her place as an employee of the council. I remember seeing this quote by another former council member, David Morris, discussing his resignation: “In the political arena, if you get put in the doghouse, answers don’t come particularly quickly, and sometimes phone calls don’t get returned particularly quickly.”
I was in the Shawnee City Council doghouse and did not get answers to questions or emails returned.
Kevin Straub
http://www.shawneedispatch.com/news/2012/aug/22/doghouse-dwellers/
To the editor,
As a former Shawnee City Council member I would like to add some personal observations to the Dispatch article on open government.
I requested information from the city manager. Many times I received only partial information and at other times no information. Basically, I was being stonewalled.
It got to the point where I had to submit requests under the Kansas Open Records Act. Still, responses were not timely or forthcoming at all, and sometimes there would be fees. Council members should not have to endure that. City documents should be readily available for their review.
When I brought this up at various meetings, one of the other council members would say something to the effect of, “Well, I always get the information I request.”
Yes Ms. Kuhn, we can understand that, and why.
There is a definite good ol’ boy network on the council, coupled with a city manager run amok with power and forgetting her place as an employee of the council. I remember seeing this quote by another former council member, David Morris, discussing his resignation: “In the political arena, if you get put in the doghouse, answers don’t come particularly quickly, and sometimes phone calls don’t get returned particularly quickly.”
I was in the Shawnee City Council doghouse and did not get answers to questions or emails returned.
Kevin Straub
Friday, August 17, 2012
Detailed Minutes - Will They Come Back?
A very important item with regards to governmental transparency is up for discussion at the Council Committee meeting on Tuesday 8/21/12 at 7:00PM.
That item is to consider restoring detailed minutes of city council, committee, and some other meetings.
Of the currently sitting council members the following voted for what we have now which denies the citizens a complete record of what has transpired: Kuhn, Vaught, Sandifer, Neighbor and Sawyer. These five basically voted against government transparency.
Only council members Pflumm and Distler voted to keep the detailed minutes, thus insuring more open government.
Be there Tuesday, and let's work to get those detailed minutes restored.
That item is to consider restoring detailed minutes of city council, committee, and some other meetings.
Of the currently sitting council members the following voted for what we have now which denies the citizens a complete record of what has transpired: Kuhn, Vaught, Sandifer, Neighbor and Sawyer. These five basically voted against government transparency.
Only council members Pflumm and Distler voted to keep the detailed minutes, thus insuring more open government.
Be there Tuesday, and let's work to get those detailed minutes restored.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Who Did Tell Her???
With the DA’s office investigating the possibility of a KOMA violation leading to the appointment of Alan Willoughby (the mayor’s uncle by marriage) to the council, I feel some “gaps” in the info.
Dawn Kuhn challenged Michelle Distler for not supporting Mr. Willoughby. Kuhn indicated that Distler was changing her attitude, in that Distler did not support Neighbor two years ago who had received lots of votes, but now wanted to support Dr. Mike Kemmling who also had received lots of votes. That was when Distler remarked that she did not support Neighbor because of being told that his selection was predetermined and that she had been told the same thing about Willoughby.
Ms. Distler didn’t mention at the council meeting who told her, nor did she “out” that person when interviewed by the media. But, did she inform the DA investigator of who that person was?
Dawn Kuhn challenged Michelle Distler for not supporting Mr. Willoughby. Kuhn indicated that Distler was changing her attitude, in that Distler did not support Neighbor two years ago who had received lots of votes, but now wanted to support Dr. Mike Kemmling who also had received lots of votes. That was when Distler remarked that she did not support Neighbor because of being told that his selection was predetermined and that she had been told the same thing about Willoughby.
Ms. Distler didn’t mention at the council meeting who told her, nor did she “out” that person when interviewed by the media. But, did she inform the DA investigator of who that person was?
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Former Councilmember Morris' Letter to the Editor
Former Shawnee city councilmember David Morris has written a letter to the Shawnee Dispatch that some might find interesting.
It can be read at this link http://www.shawneedispatch.com/news/2012/aug/14/letter-involved-citizens-vilified/
Or, to save you time you can read it below:
To the editor,
In the article “Open government has become contentious city issue,” city officials talked about how they encourage citizen involvement yet seem to verbally vilify the citizens who do get involved in the process.
As a community activist and former councilman, I have the unique ability to understand both sides. Sometimes the job of governing can be rewarding and positive. Other times it can be frustrating, exhausting and downright nasty. That’s all part of the job description.
Over the years I’ve seen a trend toward city leaders who make excuses why they can’t, like to play the role of victim and then blame others. Maybe a better approach than belittling and vilifying citizens that do get involved would be to take a more positive leadership approach and stop acting like whining victims. When leadership takes the approach as in this article, the public only hears “government speak” for “we’re always right and don’t care what you think.” Situations like this can be defused long before they get to this level of contention if one drops the “government speak” and is genuine and honest.
Last but not least, it was in very bad taste and disrespectful that an official would bring the deceased Charlotte Hargis into this public contention. The attempt to vilify the dead is inappropriate and beneath what citizens expect from their city leaders.
David Morris
Shawnee
The article Mr. Morris refers to is here:
http://www.shawneedispatch.com/news/2012/aug/08/open-government-has-become-contentious-city-issue/
It can be read at this link http://www.shawneedispatch.com/news/2012/aug/14/letter-involved-citizens-vilified/
Or, to save you time you can read it below:
To the editor,
In the article “Open government has become contentious city issue,” city officials talked about how they encourage citizen involvement yet seem to verbally vilify the citizens who do get involved in the process.
As a community activist and former councilman, I have the unique ability to understand both sides. Sometimes the job of governing can be rewarding and positive. Other times it can be frustrating, exhausting and downright nasty. That’s all part of the job description.
Over the years I’ve seen a trend toward city leaders who make excuses why they can’t, like to play the role of victim and then blame others. Maybe a better approach than belittling and vilifying citizens that do get involved would be to take a more positive leadership approach and stop acting like whining victims. When leadership takes the approach as in this article, the public only hears “government speak” for “we’re always right and don’t care what you think.” Situations like this can be defused long before they get to this level of contention if one drops the “government speak” and is genuine and honest.
Last but not least, it was in very bad taste and disrespectful that an official would bring the deceased Charlotte Hargis into this public contention. The attempt to vilify the dead is inappropriate and beneath what citizens expect from their city leaders.
David Morris
Shawnee
The article Mr. Morris refers to is here:
http://www.shawneedispatch.com/news/2012/aug/08/open-government-has-become-contentious-city-issue/
Friday, August 10, 2012
Former Councilmember Straub Adds Comments
Former Shawnee City Councilmember Kevin Straub has added his comments to the article in the Shawnee Dispatch.
His comments are very telling and very interesting. Maybe the DA's office should look into these comments too?
See the article and then scroll down to read Straub's comments:
http://www.shawneedispatch.com/news/2012/aug/08/open-government-has-become-contentious-city-issue/
His comments are very telling and very interesting. Maybe the DA's office should look into these comments too?
See the article and then scroll down to read Straub's comments:
http://www.shawneedispatch.com/news/2012/aug/08/open-government-has-become-contentious-city-issue/
Thursday, August 09, 2012
Short Lesson in Constitutional Guarantees
In a previous post I mentioned that I felt Mayor Jeff Meyers violated his oath of office to support the Constitutions of the US and Kansas by not permitting public comment at the council meeting that appointed his uncle (by marriage) to the city council.
Two items worth reading:
First Amendment to the US Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Section 3 of the Bill of Rights of the Kansas Constitution:
Right of peaceable assembly; petition. The people have the right to assemble, in a peaceable manner, to consult for their common good, to instruct their representatives, and to petition the government, or any department thereof, for the redress of grievances.
'Nuff said..............................
Two items worth reading:
First Amendment to the US Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Section 3 of the Bill of Rights of the Kansas Constitution:
Right of peaceable assembly; petition. The people have the right to assemble, in a peaceable manner, to consult for their common good, to instruct their representatives, and to petition the government, or any department thereof, for the redress of grievances.
'Nuff said..............................
Tuesday's (8/7/12) Primary Election
Well Tuesday was an interesting day.
Let's look at some of the races.
John Rubin defeated Neal Sawyer. Acutally Sawyer got a spanking, 67% to 33%, and in reality lost two elections on Tuesday. Tom Martin defeated Sawyer for precinct committeeman in their precinct. One has to wonder if maybe Sawyer's abstaining from voting at the July 9th council meeting may have had something to do with that? Maybe there were 650 folks in Ward II that were upset with him? Happy to see Rubin come out on top.
Another person I was happy to see come out on top was Mary Pilcher-Cook. She gave Tom Wertz a spanking, 64% to 36%. Maybe folks took exception to some of Wertz's mailers?
Charles Macheers was another victorious candidate. He defeated Stephanie Meyer 63% to 37%. Nice job Charles. Happy to see you were victorious.
Brett Hildabrand won out over Jason Leib 58% to 42%. Happy to see that one, especially in view of some of Leib's comments about Hildabrand that were just below the belt.
Now, proving that below the belt mailers are wrong was Greg Smith's victory over Joe Beveridge. Was definitely happy to see Smith take this one. Congrats Greg.
Looking forward to the general election in November and those winners mentioned above being victorious at that time also.
Let's look at some of the races.
John Rubin defeated Neal Sawyer. Acutally Sawyer got a spanking, 67% to 33%, and in reality lost two elections on Tuesday. Tom Martin defeated Sawyer for precinct committeeman in their precinct. One has to wonder if maybe Sawyer's abstaining from voting at the July 9th council meeting may have had something to do with that? Maybe there were 650 folks in Ward II that were upset with him? Happy to see Rubin come out on top.
Another person I was happy to see come out on top was Mary Pilcher-Cook. She gave Tom Wertz a spanking, 64% to 36%. Maybe folks took exception to some of Wertz's mailers?
Charles Macheers was another victorious candidate. He defeated Stephanie Meyer 63% to 37%. Nice job Charles. Happy to see you were victorious.
Brett Hildabrand won out over Jason Leib 58% to 42%. Happy to see that one, especially in view of some of Leib's comments about Hildabrand that were just below the belt.
Now, proving that below the belt mailers are wrong was Greg Smith's victory over Joe Beveridge. Was definitely happy to see Smith take this one. Congrats Greg.
Looking forward to the general election in November and those winners mentioned above being victorious at that time also.
Wednesday, August 08, 2012
Mayor Meyers Ignores His Oath of Office
Well, I guess Mayor Jeff Meyers does not care about his oath of office to support both the US and Kansas Constitutions.
The below comments are taken from an article in the Shawnee Dispatch, and are regarding open government and the meeting that saw the mayor's uncle (by marriage) appointed to fill a council vacancy.
The article can be read at http://www.shawneedispatch.com/news/2012/aug/08/open-government-has-become-contentious-city-issue/
Ray Erlichman, a resident who blogs about city affairs, “is another one who is going to try to make your life miserable if he doesn’t get the answer he wants,” Meyers said. He referred to Erlichman as “the season ticket holder who replaced Charlotte (Hargis),” a deceased former council member and leading critic of the governing body.
Following Willoughby’s appointment, Erlichman was critical of Meyers for not allowing public discussion during the July 9 meeting.
Meyers said he had heard that the pastor of a church attended by Distler and applicant Michael Kemmling had made an appeal from the pulpit for members to turn out in support of Kemmling. “So I decided before we started the process that, this time, I’m not going to get into the circus of people electioneering at the meeting,” Meyers said.
Kemmling said, “It’s odd that if (Meyers) suspects opinions are going to be contrary to his, he doesn’t want to hear them.”
Did Meyers ever think that maybe some of those folks that wanted to speak were some of the 650 who had voted for Kemmling? You know, the ones that made it possible for him (Kemmling) to come within 11, that's right, 11 votes of defeating Neal Sawyer. Did he ever think that maybe there were folks who wanted to speak that did not go to that church?
Note to Jeff Meyers: I'd rather be the season ticket holder to replace Charlotte Hargis than a mayor that does not uphold his oath of office and who has abrogated his responsibilities.
Sidebar: The mayor has a short memory. Doesn't he remember when council member Vaught electioneered from the dais? A no-no for elected officials. Of course not, because that was for the mayor's benefit.
The below comments are taken from an article in the Shawnee Dispatch, and are regarding open government and the meeting that saw the mayor's uncle (by marriage) appointed to fill a council vacancy.
The article can be read at http://www.shawneedispatch.com/news/2012/aug/08/open-government-has-become-contentious-city-issue/
Ray Erlichman, a resident who blogs about city affairs, “is another one who is going to try to make your life miserable if he doesn’t get the answer he wants,” Meyers said. He referred to Erlichman as “the season ticket holder who replaced Charlotte (Hargis),” a deceased former council member and leading critic of the governing body.
Following Willoughby’s appointment, Erlichman was critical of Meyers for not allowing public discussion during the July 9 meeting.
Meyers said he had heard that the pastor of a church attended by Distler and applicant Michael Kemmling had made an appeal from the pulpit for members to turn out in support of Kemmling. “So I decided before we started the process that, this time, I’m not going to get into the circus of people electioneering at the meeting,” Meyers said.
Kemmling said, “It’s odd that if (Meyers) suspects opinions are going to be contrary to his, he doesn’t want to hear them.”
Did Meyers ever think that maybe some of those folks that wanted to speak were some of the 650 who had voted for Kemmling? You know, the ones that made it possible for him (Kemmling) to come within 11, that's right, 11 votes of defeating Neal Sawyer. Did he ever think that maybe there were folks who wanted to speak that did not go to that church?
Note to Jeff Meyers: I'd rather be the season ticket holder to replace Charlotte Hargis than a mayor that does not uphold his oath of office and who has abrogated his responsibilities.
Sidebar: The mayor has a short memory. Doesn't he remember when council member Vaught electioneered from the dais? A no-no for elected officials. Of course not, because that was for the mayor's benefit.
Tuesday, August 07, 2012
KMBZ Comments on KOMA Investigation
Link to their web site story
There is also a short audio clip you can click on and listen to.KMBZ Link
There is also a short audio clip you can click on and listen to.KMBZ Link
Sunday, August 05, 2012
Low Blow Mailer
A recent mailer sent out supporting Joe Beveridge over Greg Smith for State Senate has to be one of the lowest bottom feeder types of literature I have seen. In brief, Greg is criticized for taking a salary for his work as President of the foundation that was set up in memory of his daughter. And that foundation has done many things with an eye to protecting women from violence. The amount that Greg gets, based on the time he puts in, wouldn't even qualify for minimum wage. And he has a reply for that.
My question is: do the elected officials who endorse Beveridge condone this kind of sleaze? Folks like Mike Boehm, Ed Eilert and Carl Gerlach. The complete list can be found at http://www.beveridgeforsenate.com I bet I know one that condones this sleaze, Stephanie Sharp. Heck her company, Sharp Connections a PR and consultancy company received $15,173.08 from the Beveridge campaign (as of 7/30 that was of a total expenditure listing of $16,760.86)
Anyway, the mailer is shown below followed by some screen captures from Facebook supporting Greg Smith and showing disgust with the mailer.
Note: Please click on any of the images to enlarge so you can read them. Thank you.
My question is: do the elected officials who endorse Beveridge condone this kind of sleaze? Folks like Mike Boehm, Ed Eilert and Carl Gerlach. The complete list can be found at http://www.beveridgeforsenate.com I bet I know one that condones this sleaze, Stephanie Sharp. Heck her company, Sharp Connections a PR and consultancy company received $15,173.08 from the Beveridge campaign (as of 7/30 that was of a total expenditure listing of $16,760.86)
Anyway, the mailer is shown below followed by some screen captures from Facebook supporting Greg Smith and showing disgust with the mailer.
Note: Please click on any of the images to enlarge so you can read them. Thank you.
Thursday, August 02, 2012
Wednesday, August 01, 2012
Hit and Run - No Fun
If you haven't heard about this hit and run please read the article in the Shawnee Dispatch,
http://www.shawneedispatch.com/news/2012/jul/31/police-ask-help-hit-and-run-case/
Somebody out there must know something. Please contact the Shawnee PD
Thank you.
http://www.shawneedispatch.com/news/2012/jul/31/police-ask-help-hit-and-run-case/
Somebody out there must know something. Please contact the Shawnee PD
Thank you.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
"HOT" Complaint Filed with DA for Possible Violation of the KOMA
A complaint has been filed with the Johnson County DA's office of a possible violation of the Kansas Open Meetings Act, as it pertains to the mayor and the city council.
For more info
http://www.shawneedispatch.com/news/2012/jul/31/das-office-investigating-alleged-open-meetings-vio/
For more info
http://www.shawneedispatch.com/news/2012/jul/31/das-office-investigating-alleged-open-meetings-vio/
New Blogger in Town
There's a new blog in town, "Shawnee, Kansas - FWIW"
http://blog.shawneefwiw.com/
Also, if you haven't seen the video of the Jeff Vaught hypocrisy, scroll down, it's right below this post.
http://blog.shawneefwiw.com/
Also, if you haven't seen the video of the Jeff Vaught hypocrisy, scroll down, it's right below this post.
Monday, July 30, 2012
Vaught's "Food for thought..." hypocrisy (video)
At the July 9th Special Council Meeting, Council member Jeff Vaught (Ward IV) advised Dr. Mike Kemmling that he couldn't vote for him, because he (Dr. Kemmling) interrupted Councilmember Kuhn and himself. See the video below. It might prove interesting. Oh, the audio on the camera is a little weak, so Vaught's comment was:
Methinks Mr. Vaught needs to munch on some of his own "food for thought", along with his ward mate Dawn Kuhn. These are not the only instances of these two interrupting other people. They do it at almost every meeting, be it a member of the public, staff, or other council members. Did you notice Council member Sawyer asking to be allowed to finish after he was interrupted?
“It is interesting and honestly I am just going to direct this at you Mr. Kemmling, I really tried to, in listening to the questions, I really tried to keep an open mind but even when Miss Kuhn was questioning you, 4 times you tried to interrupt her. You tried to interrupt me. And I’m thinking, I’m just trying to ask questions here, put it out there, and that desire to talk over somebody is not good. If we all did that up here, trying to talk over each other, it would get really ugly real quick. The only reason, I really believe, people that run for city council is because you like to be heard and if all 8 of us tried to be heard at the same time, its going to explode. So, I’m struggling with that. I know you went out and campaigned. I just, I have a type A personality and I can be pretty aggressive, but I’ve also learned to sit and I’ve got to mentally know when I’ve had to just sit and listen and not voice my opinion. It can be difficult but that’s just part of the game. It’s a lot of listening and probably a lot less talking than listening and it’s hard to do. Just some food for thought.”
Methinks Mr. Vaught needs to munch on some of his own "food for thought", along with his ward mate Dawn Kuhn. These are not the only instances of these two interrupting other people. They do it at almost every meeting, be it a member of the public, staff, or other council members. Did you notice Council member Sawyer asking to be allowed to finish after he was interrupted?
Friday, July 27, 2012
What Is On Sawyer's Mind?
OK, in April Neal Sawyer barely ekes out a reelection victory 661-650 in Shawnee's Ward II.
Then three months later he's running for state representative. Doesn't he care about the commitment he made to the folks in Ward II?
Anyway, here's the kicker. If Sawyer were to get elected as a state rep he technically could keep his Ward II job. Yep, according to Kansas law you can't hold multiple partisan elected positions, but since the city's elections are non-partisan he could do that. Problem is, the state rep's position is virtually a 24/7 job when the legislature is in session. Now, can he really handle both? I don't think so. According to the city's web site he still holds his non-governmental job. Can he hold 3 spots? I definitely don't think so.
So, my suggestion is let's make sure we don't have to suffer the consequences of finding out. Make him fulfill his obligation to the the people in Ward II by not electing him to the state legislature.
Then three months later he's running for state representative. Doesn't he care about the commitment he made to the folks in Ward II?
Anyway, here's the kicker. If Sawyer were to get elected as a state rep he technically could keep his Ward II job. Yep, according to Kansas law you can't hold multiple partisan elected positions, but since the city's elections are non-partisan he could do that. Problem is, the state rep's position is virtually a 24/7 job when the legislature is in session. Now, can he really handle both? I don't think so. According to the city's web site he still holds his non-governmental job. Can he hold 3 spots? I definitely don't think so.
So, my suggestion is let's make sure we don't have to suffer the consequences of finding out. Make him fulfill his obligation to the the people in Ward II by not electing him to the state legislature.
Monday, July 23, 2012
Sandifer Not Supporting Leib
Well, well, well.................Shawnee City Council Member Mickey Sandifer is no longer showing up as a supporter of Jason Leib for state rep:
http://jasonleib.com/about/
The qwuestion still remains, did Sandifer initially support Leib and then withdraw that after various items came out or did Leib use Sandifer's name without his permission?
What items? Apparently Mr. Leib has a DUI history and a bunch of tweets which would indicate an extreme fondness for alcohol. http://thekansascitian.blogspot.com/2012/07/exclusive-alcohol-plagued-past-casts.html Also, Mr. Sandifer has expressed that he is a strong proponent of right to life, where Mr. Leib does not share those views. This is/was a strange situation.
http://jasonleib.com/about/
The qwuestion still remains, did Sandifer initially support Leib and then withdraw that after various items came out or did Leib use Sandifer's name without his permission?
What items? Apparently Mr. Leib has a DUI history and a bunch of tweets which would indicate an extreme fondness for alcohol. http://thekansascitian.blogspot.com/2012/07/exclusive-alcohol-plagued-past-casts.html Also, Mr. Sandifer has expressed that he is a strong proponent of right to life, where Mr. Leib does not share those views. This is/was a strange situation.
Friday, July 20, 2012
Three Reasons NOT to Vote for Jason Leib
Three good reasons NOT to vote for Jason Leib.
The reasons are from his own web site at http://jasonleib.com/about/
What are they?
He is being supported by Dawn Kuhn, Mickey Sandifer and Neal Sawyer. Three good reasons NOT to vote for him.
Those three contributed in one way or the other to the slap in the face to the people of Shawnee recently regarding the appointment of the Mayor's uncle to a council position.
The reasons are from his own web site at http://jasonleib.com/about/
What are they?
He is being supported by Dawn Kuhn, Mickey Sandifer and Neal Sawyer. Three good reasons NOT to vote for him.
Those three contributed in one way or the other to the slap in the face to the people of Shawnee recently regarding the appointment of the Mayor's uncle to a council position.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Keep Brett Hildabrand, Forget Jason Leib
Brett Hildabrand is being challenged in the republican primary by Jason Leib for the 17th House District.
Check these items out...............good reasons to keep Hildabrand:
Check these items out...............good reasons to keep Hildabrand:
For a map of the 17th district go here
Since the map is in Adobe (pdf) format you can click on the "+" sign to increase the size to be able to view the street info.
Letters to the Shawnee Dispatch 7/18/12
This letter by resident Alan Dunz appears in the hard copy of the Dispatch and on line at
http://www.shawneedispatch.com/news/2012/jul/17/letter-council-behaved-badly/
This letter is on line only at
http://www.shawneedispatch.com/news/2012/jul/17/letter-mayor-slapped-democracy-face/
http://www.shawneedispatch.com/news/2012/jul/17/letter-council-behaved-badly/
This letter is on line only at
http://www.shawneedispatch.com/news/2012/jul/17/letter-mayor-slapped-democracy-face/
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Mayor Responds As To Why He Did Not Allow Public Comment
Mayor Jeff Meyers has responded as to why he did not allow public comment at the special council meeting which selected the replacement for the open seat in Ward II. The individual finally chose was Alan Willoughby, the mayor's uncle (by marriage).
Here is the response:
Ray,
My basis for the decision not to ask for public comment is that after allowing public comment last time I did not feel it was helpful to the process.The public had the ability to contact council members prior to the vote of the Council and did so. I did not feel comments in that form was necessary for the Council to make their decision.
Jeff
The mayor and the council all took oaths to support the constitutions of the State of Kansas and the United States. Methinks maybe they need to reread the entire first amendment to the US Constitution.
Welcome to Shawnee, USSR
Here is the response:
Ray,
My basis for the decision not to ask for public comment is that after allowing public comment last time I did not feel it was helpful to the process.The public had the ability to contact council members prior to the vote of the Council and did so. I did not feel comments in that form was necessary for the Council to make their decision.
Jeff
The mayor and the council all took oaths to support the constitutions of the State of Kansas and the United States. Methinks maybe they need to reread the entire first amendment to the US Constitution.
Welcome to Shawnee, USSR
Charles Macheers for State Rep
I’m going to take a brief break discussing Shawnee City politics to talk about something else important to the city of Shawnee and that is the race for State Representative in the 39th District. With the recent redistricting, the 39th District is entirely within Johnson County and includes most of northwest Shawnee. Charles Macheers, a great conservative, is running for State Representative in that district and I fully support his candidacy. Among his many supporter is current State Representative, Owen Donohoe who is retiring and is endorsing Charles as well.
While the issues are many, there are three key things you need to know about Charles’ beliefs:
First, Charles is committed to ensuring the state runs efficiently and effectively. In the past 10 years, Kansas government spending rose 47%. Unfortunately, private sector GDP per capita only grew 8.9% over the same period. This pace cannot be sustained—we must do a better job at maintaining an effective, efficient government in the state of Kansas. Kansas ranks #7 among all U.S. states in state spending growth. This is not a statistic we should be proud of. Charles will work to eliminate inefficient government spending and to improve the effectiveness of state-funded programs.
Second, Charles believes that it is important to maintain local—not federal—control of education budgets. He believes the state needs to be fiscally responsible with education funding to ensure that they can respond to the needs of students, parents and teachers—and not Washington—when it comes to determining how taxpayers’ money is spent.
Third, job creation is a priority for Charles. He believes that Kansas needs a competitive tax policy to attract jobs to Kansas and enable our current businesses to expand and add jobs. Growth in the private sector is the key to expanding the tax base. A small business owner himself, Charles understands the importance of keeping tax and regulatory burdens low so that Kansas businesses can grow and bolster our state economy. His endorsement by the Kansas Chamber of Commerce reinforces his pro-business, pro-jobs stance.
Besides being sound on issues, Charles is endorsed by interest groups that are important to all of us including Kansans for Life, the Kansas Chamber and Northwest Johnson County Republicans.
You can read more about Charles on his website: http://www.macheers.com/. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook. You can link to both from his webpage.
I fully support Charles Macheers and hope you will too by voting for him in the Primary on August 7, for State Rep in the 39th District, or by advance ballot. And then we can support him in the general election in November.
While the issues are many, there are three key things you need to know about Charles’ beliefs:
First, Charles is committed to ensuring the state runs efficiently and effectively. In the past 10 years, Kansas government spending rose 47%. Unfortunately, private sector GDP per capita only grew 8.9% over the same period. This pace cannot be sustained—we must do a better job at maintaining an effective, efficient government in the state of Kansas. Kansas ranks #7 among all U.S. states in state spending growth. This is not a statistic we should be proud of. Charles will work to eliminate inefficient government spending and to improve the effectiveness of state-funded programs.
Second, Charles believes that it is important to maintain local—not federal—control of education budgets. He believes the state needs to be fiscally responsible with education funding to ensure that they can respond to the needs of students, parents and teachers—and not Washington—when it comes to determining how taxpayers’ money is spent.
Third, job creation is a priority for Charles. He believes that Kansas needs a competitive tax policy to attract jobs to Kansas and enable our current businesses to expand and add jobs. Growth in the private sector is the key to expanding the tax base. A small business owner himself, Charles understands the importance of keeping tax and regulatory burdens low so that Kansas businesses can grow and bolster our state economy. His endorsement by the Kansas Chamber of Commerce reinforces his pro-business, pro-jobs stance.
Besides being sound on issues, Charles is endorsed by interest groups that are important to all of us including Kansans for Life, the Kansas Chamber and Northwest Johnson County Republicans.
You can read more about Charles on his website: http://www.macheers.com/. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook. You can link to both from his webpage.
I fully support Charles Macheers and hope you will too by voting for him in the Primary on August 7, for State Rep in the 39th District, or by advance ballot. And then we can support him in the general election in November.
Monday, July 16, 2012
Simple Answers Are Hard to Come By
See the post below about the clarification concerning Kuhn/White.
Here is the city manger's response to my email, and then my response to that. Simple questions always seem to be the hardest to answer, don't they?
Ray, we have spent several hours of staff time over the past few years looking into and addressing this question for you. We are comfortable that we are handling it appropriately. If you, in your research, find something to the contrary, please let me know and we will certainly look at it, but I'm not going to spend any more staff time on this issue at this point.
Carol Gonzales
City Manager
City of Shawnee
And here is my reply to that.
Carol,
First, you have not spent “several hours of staff time over the past few years looking into and addressing this question” because my initial inquiry was dated 3/11/2012, and that was only because the web site Kansasopengov.org showed a Dawn White and not a Dawn Kuhn, and I thought their web site was wrong.
There were three or four quick inquiries, to the city which resulted in three or four quick responses.
It seems strange that one person (an elected official) would receive two forms of compensation under two different names from the city.
Here is the city manger's response to my email, and then my response to that. Simple questions always seem to be the hardest to answer, don't they?
Ray, we have spent several hours of staff time over the past few years looking into and addressing this question for you. We are comfortable that we are handling it appropriately. If you, in your research, find something to the contrary, please let me know and we will certainly look at it, but I'm not going to spend any more staff time on this issue at this point.
Carol Gonzales
City Manager
City of Shawnee
And here is my reply to that.
Carol,
First, you have not spent “several hours of staff time over the past few years looking into and addressing this question” because my initial inquiry was dated 3/11/2012, and that was only because the web site Kansasopengov.org showed a Dawn White and not a Dawn Kuhn, and I thought their web site was wrong.
There were three or four quick inquiries, to the city which resulted in three or four quick responses.
It seems strange that one person (an elected official) would receive two forms of compensation under two different names from the city.
Sunday, July 15, 2012
Will City Manager Clarify Kuhn/White?
Below is an email I just sent to the city manager. If Kuhn won't answer why she is receiving compensation under two different names, maybe the city manager will explain why the city is paying them that way.
Carol,
I know that you are aware of my questions to Dawn Kuhn as she cc’d you on her reply to me which did not really answer either of the questions I asked of her.
Of the two questions one cannot be answered by your office. The other question can, since as City Manager the finance department reports to you. It really is a simple question, for which a specific answer should be forthcoming.
Why does she receive her payroll checks as “White” but her expense checks as “Kuhn”? I realize that “White” is her maiden name, but that response of hers did not clarify why two names are being used for one person for two different forms of compensation.
I will add a second question to you: What standard acceptable method of accounting allows for this type of name splitting for the two forms of compensation?
Thank you
Ray
Carol,
I know that you are aware of my questions to Dawn Kuhn as she cc’d you on her reply to me which did not really answer either of the questions I asked of her.
Of the two questions one cannot be answered by your office. The other question can, since as City Manager the finance department reports to you. It really is a simple question, for which a specific answer should be forthcoming.
Why does she receive her payroll checks as “White” but her expense checks as “Kuhn”? I realize that “White” is her maiden name, but that response of hers did not clarify why two names are being used for one person for two different forms of compensation.
I will add a second question to you: What standard acceptable method of accounting allows for this type of name splitting for the two forms of compensation?
Thank you
Ray
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Email to the Mayor - Why No Public Comment?
I have just sent the following email to Mayor Jeff Meyers:
Jeff,
If you remember, last week I asked why there was no public comment at the Special Council Meeting that selected the individual to fill the open seat in Ward II.
You replied that it was your decision not to ask for public comment.
Subsequent to that, some folks have asked me why I didn’t ask the obvious follow up question. So, I will ask it now.
What was the basis for the decision not to ask for public comment, particularly when it comes to the choice of an individual who will represent members of the community at council?
Ray
Jeff,
If you remember, last week I asked why there was no public comment at the Special Council Meeting that selected the individual to fill the open seat in Ward II.
You replied that it was your decision not to ask for public comment.
Subsequent to that, some folks have asked me why I didn’t ask the obvious follow up question. So, I will ask it now.
What was the basis for the decision not to ask for public comment, particularly when it comes to the choice of an individual who will represent members of the community at council?
Ray
Friday, July 13, 2012
Shawnee Shenanigans Part 4
Continuing the saga from Monday's special council meeting that appointed the mayor's uncle (by marriage), Alan Willoughby, to the open position in Ward II with NO public input allowed. If you have not read parts 1, 2 and 3, please scroll down and read them first.
Let's move along on Monday night with councilmember Jim Neighbor. He is probably the easiest to comment on, since he very seldom comments on anything. One never knows where he stands on most issues until he votes. Don't believe me? Check the written minutes for the meetings that have them and the audio for those that don't.
That brings up Neal Sawyer, the other council member from Ward II. Keep in mind that Mike Kemmling, one of the applicants on Monday night lost to Sawyer in the recent election by only 11 votes. Probably the closest margin of any recent modern election in Shawnee.
What did Sawyer do? Nothing. He abstained on the vote for Kemmling and he abstained on the vote for the mayor's Uncle (by marriage) Alan Willoughby.
Considering the election results were 661 to 650 maybe, to show unity, and to be considerate of the people in his ward, maybe Sawyer could have supported Kemmling? Or was his silence a form of acquiescence to the charade that was taking place?
Now here's a kicker. Sawyer is now running in the primary for a state rep seat. What? He just got reelected to the council in April of this year (3 months ago). What does that tell the folks in Ward II? Could it be that he is telling them that he doesn't care about the unspoken commitment he made to serve them for three years? I surely hope they don't reward his attempt to leave them by voting for him for state rep.
Let's move along on Monday night with councilmember Jim Neighbor. He is probably the easiest to comment on, since he very seldom comments on anything. One never knows where he stands on most issues until he votes. Don't believe me? Check the written minutes for the meetings that have them and the audio for those that don't.
That brings up Neal Sawyer, the other council member from Ward II. Keep in mind that Mike Kemmling, one of the applicants on Monday night lost to Sawyer in the recent election by only 11 votes. Probably the closest margin of any recent modern election in Shawnee.
What did Sawyer do? Nothing. He abstained on the vote for Kemmling and he abstained on the vote for the mayor's Uncle (by marriage) Alan Willoughby.
Considering the election results were 661 to 650 maybe, to show unity, and to be considerate of the people in his ward, maybe Sawyer could have supported Kemmling? Or was his silence a form of acquiescence to the charade that was taking place?
Now here's a kicker. Sawyer is now running in the primary for a state rep seat. What? He just got reelected to the council in April of this year (3 months ago). What does that tell the folks in Ward II? Could it be that he is telling them that he doesn't care about the unspoken commitment he made to serve them for three years? I surely hope they don't reward his attempt to leave them by voting for him for state rep.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Shawnee Shenanigans Part 3
Continuing the saga from Monday's special council meeting that appointed the mayor's uncle (by marriage), Alan Willoughby, to the open position in Ward II with NO public input allowed. If you have not read parts 1 and 2, please scroll down and read them first.
Moving along, it came to Dawn Kuhn to ask questions of the applicants. Where other council members asked short questions Ms. Kuhn went on an inquisition for about 10-15 minutes. Her demeanor was not that of a council member seeking info, but rather that of Tomas de Torquemada. Very inappropriate, especially for one who has preached civility. We'll make the video available and one can see for themselves.
It will also be obvious that she kept looking at her iPad. Was someone in the audience sending her info? Were they sending her questions to ask? There was a problem with that, I believe, in Wichita recently. Or maybe she was just getting love letters.
Also, how many times did she interrupt Mike Kemmling?
She and others keep talking about how they respect disagreement but want civility on the council. How they want people who can work together. Horse nonsense. Her actions Monday night were anything but civil. Working together is a euphemism for wanting folks who march in lock step. That really is not good for Shawnee. Differing opinions bring out discussions which can lead to new and different ideas.
OK, now it is Dawn Kuhn's turn to answer questions. Questions that she has arrogantly refused to answer directly and has only attempted to answer with Tijuana Two Step type of answers. Apparently she feels that she is above answering questions from the citizenry. Well, she needs to learn that as an elected official she works for us, we don't work for her, and any member of the community can hold her accountable.
Here are the two questions:
1. Why are you getting your city payroll checks as "White" and your city expense reimbursement checks as "Kuhn" (why use two last names instead of one from the same source)?
2. Which last name are you using for payroll at your non-governmental employer, Bank Midwest?
No Tijuana Two Steps, specific answers please.
Moving along, it came to Dawn Kuhn to ask questions of the applicants. Where other council members asked short questions Ms. Kuhn went on an inquisition for about 10-15 minutes. Her demeanor was not that of a council member seeking info, but rather that of Tomas de Torquemada. Very inappropriate, especially for one who has preached civility. We'll make the video available and one can see for themselves.
It will also be obvious that she kept looking at her iPad. Was someone in the audience sending her info? Were they sending her questions to ask? There was a problem with that, I believe, in Wichita recently. Or maybe she was just getting love letters.
Also, how many times did she interrupt Mike Kemmling?
She and others keep talking about how they respect disagreement but want civility on the council. How they want people who can work together. Horse nonsense. Her actions Monday night were anything but civil. Working together is a euphemism for wanting folks who march in lock step. That really is not good for Shawnee. Differing opinions bring out discussions which can lead to new and different ideas.
OK, now it is Dawn Kuhn's turn to answer questions. Questions that she has arrogantly refused to answer directly and has only attempted to answer with Tijuana Two Step type of answers. Apparently she feels that she is above answering questions from the citizenry. Well, she needs to learn that as an elected official she works for us, we don't work for her, and any member of the community can hold her accountable.
Here are the two questions:
1. Why are you getting your city payroll checks as "White" and your city expense reimbursement checks as "Kuhn" (why use two last names instead of one from the same source)?
2. Which last name are you using for payroll at your non-governmental employer, Bank Midwest?
No Tijuana Two Steps, specific answers please.
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Shawnee Shenanigans Part 2
Continuing the saga from Monday's special council meeting that appointed the mayor's uncle (by marriage), Alan Willoughby, to the open position in Ward II with NO public input allowed. If you have not read part 1, please scroll down and read that first.
First item of business: Award for the Best Comedy Act by a Councilmember Trying to be Serious. That award goes to..............................Jeff Vaught. Vaught said he couldn't vote for Mike Kemmling (clearly the choice of 1/2 the folks who voted in the election, but remember, no public input allowed) because Kemmling interrupted Dawn Kuhn three times and interrupted him (Vaught) once. Huh? That's a reason not to support someone? And, he said it with a straight face. Now, is Vaught sure of that? Maybe he had his players reversed? Maybe it was Kuhn who interrupted Mike Kemmling? And what about Vaught? Did he really get interrupted? Or did he do the interrupting? And hasn't he (Vaught) interrupted others? Oh, by the way Jeff, remember, you still haven't answered the question as to what is your education level. Like you like to say: answer the question, answer the question, answer the question (and wasn't that interrupting somebody else?)
Now that we have that out of the way, let's get down to Mickey Sandifer. Mickey chose the time just before the votes were being taken (and the applicants could not respond back) to, in a very hostile manner, attack Mike Kemmling and accuse him of running the filthiest campaign ever in Shawnee. Mickey, I won't be politically correct, I just won't be vulgar: you sir are a liar. Since when does sending out literature, stating verified actions that an opponent has taken (like votes in council backed by minutes) become filthy? You stated that Mike Kemmling wanted to fire staff. Where in any of his literature did he say that? Show us Mickey. Back up what you say. You can't, and that sir, makes you a liar.
Now, you want to talk about filthy campaigning. What about the piece that was mailed and arrived the day before the election, that was sent out basically supporting you and the other incumbents? That was filth, and lies, with claims that the Koch Bros. were behind the challenger's candidacies, that they had spent $100,000. This piece of trash was mailed using a phoney PO Box, and without stating who sent it, which is a violation of law. And neither you Mickey, nor any of the incumbents that it was designed to back, said anything to disavow this piece of trash. And in case you forgot what this piece of filth looked like, it's posted below. So again Mickey, put up or shut up. Back up your lies, as if you could. (Click on either of the two images to see them larger).
![]()
![]()
First item of business: Award for the Best Comedy Act by a Councilmember Trying to be Serious. That award goes to..............................Jeff Vaught. Vaught said he couldn't vote for Mike Kemmling (clearly the choice of 1/2 the folks who voted in the election, but remember, no public input allowed) because Kemmling interrupted Dawn Kuhn three times and interrupted him (Vaught) once. Huh? That's a reason not to support someone? And, he said it with a straight face. Now, is Vaught sure of that? Maybe he had his players reversed? Maybe it was Kuhn who interrupted Mike Kemmling? And what about Vaught? Did he really get interrupted? Or did he do the interrupting? And hasn't he (Vaught) interrupted others? Oh, by the way Jeff, remember, you still haven't answered the question as to what is your education level. Like you like to say: answer the question, answer the question, answer the question (and wasn't that interrupting somebody else?)
Now that we have that out of the way, let's get down to Mickey Sandifer. Mickey chose the time just before the votes were being taken (and the applicants could not respond back) to, in a very hostile manner, attack Mike Kemmling and accuse him of running the filthiest campaign ever in Shawnee. Mickey, I won't be politically correct, I just won't be vulgar: you sir are a liar. Since when does sending out literature, stating verified actions that an opponent has taken (like votes in council backed by minutes) become filthy? You stated that Mike Kemmling wanted to fire staff. Where in any of his literature did he say that? Show us Mickey. Back up what you say. You can't, and that sir, makes you a liar.
Now, you want to talk about filthy campaigning. What about the piece that was mailed and arrived the day before the election, that was sent out basically supporting you and the other incumbents? That was filth, and lies, with claims that the Koch Bros. were behind the challenger's candidacies, that they had spent $100,000. This piece of trash was mailed using a phoney PO Box, and without stating who sent it, which is a violation of law. And neither you Mickey, nor any of the incumbents that it was designed to back, said anything to disavow this piece of trash. And in case you forgot what this piece of filth looked like, it's posted below. So again Mickey, put up or shut up. Back up your lies, as if you could. (Click on either of the two images to see them larger).
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Shawnee Shenanigans Part 1
In preparing to write about what happened last night at city hall I realized it could not be properly explained in just one blog post. As such, this will be the first one.
So, let's set the stage. There were actually two separate city council meetings last night. This is important because there will be two separate "summary minutes" and two separate audio/cd files.
The first meeting was the special council meeting. This was the meeting in which Alan Willoughby was selected to replace David Morris as a Ward II councilmember.
The second meeting was the regularly scheduled council meeting.
During the first meeting councilmember Dan Pflumm inquired as to whether or not Mr. Willoughby was related to anyone on hte governing body. Yepper, that is where it came out publicly that he is the mayor's uncle by marriage. Important? Yes, because if the question was not asked would the info have come out?
Also, during that first meeting councilmember Michelle Distler made it a point that she could not vote for Mr. Willoughby because prior to the meeting it had been determined who would nominate him, second the nomination and who would vote for him. A done deal. Just as had happened two years ago with Jim Neighbor
Now, let's fast forward to the second meeting.
During business from the floor, yours truly asked why there had been no call for comments from the public duirng the first meeting as we did have them when Jim Neighbor was selected two years ago. The mayor replied it was his decision not to solicit public comments.
Also during business from the floor, resident Gregg Snell inquired, with reference to the first meeting, as to whether or not the mayor had had conversations prior to the meeting that were favorable to Mr. Willoughby's selection with members of the council. The mayor confirmed he had voiced support for his uncle (by marriage). I enjoyed Mr. Snell's comment that the selection meeting had been nothing but Kabuki theater.
So, what did we have in the selection of Mr. Willoughby? A mayor who presides over a council meeting that selects his wife's uncle, and does not allow comments from the public. Was the mayor afraid that maybe some of the 650 people who had voted for Mike Kemmling in the election (one of the other applicants last night) might come up and say something about why Kemmling came within 12 votes of defeating Neal Sawyer?
Thank you Jeff Meyers for slapping democracy in the face.
More coming in part 2.
So, let's set the stage. There were actually two separate city council meetings last night. This is important because there will be two separate "summary minutes" and two separate audio/cd files.
The first meeting was the special council meeting. This was the meeting in which Alan Willoughby was selected to replace David Morris as a Ward II councilmember.
The second meeting was the regularly scheduled council meeting.
During the first meeting councilmember Dan Pflumm inquired as to whether or not Mr. Willoughby was related to anyone on hte governing body. Yepper, that is where it came out publicly that he is the mayor's uncle by marriage. Important? Yes, because if the question was not asked would the info have come out?
Also, during that first meeting councilmember Michelle Distler made it a point that she could not vote for Mr. Willoughby because prior to the meeting it had been determined who would nominate him, second the nomination and who would vote for him. A done deal. Just as had happened two years ago with Jim Neighbor
Now, let's fast forward to the second meeting.
During business from the floor, yours truly asked why there had been no call for comments from the public duirng the first meeting as we did have them when Jim Neighbor was selected two years ago. The mayor replied it was his decision not to solicit public comments.
Also during business from the floor, resident Gregg Snell inquired, with reference to the first meeting, as to whether or not the mayor had had conversations prior to the meeting that were favorable to Mr. Willoughby's selection with members of the council. The mayor confirmed he had voiced support for his uncle (by marriage). I enjoyed Mr. Snell's comment that the selection meeting had been nothing but Kabuki theater.
So, what did we have in the selection of Mr. Willoughby? A mayor who presides over a council meeting that selects his wife's uncle, and does not allow comments from the public. Was the mayor afraid that maybe some of the 650 people who had voted for Mike Kemmling in the election (one of the other applicants last night) might come up and say something about why Kemmling came within 12 votes of defeating Neal Sawyer?
Thank you Jeff Meyers for slapping democracy in the face.
More coming in part 2.
Sunday, July 08, 2012
6 Votes
If one scrolls down and views the post below where I explain how close the election was between Mike Kemmling and Neal Sawyer something else pops out.
It was definitely alot closer than when Neighbor ran and lsot to Pflumm, but what is really an eye opener is that if just 6 people changed their votes Mike Kemmling would have been elected.
Where I come from that's telling me a bunch of people really wanted him to be their council rep.
It was definitely alot closer than when Neighbor ran and lsot to Pflumm, but what is really an eye opener is that if just 6 people changed their votes Mike Kemmling would have been elected.
Where I come from that's telling me a bunch of people really wanted him to be their council rep.
Saturday, July 07, 2012
More About July 9th, 2012
I was out of town for a week enjoying some vacation time with my children, grandchildren and great grandchildren. Fun, but the little ones wore this old man out.
Anyway, some folks have emnailed me with additional info from the 5/10/10 council meeting where Jim Neighbor was appointed to fill Cheryl Scott's position. Remember that Monday July 9th the council will vote on a replacement for David Morris.
From Mickey Sandifer
Councilmember Vaught stated he finds something interesting in what Mr. Straub said, in that they do have five candidates and while none of them ran for Councilmember Pflumm’s seat, Cheryl Scott’s seat’s election was only two years ago and no one asked them why they did not run two years ago, so maybe they should have all asked that question, because all of the candidates have lived in this community for a considerable amount of time, so why did not anyone run against Cheryl two years ago.
Councilmember Vaught stated he thinks Jim did a heck of job campaigning and got more votes than he did in the election, obviously 640-some people in Ward I like him and he will go back to nobody else seemed to want to run when this seat was open and nobody ran two years ago when Cheryl was up for election, so based on that he will vote aye.
And then when asked why he should be appointed, Mr. Neighbor said:
JIM NEIGHBOR stated in addition to the meetings mentioned, since the filing deadline in January, he has walked door to door meeting his Ward I members in each of the 11 precincts. They have talked about what they want to have happen in Shawnee over the next two years and he wants to be their voice.
JIM NEIGHBOR replied that is a tough question. He stated he would have to say someone with better qualifications, perhaps better experience, and one who knows the ward better than him from the walking he did, have contact with the people – just an overall understanding. He stated he made a tremendous effort over the last six months to learn about this process and what is involved and understands the learning has been very steep and if elected would get even steeper.
These comments would all seem to apply to Mike Kemmling this year..................
Anyway, some folks have emnailed me with additional info from the 5/10/10 council meeting where Jim Neighbor was appointed to fill Cheryl Scott's position. Remember that Monday July 9th the council will vote on a replacement for David Morris.
From Mickey Sandifer
Councilmember Sandifer stated in regards to the election, they have a sitting City Councilman who has been eight (8) years on the Council and in his previous elections had won by 300 or 400 votes. He stated there was a citizen that came out of nowhere and ran against him and came within 88 votes of taking him out of office, which tells him to some degree that the people have spoken and this man received 649 votes.
Note: Mike Kemmling did alot better than that in his recent challenge to Neal Sawyer
From Jeff Vaught
Councilmember Vaught replied he thinks what he said was that it would be hard for him not to support a guy who received 200 more votes than him. He stated obviously the people in Ward I like him. He asked if that was him saying that regards to who else gets in the running, that is who he is voting for, no, but at that time in his position, there is a guy who received 200 more votes that he did and was pretty strong. He stated he knows what he went through to get onto the Council.
Councilmember Vaught stated he finds something interesting in what Mr. Straub said, in that they do have five candidates and while none of them ran for Councilmember Pflumm’s seat, Cheryl Scott’s seat’s election was only two years ago and no one asked them why they did not run two years ago, so maybe they should have all asked that question, because all of the candidates have lived in this community for a considerable amount of time, so why did not anyone run against Cheryl two years ago.
Councilmember Vaught stated he thinks Jim did a heck of job campaigning and got more votes than he did in the election, obviously 640-some people in Ward I like him and he will go back to nobody else seemed to want to run when this seat was open and nobody ran two years ago when Cheryl was up for election, so based on that he will vote aye.
And then when asked why he should be appointed, Mr. Neighbor said:
JIM NEIGHBOR stated in addition to the meetings mentioned, since the filing deadline in January, he has walked door to door meeting his Ward I members in each of the 11 precincts. They have talked about what they want to have happen in Shawnee over the next two years and he wants to be their voice.
JIM NEIGHBOR replied that is a tough question. He stated he would have to say someone with better qualifications, perhaps better experience, and one who knows the ward better than him from the walking he did, have contact with the people – just an overall understanding. He stated he made a tremendous effort over the last six months to learn about this process and what is involved and understands the learning has been very steep and if elected would get even steeper.
These comments would all seem to apply to Mike Kemmling this year..................
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Looking Ahead to July 9th, 2012
On July 9th, 6:00PM, at a special meeting of the city council a replacement for Ward II will be selected.
I decided to look back at the minutes of the 5/10/10 special meeting when Jim Neighbor was selected to replace Cheryl Scott.
It would appear that the major underlying reason given by those who selected him was that he had run against Dan Pflumm. He was available to be appointed since Pflumm won that election.
One of the comments was (from the minutes):
Councilmember Kuhn stated if she is going to have to weight between everyone here, the fact that Mr. Neighbor has walked the doors and heard from his constituents, showed the initiative, and was interested previously is great.
And then, a specific comment by (at the time) newly elected councilmember Jeff Vaught was very intriguing. (from the minutes):
Councilmember Vaught stated he thinks Jim did a heck of job campaigning and got more votes than he did in the election, obviously 640-some people in Ward I like him
What Vaught was apparently referring to were these figures, where Neighbor, even losing to Pflumm got more votes than even Vaught:
Daniel P Pflumm 737 53.02%
Jim Neighbor 649 46.69%
Jeff Vaught 470 52.75%
Dennis Kissinger 409 45.90%
So, let’s look at the recent election, where Dr. Kemmling ran against Neal Sawyer since he is one of those applying to fill the position.
Neal L Sawyer 661 50.42%
Mike Kemmling 650 49.58%
Dr. Kemmling was only 11 votes off the mark (well 12 to win). That was awfully close, maybe the closest in Shawnee history.
Additionally, Dr. Kemmling even out polled Mr. Morris (the individual whose position is being filled at this meeting) when he had run:
David Morris 475 59.15%
Frank C. Goode 324 40.35%
He even pulled more support than recently reelected council member Dawn Kuhn:
Dawn Kuhn 536 56.07%
James Ferris 413 43.20%
So, using the logic from before by some of the very same councilmembers who will be voting this time, it would seem to me that Mike Kemmling falls into the same category.
I decided to look back at the minutes of the 5/10/10 special meeting when Jim Neighbor was selected to replace Cheryl Scott.
It would appear that the major underlying reason given by those who selected him was that he had run against Dan Pflumm. He was available to be appointed since Pflumm won that election.
One of the comments was (from the minutes):
Councilmember Kuhn stated if she is going to have to weight between everyone here, the fact that Mr. Neighbor has walked the doors and heard from his constituents, showed the initiative, and was interested previously is great.
And then, a specific comment by (at the time) newly elected councilmember Jeff Vaught was very intriguing. (from the minutes):
Councilmember Vaught stated he thinks Jim did a heck of job campaigning and got more votes than he did in the election, obviously 640-some people in Ward I like him
What Vaught was apparently referring to were these figures, where Neighbor, even losing to Pflumm got more votes than even Vaught:
Daniel P Pflumm 737 53.02%
Jim Neighbor 649 46.69%
Jeff Vaught 470 52.75%
Dennis Kissinger 409 45.90%
So, let’s look at the recent election, where Dr. Kemmling ran against Neal Sawyer since he is one of those applying to fill the position.
Neal L Sawyer 661 50.42%
Mike Kemmling 650 49.58%
Dr. Kemmling was only 11 votes off the mark (well 12 to win). That was awfully close, maybe the closest in Shawnee history.
Additionally, Dr. Kemmling even out polled Mr. Morris (the individual whose position is being filled at this meeting) when he had run:
David Morris 475 59.15%
Frank C. Goode 324 40.35%
He even pulled more support than recently reelected council member Dawn Kuhn:
Dawn Kuhn 536 56.07%
James Ferris 413 43.20%
So, using the logic from before by some of the very same councilmembers who will be voting this time, it would seem to me that Mike Kemmling falls into the same category.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Five Apply for Ward II Seat
Five people have now applied for the open Ward II council seat caused by the resignation of David Morris.
These five will be interviewed on July 9th as per this from the city's web site:
Mayor Jeff Meyers has called a Special Meeting of the Governing Body for July 9, 2012 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at City Hall, 11110 Johnson Drive to interview candidates and appoint someone to the Ward II Council vacancy.
The five are:
Mike Kemmling; By challenging long term incumbent Neal Sawyer this past April and coming within 11 votes, Dr. Kemmling was involved in what was probably the closest council contest in recent history. Owns a Shawnee based dental practice.
Alan Willoughby: Retired Ford Motor employee and Shawnee Planning Commission member
Mark Mollentine: Local chef and member of various organizations
Charlotte E Keyes: Employed as a project manager and previous service on the Shawnee Planning Commission
Charles Jean-Baptiste: Retired HUD employee and various civic associations
These five will be interviewed on July 9th as per this from the city's web site:
Mayor Jeff Meyers has called a Special Meeting of the Governing Body for July 9, 2012 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at City Hall, 11110 Johnson Drive to interview candidates and appoint someone to the Ward II Council vacancy.
The five are:
Mike Kemmling; By challenging long term incumbent Neal Sawyer this past April and coming within 11 votes, Dr. Kemmling was involved in what was probably the closest council contest in recent history. Owns a Shawnee based dental practice.
Alan Willoughby: Retired Ford Motor employee and Shawnee Planning Commission member
Mark Mollentine: Local chef and member of various organizations
Charlotte E Keyes: Employed as a project manager and previous service on the Shawnee Planning Commission
Charles Jean-Baptiste: Retired HUD employee and various civic associations
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Wonderscope Does Not Need City's Money
At last week's committee meeting Jeff Vaught voiced exception to the city giving Wonderscope $10,000.
Hmmmm, why does that sound familiar? Oh, I know why. Because it was brought up many times in the past, most notably at the 7/27/09 budget hearing. Hmmm, wasn't that the last budget hearing before Vaught decided to run for office? Guess he wasn't there or at the committee meetings leading up to it. Oh, maybe he read about it here, in my post of 7/29/09? Also note two things about Dawn Kuhn. Previously she had said that Wonderscope's financial records were private. Wrongo, charity organization IRS Form 990's have to be made available to the public. Also, last week Kuhn got very defensive about Wonderscope, again. Could her reaction be because maybe she has had a long term personal friendship with a member of their board? Who knows?
Anyway, below is a copy of part of the minutes from 7/27/09. Thank you to Vaught for agreeing with me. Oh, and let's give that money to Old Shawnee Town
Oh, the minutes mention the form 990's up to 2007, with the 2008 and 2009 forms not available. Those are now available but the 2010 and 2011 forms are not.............
RAY ERLICHMAN stated something happened at one of the budget meetings a few weeks ago and a comment was made about the contribution the City makes to Wonderscope. He stated there were four specific comments made by four specific individuals sitting up there tonight. He stated Councilmember Pflumm was first and said he wanted to see the books. He stated Councilmember Distler said “They are like every other tax exempt organization and their information has to be made available just like the United Way”. He stated Councilmember Kuhn said, “No, they do not have to make their information available, because they are private.” He stated Mayor Meyers said, “If anyone wants to take the time to look for it, there are forms out there they can look at.”
RAY ERLICHMAN stated Wonderscope’s records are not private. He presented a blank IRS Form 990. He stated right underneath the year it reads Open to public inspection. He stated anyone who is a 501C organization that files for tax exempt status, their complete tax filing, including all addendums, schedules, salaries, everything else has to be made public.
RAY ERLICHMAN stated just to make sure there is no concern or question, he presented a copy from the IRS’s own website that basically says this form has to be made available to the public, not ‘can’, ‘may’, ‘will’, ‘at the discretion of any individual person’. He stated with that in mind, he pulled out Wonderscope’s forms for 2007 and 2006. He stated the 2008 forms are not yet available online and naturally the 2009 forms will not be filed until next year. He stated the 2008 forms would have been filed this April, unless they filed for an extension.
RAY ERLICHMAN stated there were two things on there that bothered him and he realizes that the contribution to Wonderscope for 2010 is scheduled to be $10,000.
Councilmember Straub stated it is scheduled at $20,000 on the budget.
Mayor Meyers stated it was changed to $10,000.
RAY ERLICHMAN stated Councilmember Pflumm is going to get almost what he wants.
City Manager Gonzales stated she might add that the Council has received that information and also Chairman Tubbesing provided a website that included very detailed budget information, because she is unsure what specifics Mr. Erlichman plans on talking about this evening.
RAY ERLICHMAN stated he has one question of concern. He stated if the Council already has that information that is fine, but has a question that bothers him.
Councilmember Straub stated he did not receive that information and asked if it was sent to all Council people.
City Manager Gonzales stated it was sent in an email with the link to the website that included the Wonderscope budget.
RAY ERLICHMAN stated at then end of 2007, there were net assets of about $165,000. He stated that is what the line says, though he is not an accountant. He stated his concern is with those kinds of assets, the Executive Director was given $60,564 in 2007 and in the 2006 filing that figure was little over $52,000, so that worked out to something like a 15% increase. He stated even though with certain dollars amounts, the $10,000 the City is going to contribute to them, some people might say that is a drop in the bucket on a $76 million budget.
RAY ERLICHMAN stated his concern is if the organization has $160,000+ assets at the end of the year and they can afford to give their Executive Director a 14% increase and he does not know yet what they received as an increase in 2008 or what they are getting in 2009, why do they need the City’s lousy $10,000. He stated the $10,000 that they want to give them would take care of four or five years of snow removal for the elderly. He stated that $10,000 is 20% of what the City just got hit with for the revitalization out there on Monticello Road. He stated that was a $50,000 bill the City was not planning on and here is 20% of that bill.
Hmmmm, why does that sound familiar? Oh, I know why. Because it was brought up many times in the past, most notably at the 7/27/09 budget hearing. Hmmm, wasn't that the last budget hearing before Vaught decided to run for office? Guess he wasn't there or at the committee meetings leading up to it. Oh, maybe he read about it here, in my post of 7/29/09? Also note two things about Dawn Kuhn. Previously she had said that Wonderscope's financial records were private. Wrongo, charity organization IRS Form 990's have to be made available to the public. Also, last week Kuhn got very defensive about Wonderscope, again. Could her reaction be because maybe she has had a long term personal friendship with a member of their board? Who knows?
Anyway, below is a copy of part of the minutes from 7/27/09. Thank you to Vaught for agreeing with me. Oh, and let's give that money to Old Shawnee Town
Oh, the minutes mention the form 990's up to 2007, with the 2008 and 2009 forms not available. Those are now available but the 2010 and 2011 forms are not.............
RAY ERLICHMAN stated something happened at one of the budget meetings a few weeks ago and a comment was made about the contribution the City makes to Wonderscope. He stated there were four specific comments made by four specific individuals sitting up there tonight. He stated Councilmember Pflumm was first and said he wanted to see the books. He stated Councilmember Distler said “They are like every other tax exempt organization and their information has to be made available just like the United Way”. He stated Councilmember Kuhn said, “No, they do not have to make their information available, because they are private.” He stated Mayor Meyers said, “If anyone wants to take the time to look for it, there are forms out there they can look at.”
RAY ERLICHMAN stated Wonderscope’s records are not private. He presented a blank IRS Form 990. He stated right underneath the year it reads Open to public inspection. He stated anyone who is a 501C organization that files for tax exempt status, their complete tax filing, including all addendums, schedules, salaries, everything else has to be made public.
RAY ERLICHMAN stated just to make sure there is no concern or question, he presented a copy from the IRS’s own website that basically says this form has to be made available to the public, not ‘can’, ‘may’, ‘will’, ‘at the discretion of any individual person’. He stated with that in mind, he pulled out Wonderscope’s forms for 2007 and 2006. He stated the 2008 forms are not yet available online and naturally the 2009 forms will not be filed until next year. He stated the 2008 forms would have been filed this April, unless they filed for an extension.
RAY ERLICHMAN stated there were two things on there that bothered him and he realizes that the contribution to Wonderscope for 2010 is scheduled to be $10,000.
Councilmember Straub stated it is scheduled at $20,000 on the budget.
Mayor Meyers stated it was changed to $10,000.
RAY ERLICHMAN stated Councilmember Pflumm is going to get almost what he wants.
City Manager Gonzales stated she might add that the Council has received that information and also Chairman Tubbesing provided a website that included very detailed budget information, because she is unsure what specifics Mr. Erlichman plans on talking about this evening.
RAY ERLICHMAN stated he has one question of concern. He stated if the Council already has that information that is fine, but has a question that bothers him.
Councilmember Straub stated he did not receive that information and asked if it was sent to all Council people.
City Manager Gonzales stated it was sent in an email with the link to the website that included the Wonderscope budget.
RAY ERLICHMAN stated at then end of 2007, there were net assets of about $165,000. He stated that is what the line says, though he is not an accountant. He stated his concern is with those kinds of assets, the Executive Director was given $60,564 in 2007 and in the 2006 filing that figure was little over $52,000, so that worked out to something like a 15% increase. He stated even though with certain dollars amounts, the $10,000 the City is going to contribute to them, some people might say that is a drop in the bucket on a $76 million budget.
RAY ERLICHMAN stated his concern is if the organization has $160,000+ assets at the end of the year and they can afford to give their Executive Director a 14% increase and he does not know yet what they received as an increase in 2008 or what they are getting in 2009, why do they need the City’s lousy $10,000. He stated the $10,000 that they want to give them would take care of four or five years of snow removal for the elderly. He stated that $10,000 is 20% of what the City just got hit with for the revitalization out there on Monticello Road. He stated that was a $50,000 bill the City was not planning on and here is 20% of that bill.
Friday, June 22, 2012
Ward II Applicants
So far three individuals have applied for the Ward II vacancy caused by the resignation of David Morris:
Mike Kemmling; By challenging long term incumbent Neal Sawyer this past April and coming within 11 votes, Dr. Kemmling was involved in what was probably the closest council contest in recent history. Owns a Shawnee based dental practice.
Alan Willoughby: Retired Ford Motor employee and Shawnee Planning Commission member
Mark Mollentine: Local chef and member of various organizations
Mike Kemmling; By challenging long term incumbent Neal Sawyer this past April and coming within 11 votes, Dr. Kemmling was involved in what was probably the closest council contest in recent history. Owns a Shawnee based dental practice.
Alan Willoughby: Retired Ford Motor employee and Shawnee Planning Commission member
Mark Mollentine: Local chef and member of various organizations
Monday, June 18, 2012
Monday, Monday.......so Strange to Me
Well, last Monday was really, shall we say, different. Making a long story short I suggested an independent "Lessons Learned" exercise regarding the loss of Perceptive Software. Apparently some folks misunderstood the reasoning. Oh well. In many cases an outside look at different things that have happened can be enlightening. People cdan learn what went right and what didn't, and what can possibly be done to prevent a similar situation in the future.
The Shawnee Dispatch covered this pretty much in depth at http://www.shawneedispatch.com/news/2012/jun/12/proposed-perceptive-software-post-mortem-prompts-l/
Another resident of the community addressed the council. He was attempting to get the council to reconsider its previous decision that eliminated full minutes of council/council committee meetings. Apparently he had done some research about a situation involving his neighborhood (believe that is also where Jeff Vaught lives) and was trying to explain why the full minutes are useful for research. Anyway, Vaught who previously was in favor of eliminating the full minutes proposed that it be looked at again. It should be noted, that when this originally came up, of the currently sitting council members only Michelle Distler and Dan Pflumm voted to keep the full minutes and the corresponding governmental tranparency. The KC Star covered it in this article
http://joco913.com/news/shawnee-to-reconsider-use-of-limited-minutes/
Sidebar 1: Vaught went after Eric Jenkins, demanding the answer to a question by rapid firing "answer the question, answer the question, answer the question". Wonder what would happen if I said that to Vaught, since he has steadfastly refuesed to answer a very simple question: what is his education level? He would not list that in the questionnaire submitted to the Dispatch at the election that he ran in. And, when I approached him about it, he wouldn't answer it. That is a common resumé question. What is he hiding?
Sidebar 2. Let's shout out "answer the question, answer the question answer the question" to Dawn Kuhn. Actually 2 questions, but very simple ones: First, why is she being paid under two different names by the city, White for payroll, and Kuhn for expense reimbursement? Second, which of those two names is she being paid as by her non-governmental employer, Bank Midwest?
The Shawnee Dispatch covered this pretty much in depth at http://www.shawneedispatch.com/news/2012/jun/12/proposed-perceptive-software-post-mortem-prompts-l/
Another resident of the community addressed the council. He was attempting to get the council to reconsider its previous decision that eliminated full minutes of council/council committee meetings. Apparently he had done some research about a situation involving his neighborhood (believe that is also where Jeff Vaught lives) and was trying to explain why the full minutes are useful for research. Anyway, Vaught who previously was in favor of eliminating the full minutes proposed that it be looked at again. It should be noted, that when this originally came up, of the currently sitting council members only Michelle Distler and Dan Pflumm voted to keep the full minutes and the corresponding governmental tranparency. The KC Star covered it in this article
http://joco913.com/news/shawnee-to-reconsider-use-of-limited-minutes/
Sidebar 1: Vaught went after Eric Jenkins, demanding the answer to a question by rapid firing "answer the question, answer the question, answer the question". Wonder what would happen if I said that to Vaught, since he has steadfastly refuesed to answer a very simple question: what is his education level? He would not list that in the questionnaire submitted to the Dispatch at the election that he ran in. And, when I approached him about it, he wouldn't answer it. That is a common resumé question. What is he hiding?
Sidebar 2. Let's shout out "answer the question, answer the question answer the question" to Dawn Kuhn. Actually 2 questions, but very simple ones: First, why is she being paid under two different names by the city, White for payroll, and Kuhn for expense reimbursement? Second, which of those two names is she being paid as by her non-governmental employer, Bank Midwest?
Saturday, June 09, 2012
Kuhn Avoids Direct, Simple Answers
Ward III Councilmember Dawn Kuhn is still avoiding some direct, simple answers to two very simple questions.
Scroll down to two posts on 5/31/12:
1. Is it Kuhn or is it White?
2. Kuhn Responds..........Which Causes Me to Respond Back
Why is she avoiding direct responses to these two simple questions? What is she hiding?
1. Why is the city paying her as Dawn White (her council salary) but reimbursing her for expenses as Dawn Kuhn. She says White is her maiden name. Great. But why is the city paying/reimbursing her under two different names?
2. She says she is paid appropriately by her private employer. That is avoiding the other question. She is a Vice-President, Banking Center Manager for Bank Midwest. Are they paying her as White, like the city? Or are they paying her as Kuhn? Keep in mind, as a bank VP she has to from time to time sign documents on behalf of the bank. Would they pay her as White? Or would they pay her as Kuhn (the name she uses as a VP)? If her bank payroll is White that is the same as the city, but if Kuhn then that means she is getting paid salaries under two different names. Then that would bring up the question: Why?
Why would a person use multiple surnames for various forms of reimbursement? Kinda makes ya wonder.
Unanswered questions do not disappear.
Scroll down to two posts on 5/31/12:
1. Is it Kuhn or is it White?
2. Kuhn Responds..........Which Causes Me to Respond Back
Why is she avoiding direct responses to these two simple questions? What is she hiding?
1. Why is the city paying her as Dawn White (her council salary) but reimbursing her for expenses as Dawn Kuhn. She says White is her maiden name. Great. But why is the city paying/reimbursing her under two different names?
2. She says she is paid appropriately by her private employer. That is avoiding the other question. She is a Vice-President, Banking Center Manager for Bank Midwest. Are they paying her as White, like the city? Or are they paying her as Kuhn? Keep in mind, as a bank VP she has to from time to time sign documents on behalf of the bank. Would they pay her as White? Or would they pay her as Kuhn (the name she uses as a VP)? If her bank payroll is White that is the same as the city, but if Kuhn then that means she is getting paid salaries under two different names. Then that would bring up the question: Why?
Why would a person use multiple surnames for various forms of reimbursement? Kinda makes ya wonder.
Unanswered questions do not disappear.
Wednesday, June 06, 2012
Shawnee's Apathy Rears Its Ugly Head
OK, this is not an indictment (or endorsement) of Jim Allen.
This is an indictment of the sheer apathy bordering on stupidity of the citizens of Shawnee.
Jim Allen, is running for reelection as a county commissioner. He is running unopposed. Nobody, no matter how qualified, should ever run for political office unopposed. And, he even ran for mayor unopposed 3 out of the 5 times he ran for that office.
See info at http://www.shawneedispatch.com/news/2012/jun/04/commissioner-allen-run-unopposed/
This is an indictment of the sheer apathy bordering on stupidity of the citizens of Shawnee.
Jim Allen, is running for reelection as a county commissioner. He is running unopposed. Nobody, no matter how qualified, should ever run for political office unopposed. And, he even ran for mayor unopposed 3 out of the 5 times he ran for that office.
See info at http://www.shawneedispatch.com/news/2012/jun/04/commissioner-allen-run-unopposed/
Tuesday, June 05, 2012
Congrats to Our Traffic Department
This item appeared in th Kansas City Star (hard copy and on line).
A nice, short, positive item about our Traffic Department:
http://www.kansascity.com/2012/06/04/3642294/the-watchdog-shawnee-to-fix-traffic.html
A nice, short, positive item about our Traffic Department:
http://www.kansascity.com/2012/06/04/3642294/the-watchdog-shawnee-to-fix-traffic.html
Sunday, June 03, 2012
Software Firm Says So Long to Shawnee
Perceptive Software, and its 700 employees are going to be leaving Shawnee and relocating to................Lenexa.
For more info on this go to: http://www.shawneedispatch.com/news/2012/jun/01/perceptive-software-plans-take-700-jobs-lenexa/
This will not be an easy pill to swallow.
What happened? Could it have been avoided? Or, was there nothing that could be done to save it? How long did we know that this was a possibility? What contingency plans have we worked on? What do we have, if anything, waiting in the wings as a replacement? Or replacements?
What will be the impact on Shawnee? Whatever the impact, what will it take to recover? How long will that take?
For more info on this go to: http://www.shawneedispatch.com/news/2012/jun/01/perceptive-software-plans-take-700-jobs-lenexa/
This will not be an easy pill to swallow.
What happened? Could it have been avoided? Or, was there nothing that could be done to save it? How long did we know that this was a possibility? What contingency plans have we worked on? What do we have, if anything, waiting in the wings as a replacement? Or replacements?
What will be the impact on Shawnee? Whatever the impact, what will it take to recover? How long will that take?
Friday, June 01, 2012
Why Did Morris Resign? Answer Given!
For more information behind Council Member David Morris' resignation see the article in the Shawnee Dispatch at http://www.shawneedispatch.com/news/2012/jun/01/differences-city-manager-prompted-councilmans-resi/
Apparently the impetus for his resignation was a problem with City Manager Carol Gonzales.
The article linked above goes into more detail, but I found this part of it to be telling:
Morris added that he and Gonzales had “butted heads” over his approach to constituent complaints for some time and that he had experienced ramifications.
“In the political arena, if you get put in the doghouse, answers don’t come particularly quickly, and sometimes phone calls don’t get returned particularly quickly,” he said.
Gonzales said she didn’t think it was appropriate to respond to Morris’ charges.
It would not surprise me if other council members, past and present, had gotten the "doghouse" treatment.
Read the article. It could prove interesting.
Apparently the impetus for his resignation was a problem with City Manager Carol Gonzales.
The article linked above goes into more detail, but I found this part of it to be telling:
Morris added that he and Gonzales had “butted heads” over his approach to constituent complaints for some time and that he had experienced ramifications.
“In the political arena, if you get put in the doghouse, answers don’t come particularly quickly, and sometimes phone calls don’t get returned particularly quickly,” he said.
Gonzales said she didn’t think it was appropriate to respond to Morris’ charges.
It would not surprise me if other council members, past and present, had gotten the "doghouse" treatment.
Read the article. It could prove interesting.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)
