Let's review a couple of things real quick. I am in favor of renewing the parks & pipes 1/8 sales tax. I could support a 1/8 sales tax for pavement. I am against piggy backing them into one question on a ballot. They should be separate questions on a ballot. I am against a spring mail ballot because of the cost, and feel the right way to present it to the citizens of Shawnee would be at the November general election where the cost to the city would be zero.
Senior city staff has stated that a spring mail ballot election could be about $40K but that they cannot give a closer estimate because they don't know how many people would vote and return ballots.
That is deception #3 perpetrated by senior staff, and certain members of the council. The cost associated with the actual number of return ballots is almost negligible when compared to the costs associated with the basics of creating the mail ballot election.
Look to my post below regarding Deception #2 (1/21/14) and you will see how I calculated the estimate that I gave. I will now show how to assign a viable estimate to the cost for the returns. In that previous post I explained how I came up with my figures. So I will just repeat them here:
The figures in the first column are what Olathe actually paid, the second column is the projected for Shawnee. Keeping in mind that we have already calculated that the figures for Shawnee would be approximately 52.85% of Olathe.
Special Board $8,868.69 $4,687.10
Printing $24,379.40 $12,884.51
Stuffing and mail preparation $26,118.00 $13,803.36
Postage $39,216.14 $20,725.66
Envelopes $20,520.00 $10,824.00
Publications $ 281.16 $ 281.16
Total $119,383.39 $63,205.79
OK, what we do know is that Olathe had a 32.5% return and the Shawnee figures are based on that. The postage figures given above include both mail out and return. All we have to do is take the Olathe figure and divide it by 1.325 and that will tell us the cost of the Olathe postage for mailing out the ballots.
$39,216.14/1.325 = $29,597 that would be Olathe's outbound mailing (approximately $10,000 for the return ballots)
$20,725.66/1.325 = $15,642 that would be Shawnee's cost for outbound mailing (approximately $5,000 for the return ballots) (Or you can use 52.85% of Olathe's figure and you come up with the same)
What that means, is that if NOBODY returned a ballot (voted) the city would still have to pay approximately $58,000.
My estimates for the cost to Shawnee are actually low because:
1. The cost of the board would probably be somewhat higher because of certain basic costs.
2. The cost of postage (outbound and return) would be higher because of postage increases
3. Printing would be higher than projected because of the lower volume (higher cost per page) The total would not as high as Olathe but probably higher than my estimate. The ballots are not on thin paper either.
4. Envelopes - the return envelopes which have to be included with every ballot are not your ordinary run of the mill BRE type of envelopes. They require certain legal statements and certain tear off segments for accountability purposes. And, the envelopes for the outbound mailing are somewhat unique. (Base on previous mail ballots that I have received).
I'll stand by my estimate of $63,205.79, which would probably be on the low side. And, IMHO, those that can't see that might be suffering from a deficiency in basic mathematical calculations. Nothing fancy or super scientific here.
WARNING!!!!!! The City Manager of Shawnee has determined that local bloggers post items that may contain bad or misinformation. Please read these posts with care and determine for yourself whether the information is valid.
Thursday, January 30, 2014
Another Example of Vaught's Hypocrisy
Just a short note this morning. Thinking back to some of Jeff (The Arrogant One) Vaught's comments about a special mail ballot election just makes me see more and more as to what kind of a hypocrite he is.
He is the most vocal of the council members who is willing to spend over $63K on a special election, in order to "stack the deck", when the same election can be held in November at no charge. But, that would not necessarily "stack the deck".
Why do I say he is a hypocrite? Because he was probably also the most vocal opponent of restoring full minutes of council and council committee meetings. His reasoning: cost. Fortunately more intelligent minds prevailed on that one
So he wants to spend the money to "stack the deck" in an election but was against spending the money to keep the people fully informed about what their government was doing.
All of this coming from a man who, on his campaign web site and in a media session with the KC Star claimed to be a patriot. I still ask, what has he ever done to be considered a patriot?
His actions have leaned more towards the dictatorial (to include attempts to restrict public input at meetings).
And rumor has it (this is a rumor) that he wants to run for mayor. Is it a rumor?
WARNING!!!!!! The City Manager of Shawnee has determined that local bloggers post items that may contain bad or misinformation. Please read these posts with care and determine for yourself whether the information is valid.
He is the most vocal of the council members who is willing to spend over $63K on a special election, in order to "stack the deck", when the same election can be held in November at no charge. But, that would not necessarily "stack the deck".
Why do I say he is a hypocrite? Because he was probably also the most vocal opponent of restoring full minutes of council and council committee meetings. His reasoning: cost. Fortunately more intelligent minds prevailed on that one
So he wants to spend the money to "stack the deck" in an election but was against spending the money to keep the people fully informed about what their government was doing.
All of this coming from a man who, on his campaign web site and in a media session with the KC Star claimed to be a patriot. I still ask, what has he ever done to be considered a patriot?
His actions have leaned more towards the dictatorial (to include attempts to restrict public input at meetings).
And rumor has it (this is a rumor) that he wants to run for mayor. Is it a rumor?
WARNING!!!!!! The City Manager of Shawnee has determined that local bloggers post items that may contain bad or misinformation. Please read these posts with care and determine for yourself whether the information is valid.
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
KC Star Profiles Local Bloggers
In today's 913 section of the KC Star six local bloggers are profiled.
It is available in both the hard copy and on line at:
http://www.kansascity.com/2014/01/28/4782673/these-concerned-citizens-go-the.html
Note: There is a typo, it's been over 40 years since I ran for state assembly in NY not 20.
WARNING!!!!!! The City Manager of Shawnee has determined that local bloggers post items that may contain bad or misinformation. Please read these posts with care and determine for yourself whether the information is valid.
It is available in both the hard copy and on line at:
http://www.kansascity.com/2014/01/28/4782673/these-concerned-citizens-go-the.html
Note: There is a typo, it's been over 40 years since I ran for state assembly in NY not 20.
WARNING!!!!!! The City Manager of Shawnee has determined that local bloggers post items that may contain bad or misinformation. Please read these posts with care and determine for yourself whether the information is valid.
Thursday, January 23, 2014
Stephanie Meyer 1 - Mickey Sandifer 0
Are we keeping score?
About two weeks ago I sent both council members Stephanie Meyer and Mickey Sandifer some opinions regarding the proposed sales taxes. Specifically, I was concerned what would happen if the pavement item was piggybacked on top of the parks & pipes and folks voted it down. Then, the city would lose the parks & pipes.
Anyway, the next day Stephanie Meyer sent me a reply, and I guess to be courteous she cc'd Mickey Sandifer. She had some good comments and appeared that we were having a polite discussion about the topic. I then replied, and since she had cc'd Sandifer, so did I.
Ironically, to this day, Sandifer still has not replied. That is funny, since he is my council member, and she isn't. I guess Sandifer is joining that dumbonic duo of Neighbor and Vaught who feel they don't have to reply to citizens of Shawnee (previous experiences with both). Mickey, that's not cool for someone who has aspirations of becoming mayor.
Ironically, knowing Mickey, I can just hear/see him running to Neighbor and Vaught and saying something like "Stephanie Meyer is a bad girl. She's replying to Ray Erlichman's emails". The result of that, if it ever happened, would probably be the dumbonic duo jumping on Meyer for replying to me.
Anyway, Stephanie Meyer gets 1 for replying, Mickey Sandifer gets a goose egg.
WARNING!!!!!! The City Manager of Shawnee has determined that local bloggers post items that may contain bad or misinformation. Please read these posts with care and determine for yourself whether the information is valid.
About two weeks ago I sent both council members Stephanie Meyer and Mickey Sandifer some opinions regarding the proposed sales taxes. Specifically, I was concerned what would happen if the pavement item was piggybacked on top of the parks & pipes and folks voted it down. Then, the city would lose the parks & pipes.
Anyway, the next day Stephanie Meyer sent me a reply, and I guess to be courteous she cc'd Mickey Sandifer. She had some good comments and appeared that we were having a polite discussion about the topic. I then replied, and since she had cc'd Sandifer, so did I.
Ironically, to this day, Sandifer still has not replied. That is funny, since he is my council member, and she isn't. I guess Sandifer is joining that dumbonic duo of Neighbor and Vaught who feel they don't have to reply to citizens of Shawnee (previous experiences with both). Mickey, that's not cool for someone who has aspirations of becoming mayor.
Ironically, knowing Mickey, I can just hear/see him running to Neighbor and Vaught and saying something like "Stephanie Meyer is a bad girl. She's replying to Ray Erlichman's emails". The result of that, if it ever happened, would probably be the dumbonic duo jumping on Meyer for replying to me.
Anyway, Stephanie Meyer gets 1 for replying, Mickey Sandifer gets a goose egg.
WARNING!!!!!! The City Manager of Shawnee has determined that local bloggers post items that may contain bad or misinformation. Please read these posts with care and determine for yourself whether the information is valid.
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Sales Tax Vote - Deception #2
Deception #2 is the fun one. This is the one regarding the cost of a spring mail ballot for the sales tax. See, the item could go on the November general election ballot, at no charge to the City of Shawnee. But, there are some individuals who feel that if that happens then the citizens of Shawnee will vote it down. So they are opting to spend money to make it a mail ballot election in an attempt to "stack the deck".
The council was told by the city manager that the cost of the mail ballot would be approximately $110K, and then that was changed to an estimate of $40K. Well, it appears that both numbers are wrong. The figures were being based on the November 2013 mail ballot election in Olathe.
So, what is a guy to do? Easy, obtain copies of the appropriate documentation from the JoCo Election Office. Specifically, the amount Olathe was billed by the county. Are ya ready? Here goes.
Olathe voters:
Registered voters (active and inactive) 77,662
Voters receiving ballots (active) 72,369
(Note: active voters represent 93.18% of the registered voters)
Shawnee voters:
Registered (as of last spring election) 41,043
Potential to receive ballots 38,244 (93.18% of the above)
(Personally, I think we probably have a higher % of active voters, but we'll use the known % from Olathe)
Shawnee active vs Olathe active:
That becomes 38,244/72,369 which means Shawnee has 52.85% of Olathe's voters
So, what do we do now? We take the dollars billed to Olathe and to get a real close approximation for Shawnee, we multiply that figure by 0.5285.
The figures in the first column are what Olathe paid, the second column is the projected for Shawnee.
Special Board $8,868.69 $4,687.10
Printing $24,379.40 $12,884.51
Stuffing and mail preparation $26,118.00 $13,803.36
Postage $39,216.14 $20,725.66
Envelopes $20,520.00 $10,824.00
Publications $ 281.16 $ 281.16
Total $119,383.39 $63,205.79
Fairway is going to have a mail ballot but their voter rolls are so small that the $$ involved will be negligible
Postage has increased. Keep in mind postage is based not just on the ballots returned (probably less than 35% of those mailed) but also on the number mailed. Also, there may be certain fees associated with permitted reply postage. Printing could also be higher, per page, because of a reduced quantity.
Now, there will be certain individuals who will try to discredit my calculations. They will attempt to use all kinds of smoke and mirrors to bring the estimate down. Please, don't be fooled.
So, there is the 3d choice the council has to make on Feb 10, 2014. Set the vote for the November general election for no charge or pay approximately $63K to attempt to "stack the deck".
The other two choices are keeping the pipes and parks separate on the ballot from the pavement question or combining the two taxes into one question (another deck stacking move). The other is whether the pavement tax should be 1/8% (0.125) or 2/8% (0.250)
I feel the Feb 10, 2014 council meeting is important that all who can need to attend. It's your tax dollars.
WARNING!!!!!! The City Manager of Shawnee has determined that local bloggers post items that may contain bad or misinformation. Please read these posts with care and determine for yourself whether the information is valid.
The council was told by the city manager that the cost of the mail ballot would be approximately $110K, and then that was changed to an estimate of $40K. Well, it appears that both numbers are wrong. The figures were being based on the November 2013 mail ballot election in Olathe.
So, what is a guy to do? Easy, obtain copies of the appropriate documentation from the JoCo Election Office. Specifically, the amount Olathe was billed by the county. Are ya ready? Here goes.
Olathe voters:
Registered voters (active and inactive) 77,662
Voters receiving ballots (active) 72,369
(Note: active voters represent 93.18% of the registered voters)
Shawnee voters:
Registered (as of last spring election) 41,043
Potential to receive ballots 38,244 (93.18% of the above)
(Personally, I think we probably have a higher % of active voters, but we'll use the known % from Olathe)
Shawnee active vs Olathe active:
That becomes 38,244/72,369 which means Shawnee has 52.85% of Olathe's voters
So, what do we do now? We take the dollars billed to Olathe and to get a real close approximation for Shawnee, we multiply that figure by 0.5285.
The figures in the first column are what Olathe paid, the second column is the projected for Shawnee.
Special Board $8,868.69 $4,687.10
Printing $24,379.40 $12,884.51
Stuffing and mail preparation $26,118.00 $13,803.36
Postage $39,216.14 $20,725.66
Envelopes $20,520.00 $10,824.00
Publications $ 281.16 $ 281.16
Total $119,383.39 $63,205.79
Fairway is going to have a mail ballot but their voter rolls are so small that the $$ involved will be negligible
Postage has increased. Keep in mind postage is based not just on the ballots returned (probably less than 35% of those mailed) but also on the number mailed. Also, there may be certain fees associated with permitted reply postage. Printing could also be higher, per page, because of a reduced quantity.
Now, there will be certain individuals who will try to discredit my calculations. They will attempt to use all kinds of smoke and mirrors to bring the estimate down. Please, don't be fooled.
So, there is the 3d choice the council has to make on Feb 10, 2014. Set the vote for the November general election for no charge or pay approximately $63K to attempt to "stack the deck".
The other two choices are keeping the pipes and parks separate on the ballot from the pavement question or combining the two taxes into one question (another deck stacking move). The other is whether the pavement tax should be 1/8% (0.125) or 2/8% (0.250)
I feel the Feb 10, 2014 council meeting is important that all who can need to attend. It's your tax dollars.
WARNING!!!!!! The City Manager of Shawnee has determined that local bloggers post items that may contain bad or misinformation. Please read these posts with care and determine for yourself whether the information is valid.
Monday, January 20, 2014
Sales Tax Vote - Deception #1
We'll keep this one short and simple. On Monday, Feb 10, 2014 the council will be voting on whether and how to put a new sales tax on the ballot for pavements and whether or not to continue the sales tax for "Parks & Pipes"
So, where is the deception you may ask? That's easy.
The "Parks & Pipes" does not have to come back before the voters for another year based on its expiration date.
So why do some members of the council and the city manager want it voted on now? Because some members of the council and the city manager do not think that the voters of Shawnee are intelligent enough to make a decision on the pavement tax unless it is tied to something that is popular like the "Parks & Pipes". They want to use the "P&P" as the coattails for the pavement tax. Let the pavement tax stand on its own merit. They keep mentioning the recent mail ballot in Olathe. Well, Olathe voters did approve a pavement tax, at an even higher rate. That apparently was based on what the voters there wanted, after reviewing the pertinent information without trying to piggyback it to a more popular program. Are the ones who want this piggyback saying that the voters of Shawnee are not intelligent enough to review the information and vote accordingly?
Most notable of the council members who is pushing for this piggyback arrangement is Jeff "The Arrogant One" Vaught. His favorite comments lately have been about how he was elected, by a large majority, to represent his ward. Key word/phrase: represent, not dictate to. Again, he needs to retake Civics 101.
Hmmm, and we're told by certain folks that local bloggers disseminate misinformation. Physician heal thyself.
More coming on what initially appears to be misinformation presented at the council committee regarding the cost of a spring mail ballot election (as opposed to a November no charge/free general election ballot).
WARNING!!!!!! The City Manager of Shawnee has determined that local bloggers post items that may contain bad or misinformation. Please read these posts with care and determine for yourself whether the information is valid.
So, where is the deception you may ask? That's easy.
The "Parks & Pipes" does not have to come back before the voters for another year based on its expiration date.
So why do some members of the council and the city manager want it voted on now? Because some members of the council and the city manager do not think that the voters of Shawnee are intelligent enough to make a decision on the pavement tax unless it is tied to something that is popular like the "Parks & Pipes". They want to use the "P&P" as the coattails for the pavement tax. Let the pavement tax stand on its own merit. They keep mentioning the recent mail ballot in Olathe. Well, Olathe voters did approve a pavement tax, at an even higher rate. That apparently was based on what the voters there wanted, after reviewing the pertinent information without trying to piggyback it to a more popular program. Are the ones who want this piggyback saying that the voters of Shawnee are not intelligent enough to review the information and vote accordingly?
Most notable of the council members who is pushing for this piggyback arrangement is Jeff "The Arrogant One" Vaught. His favorite comments lately have been about how he was elected, by a large majority, to represent his ward. Key word/phrase: represent, not dictate to. Again, he needs to retake Civics 101.
Hmmm, and we're told by certain folks that local bloggers disseminate misinformation. Physician heal thyself.
More coming on what initially appears to be misinformation presented at the council committee regarding the cost of a spring mail ballot election (as opposed to a November no charge/free general election ballot).
WARNING!!!!!! The City Manager of Shawnee has determined that local bloggers post items that may contain bad or misinformation. Please read these posts with care and determine for yourself whether the information is valid.
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
Citizen and City Recognition
At last night's city council meeting recognition was given to two young citizens and to the city.
Daryn & Damian Duncan two very young men, were recognized for their actions that quite possibly saved the lives of some neighbors. On December 14, 2013 there was a fire next door to the house that the Duncan brothers were visiting. They notified the adults in their group and then got them to go next door to wake the residents of the house that was on fire. Their actions allowed for the Shawnee FD to respond in a timely manner and to minimize damage and injury. It's heartwarming to see that these young folks apparently paid attention to what they had been told to do in the event of an emergency. Good education on the part of the parents.
The city received the Above and Beyond Award and the Seven Seals Award by the Employer Support of the Guard and Reserves-Kansas Committee. Shawnee has for many years gone the extra mile when it comes to supporting its employees in the Guard and/or Reserve who get activated for duty, especially for assignment to hostile areas of the world. Being called to active duty under these circumstances is never easy for the service member, or their family. Knowing that your employer has your "six" can be very comforting.
Congrats to the Duncan brothers and the City.
Daryn & Damian Duncan two very young men, were recognized for their actions that quite possibly saved the lives of some neighbors. On December 14, 2013 there was a fire next door to the house that the Duncan brothers were visiting. They notified the adults in their group and then got them to go next door to wake the residents of the house that was on fire. Their actions allowed for the Shawnee FD to respond in a timely manner and to minimize damage and injury. It's heartwarming to see that these young folks apparently paid attention to what they had been told to do in the event of an emergency. Good education on the part of the parents.
The city received the Above and Beyond Award and the Seven Seals Award by the Employer Support of the Guard and Reserves-Kansas Committee. Shawnee has for many years gone the extra mile when it comes to supporting its employees in the Guard and/or Reserve who get activated for duty, especially for assignment to hostile areas of the world. Being called to active duty under these circumstances is never easy for the service member, or their family. Knowing that your employer has your "six" can be very comforting.
Congrats to the Duncan brothers and the City.
Friday, January 10, 2014
Proposed Sales Tax Renewal & Increase
This past Tuesday the council committee again discussed the renewal of the "Parks & Pipes" sales tax, a new sales tax for pavement and at which election to present these items to the voters.
Jeff "The Arrogant One" Vaught was pushing for:
1. A continuation of the 1/8 % (0.125) Parks and Pipes sales tax
2. A new 2/8% (.025) for pavement improvements
3. Placing both items on a mail in ballot this spring, and as one question
His attempts at bullying his fellow council members did not appear to work. First, he is slowly taking over former council member Kuhn's proclivity for being a motormouth. Second, for an individual who claims to want to see more civility, he has this unique ability to demean his fellow council members if they don't agree with him. Additionally, he appears to have attempted to appoint himself as a leader on the council. This seemed to backfire when he indicated that the council should be united in its support for these items and he then received a group blank stare. This man shows no leadership or motivational/inspirational qualities.
This matter will now be presented at a future meeting of the council, as follows:
1. A continuation of Parks & Pipes at 1/8% (0.125)
2. A new 1/8% (0.125) sales tax for pavement
3. A spring mail in ballot.
All of the above is subject to change at the actual council meeting. Vaught wants to combine the two taxes into one question on the ballot. He wants to piggyback the pavement tax on the Parks and Pipes because he feels that by itself the pavement tax won't pass. The majority seems to want the items to be separate questions.
The cost of the pavement tax is a question. The city manager is asking for the 2/8% (0.25) because of a budget shortfall. Most of the council seems to think that is too much and that the 1/8% (0.125) would be more palatable.
There is really still a lot of division as to whether it should be a spring mail ballot (at a potential cost of $40K - $110K) as opposed to a November election with no cost to the city. The council would consider the spring mail ballot with the money coming from the economic development fund.
My opinions on each item:
1. Parks & Pipes sales tax: continue this item, as it has shown to be beneficial for the city.
2. Pavement sales tax: I would support the 1/8% (0.125) but not 2/8% (0.25). If this does not generate sufficient funds, then take some more out of the impact fee that Deffenbaugh pays to the city ($3 million). Currently that is split 50/50 for roads and economic development. Take another $1 million for the roads and apportion $500K for economic development. Why wasn't a plan put into place for possible sales tax increases done earlier when we have these multi year projections, as opposed to this "it's got to be done now" approach. A full public audit of how the eco development funds have been used would be appropriate.
3. How many questions on the ballot: Two, keep them separate
4. When to have the vote: November general election, as it provides for a larger turn out and at no cost to the city. Those individuals wishing to advocate/educate for approval/disapproval of the sales taxes can form groups, raise funds, and state their positions pro or con. to the general public.
Sidebar: The city had ETC institute conduct a survey on these issues last week. Supposedly they had 2,500 frequent voters to contact and were able to establish contact with approximately 400. I was one of the ones contacted. When the survey taker and her supervisor were queried as to who was paying for the survey, they would not admit to it being the city. A KORA request has shown that the city is paying $7,500 for the survey. Comments made by various council members indicate that I was not the only person who ran into that situation.
WARNING!!!!!! The City Manager of Shawnee has determined that local bloggers post items that may contain bad or misinformation. Please read these posts with care and determine for yourself whether the information is valid.
Jeff "The Arrogant One" Vaught was pushing for:
1. A continuation of the 1/8 % (0.125) Parks and Pipes sales tax
2. A new 2/8% (.025) for pavement improvements
3. Placing both items on a mail in ballot this spring, and as one question
His attempts at bullying his fellow council members did not appear to work. First, he is slowly taking over former council member Kuhn's proclivity for being a motormouth. Second, for an individual who claims to want to see more civility, he has this unique ability to demean his fellow council members if they don't agree with him. Additionally, he appears to have attempted to appoint himself as a leader on the council. This seemed to backfire when he indicated that the council should be united in its support for these items and he then received a group blank stare. This man shows no leadership or motivational/inspirational qualities.
This matter will now be presented at a future meeting of the council, as follows:
1. A continuation of Parks & Pipes at 1/8% (0.125)
2. A new 1/8% (0.125) sales tax for pavement
3. A spring mail in ballot.
All of the above is subject to change at the actual council meeting. Vaught wants to combine the two taxes into one question on the ballot. He wants to piggyback the pavement tax on the Parks and Pipes because he feels that by itself the pavement tax won't pass. The majority seems to want the items to be separate questions.
The cost of the pavement tax is a question. The city manager is asking for the 2/8% (0.25) because of a budget shortfall. Most of the council seems to think that is too much and that the 1/8% (0.125) would be more palatable.
There is really still a lot of division as to whether it should be a spring mail ballot (at a potential cost of $40K - $110K) as opposed to a November election with no cost to the city. The council would consider the spring mail ballot with the money coming from the economic development fund.
My opinions on each item:
1. Parks & Pipes sales tax: continue this item, as it has shown to be beneficial for the city.
2. Pavement sales tax: I would support the 1/8% (0.125) but not 2/8% (0.25). If this does not generate sufficient funds, then take some more out of the impact fee that Deffenbaugh pays to the city ($3 million). Currently that is split 50/50 for roads and economic development. Take another $1 million for the roads and apportion $500K for economic development. Why wasn't a plan put into place for possible sales tax increases done earlier when we have these multi year projections, as opposed to this "it's got to be done now" approach. A full public audit of how the eco development funds have been used would be appropriate.
3. How many questions on the ballot: Two, keep them separate
4. When to have the vote: November general election, as it provides for a larger turn out and at no cost to the city. Those individuals wishing to advocate/educate for approval/disapproval of the sales taxes can form groups, raise funds, and state their positions pro or con. to the general public.
Sidebar: The city had ETC institute conduct a survey on these issues last week. Supposedly they had 2,500 frequent voters to contact and were able to establish contact with approximately 400. I was one of the ones contacted. When the survey taker and her supervisor were queried as to who was paying for the survey, they would not admit to it being the city. A KORA request has shown that the city is paying $7,500 for the survey. Comments made by various council members indicate that I was not the only person who ran into that situation.
WARNING!!!!!! The City Manager of Shawnee has determined that local bloggers post items that may contain bad or misinformation. Please read these posts with care and determine for yourself whether the information is valid.
Saturday, January 04, 2014
Shawnee, Open Wide and Say Ahhhhh, Revisited
Back on September 13, 2013 the original "Open Wide" was posted on this blog.
With the pending committee meeting regarding sales tax increases coming up, it might not be a bad idea to read that post again. Please note the suggestion about what to do with the $3 million we get annually from Deffenbaugh.
The original: http://shawneeray.blogspot.com/2013/09/shawnee-open-wide-and-say-ahhhhhhhhhhh.html
WARNING!!!!!! The City Manager of Shawnee has determined that local bloggers post items that may contain bad or misinformation. Please read these posts with care and determine for yourself whether the information is valid.
With the pending committee meeting regarding sales tax increases coming up, it might not be a bad idea to read that post again. Please note the suggestion about what to do with the $3 million we get annually from Deffenbaugh.
The original: http://shawneeray.blogspot.com/2013/09/shawnee-open-wide-and-say-ahhhhhhhhhhh.html
WARNING!!!!!! The City Manager of Shawnee has determined that local bloggers post items that may contain bad or misinformation. Please read these posts with care and determine for yourself whether the information is valid.
Friday, January 03, 2014
Sales Tax Ballot Question
It's good to be home after a holiday vacation. And look what is now happening.
On Tuesday, January 7th, 2014 the Council Committee will again view proposals to:
1. Continue the sales tax for "parks & pipes"
2. Add a sales tax for pavement repairs.
3. Discuss whether or not to put these items on the November general election ballot (at no cost to the city) or to make it a spring mail in ballot (at a cost of up to $110,000 to the city).
IMHO, the first question that needs to be resolved is which ballot it is to go on. It needs to go on the November ballot. As Council member Kemmling pointed out the last time this came up, he felt those that were pushing for a spring mail ballot were attempting to rig the outcome.
It is also interesting to note that in the packet for the meeting, information is given about a survey being conducted by ETC out of Olathe. It is only partially completed and is still ongoing. I know ETC is doing this. I was one of the individuals contacted last night. When I asked them who was paying for it they told me it appeared to be an internal survey that they were doing on their own. I have the names of both the survey taker and her supervisor who told me that. Apparently that was wrong info. Are the questions on this survey examples of a "push poll". I think that is a strong possibility.
The thing that really ticks me off is that the last budget that was approved was done so with various individuals patting themselves on the back about no tax increases. Now we come down to the wire and we are told how bad things will be if the sales tax (especially for pavements) is not approved. We need to reexamine how we are splitting the $3 million we get from Deffenbaugh for the landfill use.
Anyway, please contact your council members and tell them with regards to the election on the tax questions you want them on the November ballot at no charge to the city.
We can discuss the actual merit of each later.
WARNING!!!!!! The City Manager of Shawnee has determined that local bloggers post items that may contain bad or misinformation. Please read these posts with care and determine for yourself whether the information is valid.
On Tuesday, January 7th, 2014 the Council Committee will again view proposals to:
1. Continue the sales tax for "parks & pipes"
2. Add a sales tax for pavement repairs.
3. Discuss whether or not to put these items on the November general election ballot (at no cost to the city) or to make it a spring mail in ballot (at a cost of up to $110,000 to the city).
IMHO, the first question that needs to be resolved is which ballot it is to go on. It needs to go on the November ballot. As Council member Kemmling pointed out the last time this came up, he felt those that were pushing for a spring mail ballot were attempting to rig the outcome.
It is also interesting to note that in the packet for the meeting, information is given about a survey being conducted by ETC out of Olathe. It is only partially completed and is still ongoing. I know ETC is doing this. I was one of the individuals contacted last night. When I asked them who was paying for it they told me it appeared to be an internal survey that they were doing on their own. I have the names of both the survey taker and her supervisor who told me that. Apparently that was wrong info. Are the questions on this survey examples of a "push poll". I think that is a strong possibility.
The thing that really ticks me off is that the last budget that was approved was done so with various individuals patting themselves on the back about no tax increases. Now we come down to the wire and we are told how bad things will be if the sales tax (especially for pavements) is not approved. We need to reexamine how we are splitting the $3 million we get from Deffenbaugh for the landfill use.
Anyway, please contact your council members and tell them with regards to the election on the tax questions you want them on the November ballot at no charge to the city.
We can discuss the actual merit of each later.
WARNING!!!!!! The City Manager of Shawnee has determined that local bloggers post items that may contain bad or misinformation. Please read these posts with care and determine for yourself whether the information is valid.
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
State Rep John Rubin's Bills for More Transparency in State Government
Our Shawnee Representative in the Kansas House, John Rubin,
has long been an ardent advocate of full governmental transparency and
accountability. He believes that responsible governance demands that
elected officials always strive to fully inform themselves on the issues and
all aspects of legislation on which they vote, to cast informed votes, and
always to disclose to their constituents how they voted on the public
policies that affect the lives of Kansans.
For these reasons, Rep. Rubin is now fighting to change
longstanding Kansas legislative practices of bundling multiple bills in a
single conference committee report for one vote under the Joint Rules, and of
not recording votes on bills, resolutions and amendments in the Committee
of the Whole on General Orders under the House Rules, practices he believes are
undemocratic. He has drafted resolutions amending the Kansas
Legislature's Joint Rules and House Rules to correct these undemocratic
legislative practices, and plans to prefile them the week before the 2014
legislative session starts.
The first is a Concurrent Resolution amending the Joint
Rules to provide that a conference committee report may contain only the bill
being conferenced and all or part of one other bill that has passed
either Chamber during the current term. Existing practice allows for
an unlimited number of additional bills or parts of bills to be added to
a conference committee report (CCR). Often, legislators have
little if any opportunity to fully inform himself or herself of the contents,
consequences or effects of the many additional bills in a CCR, particularly if
the added bills did not originate in and were not debated in their Chamber, and
particularly under the pressing time constraints experienced late in
session, when most of these CCRs are considered. Accordingly, the
likelihood that most members are even marginally well informed on the votes
they are asked to cast on these multi-bundled CCRs is slim. Worse, it
is highly likely than in any CCR with six, eight or more such
bills, a member may fully support some of the bundled bills because
they square with the member’s principles and are, in his or her view, good
public policy, and may oppose others because they are not. In
short, current practice virtually ensures that members often cast uninformed
and unprincipled votes on much of the public policy contained in multi-bundled
CCRs. Rep. Rubin believes that is no way to govern. His Concurrent
Resolution will correct these irresponsible and undemocratic
practices.
The second Rubin proposal is a House Resolution amending the
House Rules to require that all House floor votes, whether in the
Committee of the Whole on General Orders or on Final Action, shall be recorded
votes. Current practice on General Orders in the Kansas House is
that all votes on bills, resolutions and amendments are voice votes, or, on a
division call, unrecorded electronic votes, absent a show of 15 hands
requiring a recorded vote. Make no mistake – those “unrecorded”
electronic division votes are in fact being recorded outside the chamber and in
the House Gallery, by handwritten notes, camera phones directed to the closed
circuit television screen, and otherwise, by government officials, lobbyists,
and other political insiders vested in the outcomes of these votes. Rep.
Rubin believes that citizens should have the same access to these
vote results that political insiders do. Moreover, all Kansans are,
in his view, entitled to know how legislators vote on every public policy
question put to them – in bills, amendments and resolutions – not just on Final
Action, but preliminarily on General Orders as well. In his
view, legislators' oath of office and their responsibility to be
transparent in their votes and accountable to the people of Kansas for them
require no less.
I applaud Rep. Rubin for his noteworthy efforts to
enhance public transparency and accountability in the Kansas Legislature.
Let John know that you support his efforts, of if you'd like more info: Email:john.rubin@house.ks.gov
If your Shawnee State rep is Charles Macheers, Email:charles.macheers@house.ks.gov Brett Hildabrand, Email:hildabrand2010@gmail.com or Kelly Meigs, Email:krmeigs@live.com email them and ask them to support John's bills:
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
New Kid on the Block
Well it's been almost two months since Stephanie Meyer was appointed to the city council for Ward III.
How has she been doing? Well, it all depends on what items are of interest or importance to a person.
On three recent items I would have to say that Ms. Meyer definitely was "for the people", which I think is good.
1. At the council committee meeting regarding changes in PS-7 and public input at committee meetings, she spoke in favor of citizen input and that is how it finalized. Note: Her ward mate, Jeff Vaught expressed a position that would have reduced public input.
2. At the council committee meeting regarding the ballot for the proposed sales tax retentions and increases, Ms. Meyer spoke in favor of letting it go to the November general election. That would be a no cost election for the city. On the other hand, her ward mate Jeff Vaught spoke in favor of making it a mail in ballot in the spring which would cost the city $100,000. Yepper, 100 big ones.
3. At the city council meeting that saw the appointment of Alan Willoughby (the mayor's uncle by marriage) to the planning commission, Ms. Meyer voted against it, wanting to see more representation from the west side. Her ward mate, Jeff Vaught voted for Uncle Alan, which kept the planning commission unbalanced as to equitable representation by areas of the city.
So, on these three issues how would I rate her? Three actions "for the people". Good job.
Her ward mate, Jeff "The Arrogant One" Vaught on these three actions was definitely "against the people". Puke time.
WARNING!!!!!! The City Manager of Shawnee has determined that local bloggers post items that may contain bad or misinformation. Please read these posts with care and determine for yourself whether the information is valid.
How has she been doing? Well, it all depends on what items are of interest or importance to a person.
On three recent items I would have to say that Ms. Meyer definitely was "for the people", which I think is good.
1. At the council committee meeting regarding changes in PS-7 and public input at committee meetings, she spoke in favor of citizen input and that is how it finalized. Note: Her ward mate, Jeff Vaught expressed a position that would have reduced public input.
2. At the council committee meeting regarding the ballot for the proposed sales tax retentions and increases, Ms. Meyer spoke in favor of letting it go to the November general election. That would be a no cost election for the city. On the other hand, her ward mate Jeff Vaught spoke in favor of making it a mail in ballot in the spring which would cost the city $100,000. Yepper, 100 big ones.
3. At the city council meeting that saw the appointment of Alan Willoughby (the mayor's uncle by marriage) to the planning commission, Ms. Meyer voted against it, wanting to see more representation from the west side. Her ward mate, Jeff Vaught voted for Uncle Alan, which kept the planning commission unbalanced as to equitable representation by areas of the city.
So, on these three issues how would I rate her? Three actions "for the people". Good job.
Her ward mate, Jeff "The Arrogant One" Vaught on these three actions was definitely "against the people". Puke time.
WARNING!!!!!! The City Manager of Shawnee has determined that local bloggers post items that may contain bad or misinformation. Please read these posts with care and determine for yourself whether the information is valid.
Monday, December 16, 2013
Shawnee Public Works Dept Receives Award
This info from the city's web site:
"The City of Shawnee’s Public Works Department - Field Operations Division received the 2013 American Public Works Association (APWA) Kansas City Metro Chapter Operations Program Award for its Snow Removal Program at the Annual Holiday Meeting and Award Ceremony."
Great job folks. For the rest of the story please go here: http://www.cityofshawnee.org/WEB/ShawneeCMS.nsf/vwNews/F418C1BC9A8CD6D786257C3F006D757C?OpenDocument
"The City of Shawnee’s Public Works Department - Field Operations Division received the 2013 American Public Works Association (APWA) Kansas City Metro Chapter Operations Program Award for its Snow Removal Program at the Annual Holiday Meeting and Award Ceremony."
Great job folks. For the rest of the story please go here: http://www.cityofshawnee.org/WEB/ShawneeCMS.nsf/vwNews/F418C1BC9A8CD6D786257C3F006D757C?OpenDocument
Sunday, December 15, 2013
Jim Neighbor Claims Planning Commission is Unstable
At the recent city council meeting that saw the appointment of Alan Willoughby (the mayor's uncle by marriage) Councilmember Jim Neighbor, Ward I said that we had a young planning commission and that Willoughby would bring stability. Needless to say, Neighbor was one of four who supported the nepotistic appointment of Willoughby.
Young? Chronologically young? Time of service young? Is Mr. Neighbor saying that the planning commission is unstable? Apparently so, if the appointment of Uncle Alan would bring stability to it.
So, let's look at the time of service dates of the members, not counting Willoughby:
Bogina 12/2002
Bienhoff 2/2005
Busby 8/2007
Schnefke 9/2009
Hageman 7/2011
Kenig 2/2012
Fiser 6/2012
Navarro 8/2012
Wiseman 8/2012
Sheahan 8/2013
Willoughby's 1st term on the commission was from 4/2010 - 7/2012. Actual previous time would give him just two more months service than Commissioner Hageman.
What's wrong with that make up? What kind of stability can Willoughby bring? Was Neighbor referring to their actual ages? Don't know and don't have that info.
I do remember there was a time, not too long ago when Councilmember Vaught made some negative comments about some who at that time had service on the council over 20 years.
So, what is the proper balance? And if the planning commission is/was unstable maybe the mayor needed to ask for resignations.
I think Neighbor's comments were a bunch of nonsense. Actually I think they were something else.
WARNING!!!!!! The City Manager of Shawnee has determined that local bloggers post items that may contain bad or misinformation. Please read these posts with care and determine for yourself whether the information is valid.
Young? Chronologically young? Time of service young? Is Mr. Neighbor saying that the planning commission is unstable? Apparently so, if the appointment of Uncle Alan would bring stability to it.
So, let's look at the time of service dates of the members, not counting Willoughby:
Bogina 12/2002
Bienhoff 2/2005
Busby 8/2007
Schnefke 9/2009
Hageman 7/2011
Kenig 2/2012
Fiser 6/2012
Navarro 8/2012
Wiseman 8/2012
Sheahan 8/2013
Willoughby's 1st term on the commission was from 4/2010 - 7/2012. Actual previous time would give him just two more months service than Commissioner Hageman.
What's wrong with that make up? What kind of stability can Willoughby bring? Was Neighbor referring to their actual ages? Don't know and don't have that info.
I do remember there was a time, not too long ago when Councilmember Vaught made some negative comments about some who at that time had service on the council over 20 years.
So, what is the proper balance? And if the planning commission is/was unstable maybe the mayor needed to ask for resignations.
I think Neighbor's comments were a bunch of nonsense. Actually I think they were something else.
WARNING!!!!!! The City Manager of Shawnee has determined that local bloggers post items that may contain bad or misinformation. Please read these posts with care and determine for yourself whether the information is valid.
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
Mayor Breaks Tie Vote to Get Uncle Alan Appointed to Planning Commission
If you followed my post from last week, (scroll down, it is the one from 12/5/13) you will see that Mayor Jeff Meyers was recommending his uncle by marriage, Alan Willoughby to the Planning Commission.
You may remember that it was Willoughby's appointment to the city council to fill an open seat that prompted a KOMA investigation by the JoCo DA. The investigation resulted in a letter that was definitely a reprimand.
So, what happened last night? When the mayor put Willoughby's name out there it started an interesting discussion. It seems that with the recent appointment of Stephanie Meyer to the City Council (which created the opening on the planning commission), that the make up of the commission became even more lopsided. Of the remaining 10 members, only 2 live west of I-435 and only one of those resides in Ward III. Willoughby's application was dated last Wednesday 12/4 just in time to make it on the agenda. Ironically, a Ward III resident put their application in within days of the aforementioned council appointment.
Yours truly got up and suggested that the council table the item and look to find an individual out of Ward III to fill the position. This would be a step towards balancing the commission and also involve folks who live in the area of the city with the most future growth potential.
You would think that the Ward III councilmembers would be in favor of that. Well, they were split. The newest member of the council, and from Ward III, Stephanie Meyer did voice objections to Willoughby's appointment. And she was right. On the other hand, Jeff "His Royal Arrogance" Vaught raised all kinds of bovine scatological arguments to support Willoughby. Guess he really doesn't care about the folks in his own ward.
What was the final result? Four councilmembers voted against the Willoughby appointment. Those four were Dan Pflumm, Ward I, Mike Kemmling Ward II, Stephanie Meyer Ward III and Michelle Distler Ward IV. These four did the right thing.
Who were the four that supported the mayor's nepotistic action? Jim Neighbor Ward I, Neal Sawyer Ward II, Jeff Vaught Ward III and Mickey Sandifer Ward IV.
So, now we had a tie. The mayor chose to use his tie breaking powers to appoint his uncle by marriage to the planning commission.
WARNING!!!!!! The City Manager of Shawnee has determined that local bloggers post items that may contain bad or misinformation. Please read these posts with care and determine for yourself whether the information is valid.
You may remember that it was Willoughby's appointment to the city council to fill an open seat that prompted a KOMA investigation by the JoCo DA. The investigation resulted in a letter that was definitely a reprimand.
So, what happened last night? When the mayor put Willoughby's name out there it started an interesting discussion. It seems that with the recent appointment of Stephanie Meyer to the City Council (which created the opening on the planning commission), that the make up of the commission became even more lopsided. Of the remaining 10 members, only 2 live west of I-435 and only one of those resides in Ward III. Willoughby's application was dated last Wednesday 12/4 just in time to make it on the agenda. Ironically, a Ward III resident put their application in within days of the aforementioned council appointment.
Yours truly got up and suggested that the council table the item and look to find an individual out of Ward III to fill the position. This would be a step towards balancing the commission and also involve folks who live in the area of the city with the most future growth potential.
You would think that the Ward III councilmembers would be in favor of that. Well, they were split. The newest member of the council, and from Ward III, Stephanie Meyer did voice objections to Willoughby's appointment. And she was right. On the other hand, Jeff "His Royal Arrogance" Vaught raised all kinds of bovine scatological arguments to support Willoughby. Guess he really doesn't care about the folks in his own ward.
What was the final result? Four councilmembers voted against the Willoughby appointment. Those four were Dan Pflumm, Ward I, Mike Kemmling Ward II, Stephanie Meyer Ward III and Michelle Distler Ward IV. These four did the right thing.
Who were the four that supported the mayor's nepotistic action? Jim Neighbor Ward I, Neal Sawyer Ward II, Jeff Vaught Ward III and Mickey Sandifer Ward IV.
So, now we had a tie. The mayor chose to use his tie breaking powers to appoint his uncle by marriage to the planning commission.
WARNING!!!!!! The City Manager of Shawnee has determined that local bloggers post items that may contain bad or misinformation. Please read these posts with care and determine for yourself whether the information is valid.
Sunday, December 08, 2013
Vaught Pushes to Waste $100,000 of City Funds
Wow, the headline is a strong statement. But, it is a fact.
At last Tuesday's (12/3/13) Council Committee meeting an item came up to put the issue of continuing two sales taxes (collectively known as Parks & Pipes) and a new one for pavements, on a ballot for the citizens of Shawnee to vote on. The merits of the taxes will not be discussed in this post.
Now that is the way it should be. The citizens have a right to vote on these items. Here's the problem: City Manager Gonzales proposed a time line that would create a mail in ballot in the spring of 2014. That would cost $100,000. The city could put it on the ballot for the November general election at no cost. The November election is a county wide election and cities can piggy back for zero dollars in election costs. Various council members expressed concern about spending the $100,000 when the item could be put before the voters at no charge.
Councilmember Vaught appeared to be the primary proponent for doing it in the spring. In his rants he even went so far as to accuse another council member of having "blinders on" because that council member had the temerity to disagree with His Royal Arrogance. So much for civility, which Vaught has always claimed we need more of on the council, but is the first to be uncivil. Vaught's concern stemmed from the concept that a tax question, on the bottom of a ballot during a partisan election would automatically be voted down. Not so Mr. Know it All. If the public is educated, regarding the pros and cons of the issues, then the citizens of Shawnee can make informed, intelligent decisions. He even indicated that with a mail in ballot, the folks that had responded to the most recent citizen satisfaction survey (by mail) would be the ones to return them and then the items would be approved.
Looking around the metro there have been many tax items put on the ballot that have been approved, and yes, some have been turned down, but a larger turn out let's you know how the people feel. This is something that if you listen closely to his comments, he is not in favor of............how the people feel.
Ironically, Council member Dan Pflumm challenged Vaught to the extent that Vaught was against spending $30,000 for a special election to fill the recent open Ward III seat, but now is willing to spend $100,000 instead of getting a freebie election. Vaught's response was that there was a procedure for the council appointment set up. He's right. There is. And it states that if the council does not fill the vacancy then it goes to a special election. Naturally Vaught did not want that, even though 3 of the 4 interviewed for the position said it should. Ironic, eh?
Anyway, back to the election for the sales taxes. This matter will be coming back before the committee. It is not over. The people of Shawnee need to address this matter at a general election in November for two reasons:
1. November elections get larger turnouts and more citizens of Shawnee could express their view, pro or con.
2. A November ballot question would be at no charge to the city as opposed to $100,000 for a spring mail ballot.
If you don't believe me about Vaught's attitude and comments, then please listen to the audio of the meeting. You can hear how he puts himself above all others, including the citizens of Shawnee. The audio is available here:
http://www.cityofshawnee.org/WEB/ShawneeCMS.nsf/vwContent/Agendas?OpenDocument&navKey=Home
Go to the 12/3/13 committee meeting and click on "Listen to Audio of Meeting"
To save time you can scroll forward to approximately the 1 hr 25 min mark of the meeting to hear this subject matter, bypassing the other two items on that agenda.
WARNING!!!!!! The City Manager of Shawnee has determined that local bloggers post items that may contain bad or misinformation. Please read these posts with care and determine for yourself whether the information is valid.
DTJVSD
At last Tuesday's (12/3/13) Council Committee meeting an item came up to put the issue of continuing two sales taxes (collectively known as Parks & Pipes) and a new one for pavements, on a ballot for the citizens of Shawnee to vote on. The merits of the taxes will not be discussed in this post.
Now that is the way it should be. The citizens have a right to vote on these items. Here's the problem: City Manager Gonzales proposed a time line that would create a mail in ballot in the spring of 2014. That would cost $100,000. The city could put it on the ballot for the November general election at no cost. The November election is a county wide election and cities can piggy back for zero dollars in election costs. Various council members expressed concern about spending the $100,000 when the item could be put before the voters at no charge.
Councilmember Vaught appeared to be the primary proponent for doing it in the spring. In his rants he even went so far as to accuse another council member of having "blinders on" because that council member had the temerity to disagree with His Royal Arrogance. So much for civility, which Vaught has always claimed we need more of on the council, but is the first to be uncivil. Vaught's concern stemmed from the concept that a tax question, on the bottom of a ballot during a partisan election would automatically be voted down. Not so Mr. Know it All. If the public is educated, regarding the pros and cons of the issues, then the citizens of Shawnee can make informed, intelligent decisions. He even indicated that with a mail in ballot, the folks that had responded to the most recent citizen satisfaction survey (by mail) would be the ones to return them and then the items would be approved.
Looking around the metro there have been many tax items put on the ballot that have been approved, and yes, some have been turned down, but a larger turn out let's you know how the people feel. This is something that if you listen closely to his comments, he is not in favor of............how the people feel.
Ironically, Council member Dan Pflumm challenged Vaught to the extent that Vaught was against spending $30,000 for a special election to fill the recent open Ward III seat, but now is willing to spend $100,000 instead of getting a freebie election. Vaught's response was that there was a procedure for the council appointment set up. He's right. There is. And it states that if the council does not fill the vacancy then it goes to a special election. Naturally Vaught did not want that, even though 3 of the 4 interviewed for the position said it should. Ironic, eh?
Anyway, back to the election for the sales taxes. This matter will be coming back before the committee. It is not over. The people of Shawnee need to address this matter at a general election in November for two reasons:
1. November elections get larger turnouts and more citizens of Shawnee could express their view, pro or con.
2. A November ballot question would be at no charge to the city as opposed to $100,000 for a spring mail ballot.
If you don't believe me about Vaught's attitude and comments, then please listen to the audio of the meeting. You can hear how he puts himself above all others, including the citizens of Shawnee. The audio is available here:
http://www.cityofshawnee.org/WEB/ShawneeCMS.nsf/vwContent/Agendas?OpenDocument&navKey=Home
Go to the 12/3/13 committee meeting and click on "Listen to Audio of Meeting"
To save time you can scroll forward to approximately the 1 hr 25 min mark of the meeting to hear this subject matter, bypassing the other two items on that agenda.
WARNING!!!!!! The City Manager of Shawnee has determined that local bloggers post items that may contain bad or misinformation. Please read these posts with care and determine for yourself whether the information is valid.
DTJVSD
Thursday, December 05, 2013
Mayor to Appoint Uncle Alan to Planning Commission
I'm on the city's email list to get notifications of all meetings. Needless to say, when the notice for this upcoming council meeting (12/9/13) came in, I clicked on the link to view the agenda with supporting documents.
I was not prepared for what was contained on the agenda. Mayor Jeff Meyers is recommending that the council appoint Alan Willoughby (his uncle by marriage) to the planning commission.
Sound familiar? Well, Mr. Willoughby has previously served on the planning commission and then left that position when he was appointed to fill the unexpired term of David Morris who had resigned from the city council. Remember the brouhaha that caused? The KOMA investigation? And yes, the letter from the JoCo DA which was clearly a reprimand. (Yes a reprimand, even though we have one councilmember who does not understand the meaning/definition of that word). Then, when "Uncle Alan" ran for the council on his own, for a full term, he was defeated.
Anyway an opening on the planning commission has occurred because Stephanie Meyer has been appointed to the city council. So now the mayor wants to appoint "Uncle Alan" to the planning commission, again. Is this the consolation prize for losing the election for the council? Is this designed to give him another line on his resumé should he decide to run for the council in the 2015 election?
Ironically, another individual submitted the documentation (10/31) to fill the seat on the planning commission prior to the date of "Uncle Alan's" submission (12/4). An individual with an engineering background, who has served as a public works director and who might just provide some fresh insight into the items that come before that commission.
I remember a couple of years ago when council member Vaught had a hold put on some applications for the planning commission. Methinks, not only a hold, but a thumbs down vote is in order for this one.
For those who don't believe this is happening please go here:
http://www.cityofshawnee.org/Meetings/AGENDAS.NSF/vwNews/01F29E81ADCB439E86257C380080D015/$FILE/City_Council_2013_12_9_Agenda_with_Supporting_Documentation.pdf
WARNING!!!!!! The City Manager of Shawnee has determined that local bloggers post items that may contain bad or misinformation. Please read these posts with care and determine for yourself whether the information is valid.
I was not prepared for what was contained on the agenda. Mayor Jeff Meyers is recommending that the council appoint Alan Willoughby (his uncle by marriage) to the planning commission.
Sound familiar? Well, Mr. Willoughby has previously served on the planning commission and then left that position when he was appointed to fill the unexpired term of David Morris who had resigned from the city council. Remember the brouhaha that caused? The KOMA investigation? And yes, the letter from the JoCo DA which was clearly a reprimand. (Yes a reprimand, even though we have one councilmember who does not understand the meaning/definition of that word). Then, when "Uncle Alan" ran for the council on his own, for a full term, he was defeated.
Anyway an opening on the planning commission has occurred because Stephanie Meyer has been appointed to the city council. So now the mayor wants to appoint "Uncle Alan" to the planning commission, again. Is this the consolation prize for losing the election for the council? Is this designed to give him another line on his resumé should he decide to run for the council in the 2015 election?
Ironically, another individual submitted the documentation (10/31) to fill the seat on the planning commission prior to the date of "Uncle Alan's" submission (12/4). An individual with an engineering background, who has served as a public works director and who might just provide some fresh insight into the items that come before that commission.
I remember a couple of years ago when council member Vaught had a hold put on some applications for the planning commission. Methinks, not only a hold, but a thumbs down vote is in order for this one.
For those who don't believe this is happening please go here:
http://www.cityofshawnee.org/Meetings/AGENDAS.NSF/vwNews/01F29E81ADCB439E86257C380080D015/$FILE/City_Council_2013_12_9_Agenda_with_Supporting_Documentation.pdf
WARNING!!!!!! The City Manager of Shawnee has determined that local bloggers post items that may contain bad or misinformation. Please read these posts with care and determine for yourself whether the information is valid.
Thursday, November 28, 2013
Sunday, November 24, 2013
Vaught and His Hypocrisy
Something that happened at the meeting that selected Stephanie Meyer for the Ward III council seat reminded me of some of Jeff (The Arrogant One) Vaught's hypocrisy.
Previously, Vaught had been highly critical of and publicly excoriated a state representative for getting involved in Shawnee politics. And he did that using the dais of the council chambers for his rant. All that, even though the state rep is a Shawnee resident and has every right to speak out on what happens in the city. http://shawneeray.blogspot.com/2012/04/after-smoke-has-cleared.html
But, when Vaught ran for reelection he had no problem touting the endorsement of US Sen Jerry Moran, a Hays, Kansas resident.
Also, Vaught's recent support of a new rental townhome project in western Shawnee (in Ward III) would appear to contradict his previous negative statements of the rights of those who rent. Maybe we need to notify the folks who move into those units that their council member doesn't think they have a stake in Shawnee.
WARNING!!!!!! The City Manager of Shawnee has determined that local bloggers post items that may contain bad or misinformation. Please read these posts with care and determine for yourself whether the information is valid.
Previously, Vaught had been highly critical of and publicly excoriated a state representative for getting involved in Shawnee politics. And he did that using the dais of the council chambers for his rant. All that, even though the state rep is a Shawnee resident and has every right to speak out on what happens in the city. http://shawneeray.blogspot.com/2012/04/after-smoke-has-cleared.html
But, when Vaught ran for reelection he had no problem touting the endorsement of US Sen Jerry Moran, a Hays, Kansas resident.
Also, Vaught's recent support of a new rental townhome project in western Shawnee (in Ward III) would appear to contradict his previous negative statements of the rights of those who rent. Maybe we need to notify the folks who move into those units that their council member doesn't think they have a stake in Shawnee.
WARNING!!!!!! The City Manager of Shawnee has determined that local bloggers post items that may contain bad or misinformation. Please read these posts with care and determine for yourself whether the information is valid.
Sunday, November 17, 2013
2015 City Elections
In approximately one year from now folks will be signing up to run for office in the city elections of April 2015.
That's not that far away. Personally, I'd like to see more citizens involved with what happens on the local level to include voting in the city elections.
So, what do we have to look forward to?
Mayor: Jeff Meters will be finishing his third term. Add that to all the years he has served as a member of the council and he has definitely put in lots of time. Look for him to retire from city politics. What will happen? See some comments below.
Ward I: Jim Neighbor is up for reelection. Most of the time one does not know what his position is on various issues until he votes. It would be nice if he would state his position(s) ahead of time.
Ward II: Long term council member Neal Sawyer is probably going to retire after this term, leaving his seat up for grabs. It should be noted that Alan Willoughby, the mayor's uncle by marriage, has been attending most council and committee meetings. Is he planning a run on his own?
Ward III: Stephanie Meyer who was just appointed to fill an open seat will now have an opportunity to run for election for a full term on her own. Jeff "The Arrogant One" Vaught is rumored to be considering a run for mayor. Since his seat on the council is not up for reelection at this time, his council seat is safe if he loses the mayor's race. If he runs for mayor, let's help him to keep his seat on the council by losing the mayoral election.
Ward IV: Now this one is the fun one to watch. Mickey Sandifer is up for reelection but it appears that he wants a shot at the mayor's office. Since Mickey can only run for one office, he would have to run and win for mayor to stay in government. Now, if he runs for mayor, that means that there is no incumbent running. Guess what? Ward IV is getting a new resident. None other than Dawn "Motormouth" Kuhn. That is unless she runs under her soon to be new married name. But, a motormouth is still a motormouth. Kuhn getting elected to represent Ward IV would be just as much of a disaster as Jeff Vaught getting elected to be mayor. Between Sandifer or Vaught, it's gottta be Sandifer...............unless somebody else pops in.
Stay involved Shawnee, the future of your city could depend on it.
WARNING!!!!!! The City Manager of Shawnee has determined that local bloggers post items that may contain bad or misinformation. Please read these posts with care and determine for yourself whether the information is valid.
That's not that far away. Personally, I'd like to see more citizens involved with what happens on the local level to include voting in the city elections.
So, what do we have to look forward to?
Mayor: Jeff Meters will be finishing his third term. Add that to all the years he has served as a member of the council and he has definitely put in lots of time. Look for him to retire from city politics. What will happen? See some comments below.
Ward I: Jim Neighbor is up for reelection. Most of the time one does not know what his position is on various issues until he votes. It would be nice if he would state his position(s) ahead of time.
Ward II: Long term council member Neal Sawyer is probably going to retire after this term, leaving his seat up for grabs. It should be noted that Alan Willoughby, the mayor's uncle by marriage, has been attending most council and committee meetings. Is he planning a run on his own?
Ward III: Stephanie Meyer who was just appointed to fill an open seat will now have an opportunity to run for election for a full term on her own. Jeff "The Arrogant One" Vaught is rumored to be considering a run for mayor. Since his seat on the council is not up for reelection at this time, his council seat is safe if he loses the mayor's race. If he runs for mayor, let's help him to keep his seat on the council by losing the mayoral election.
Ward IV: Now this one is the fun one to watch. Mickey Sandifer is up for reelection but it appears that he wants a shot at the mayor's office. Since Mickey can only run for one office, he would have to run and win for mayor to stay in government. Now, if he runs for mayor, that means that there is no incumbent running. Guess what? Ward IV is getting a new resident. None other than Dawn "Motormouth" Kuhn. That is unless she runs under her soon to be new married name. But, a motormouth is still a motormouth. Kuhn getting elected to represent Ward IV would be just as much of a disaster as Jeff Vaught getting elected to be mayor. Between Sandifer or Vaught, it's gottta be Sandifer...............unless somebody else pops in.
Stay involved Shawnee, the future of your city could depend on it.
WARNING!!!!!! The City Manager of Shawnee has determined that local bloggers post items that may contain bad or misinformation. Please read these posts with care and determine for yourself whether the information is valid.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)
