Publisher's Note: If you want to post on this site or have your comments taken seriously, you must be known to me in a manner that allows communication and verification prior to posting. Comments which add substance to the debate are permitted, which those which foment hate and discontent will be rejected.
The sentiment of Tuesday night's council meeting expressed by many in attendance was that anonymous comments don't deserve to be aired in public. I generally agree the sentiment, but also believe that opportunities must exist to bring up legitimate complaints, backed by evidence and not supposition. It is appropriate and necessary to remain silent on the revelation of your name, when revealing it, along with details of a crime or unethical conduct would expose the revealing person to loss of employment or community standing. When people seek to be anonymous in furtherance of stirring the pot or besmirching another in support of their own agenda, I find that action more than a little underhanded.
I spoke at city council on Tuesday to give a voice to questions posed in the letter, "The Sidney Citizen." I did not do it because I believed there was illegal or unethical conduct, but because the town has been going through so much lately. As Mike Palmer stated at council he was afraid to speak at council meetings, and yet he did so, expressing his opinion freely. The questions I asked were condensed down from the verbose comments in the, "letter" and were meant to address in a public place things that which would continue to tear at the community, left unspoken. The answers were provided by council and the city staff. I posted the responses, and the meeting was broadcast on cable access for those at home to see. The city staff and the council have made public, verifiable statements in answering the questions posed in the anonymous letter and I am grateful to each for their participation. I take no position either way with respect to any of the questions, but they needed to be asked.
A person who will not reveal their name sent a rather long comment last night to this blog. It seems that the poster believes that I am the writer of the so-called, "Sidney Citizen." I cannot post their comments directly as the person refuses to identify themselves in such a manner as to be known to me and verifiable. I will reiterate this point: If you have something to say, put your name on it. If you have a crime or unethical conduct to report, you can report it to me, the paper, the radio station, the police or any state agency and remain anonymous to the public. I am acting as a member of the press and in doing so, will not reveal sources, so long as the information is credible and reliable. Facts, not conjecture or supposition should be the watchword in governing this conduct.
The person is obviously well read, understands past council activities from years ago and they have a strong bias against three members of the city council, while speaking in terms about the city manager as, "reasonable, rational, respectful, thoughtful and obviously quite knowledgeable."
The writer continues on to say that they believe that three council members have a hidden agenda to remove Gary Person as City Manager, and replace him with someone who will allow them to manipulate the day to day activities of the city and its employees.
Now, somehow, because I have not come out and stated my open support for either camp (such as those camps may be perceived or publicly identified), or that I cannot see the, "truth" as described herein, I must be a co-conspirator in the process. I am now part of the plan, waiting to be a prospective future employee of a city to either be a mouthpiece or a dutiful minion of the suborning majority.
The writer doesn't understand why I, "fail to see this, barring" my, "own involvement in the charade." and is providing this letter to me to use on the site, and only in it's entirety. the writer also gives a copy to Julie Young who will know if I manipulated the writer's words.
The writer of the letter presents no facts, but rather conjectures that because people don't respond to the world as (the writer) see it, there must be a conspiracy afoot. There are 6300 or so people in the city and there may have been 40 people at the council meeting. Are some 6000 plus citizens also part of the conspiracy to offload Mr. Person just because they didn't come out publicly to endorse him Tuesday?
Let me address directly the rumors detailed herein. I have my own opinion of the policies of the City of Sidney and they have been known for some time. I believe that we have overspent our tax money and that the population base of Sidney is largely stagnant for nearly a decade. Our taxes have gone up nearly every year since 1999, and we have added questionable debt for lawsuits the city has lost, Tiff financing of questionable projects that shift cost burdens to the overwhelming majority of citizens and we have been told to buy million dollar plus hardware because we could get a grant for it, only to have the grant not materialize. I am a fiscal conservative and it pains me to see my tax dollars go to what I personally consider to be questionable activities. I lost my job due to the economic downturn and while I do not blame the company for cutting costs, I look around Sidney and I find no suitable replacement opportunities for reemployment here.
Personally, I know Gary Person and all of the Council members and I have no axe to grind with any of them, personally. I am not a candidate for any city position of employment now, nor will I be one in the future. I do not have the kind of iron will in me to withhold my thoughts if I am in full disagreement with positions presented to me and as such, I seriously doubt that I could be a PR machine.
With respect to the separation of the city manager/economic development coordinator positions, Gary and Mayor Weiderspon have said that they would discuss the possible options, costs and benefits of a number of alternatives and that process would run up through the budget cycle of this year. If any alternatives lead to specific proposals, those proposals will be brought forward at council meetings for public review and comment. I will make my position and logic known at that time for any plans that might be presented and reserve judgment on the motives and intentions of either side until necessary. I believe that Mayor Dave and Gary are reasonable men and given a fair chance to do the right thing they will make the right choice for Sidney. Any idea or proposal must survive the light of public debate. I heard a great many people talk about why something won't work. I didn't hear anyone talk about what might work, or how to make something work better. That was before any ideas have been brought to the table. All the brouhaha going around is for one word. All for the word, "may."
May we all reflect on what could be and challenge the status quo. In doing so, let us change what needs to be changed and hold up that which is good, but let us do so out of reflection and not reaction. It will be in doing so in this manner, we will come to a better place as a community.
Michael Rowland
It seems to me that YOU are the one who is biased. Based on your flip flop of this is a place where we can post freely and anonymously to now we have to be known to you before you will post our information.
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you go into Mayor Dave's open statement that the council will break the open meetings law right there during the meeting? I watched the video.. but of course you won't discuss that because Vanvleet is paying you to stir stir stir and make everyone else look bad. Cabela's was right to fire you.
The above post is the reason why blind anonymous posts are not permitted. It is representative of many comments left on this site and will not be published. I won't characterize the motives of someone who seems to find joy in the financial misfortune, except to point out they are clearly on one side of the fence.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe the majority of citizens in this town honestly believe that good can come from vicious attacks such as the ones made in the comment above. It would seem that my spoon isn't as big, nor my desire to use it as a club anywhere near as big as the person who wrote it.
Michael Rowland
Mike-
ReplyDeleteI did not get a copy of anything. I would love to read it. I feel the pain of anonymous posts. I have had a few bashing you, the mayor and councilmen on very personal levels. You have drawn a line in the sand on this, you may however want to look at how you have bashed private citizens and business in your own blog. Follow your own advice.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteI wasn't speaking my opinions, I was simply answering your question. When a question is posed about City employees, who better answer the question than a City employee. I cannot speak for all City employees just myself. I will say I do have issues with the letter floating around, not because of the letter itself, I feel every citizen should be able to express their likes or dislikes, about any subject. It’s the base of this great country we live in. What I do have a problem with is stereo-typing or in this case categorizing all city employees in one group. Did the writer do a fair polling of City employees or rather just talk to one or two employees? Or even worse just use second or third hand information to pose his/her question. When I refer to this letter and the question I answered it was in the manner that you posed it: "Are city employees forbidden to talk to council members without approval of the city manager to any such conduct?" With that being said, I have not had the privilege of reading this letter, the writer must have not found it necessary that I receive one.
Sincerely,
Mike Palmer
Mike,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your post. I also was not there casting any accusations, but asking questions that were being circulated around. I have heard in the past that people weren't allowed to talk to council members, but the reading of the statute and the explanation Gary provided hopefully closed out the matter.
Even though the source of, "the letter" remains unknown, some of the sentiments contained in it and addressed by council members and city staff hopefully put those issues to rest. Time will tell. There still remain people who are bent on pushing one view or another and I haven't yet seen any information that is credible enough to post.
People are once again making hay out of the Nebraska Open Meetings law and accusing council members of intentionally violating, or planning to violate the law in furtherance of, "hidden" objectives. These people have been corrected and that information was posted to another blog entry on the statute. These people are as guilty of inciting public discord as those who misrepresent city activities as evidently portrayed in the letter some of us received. In each case, a series of accusations have been leveled, without proof and people's undies have gotten up in a bunch.
With respect to the question you answered for yourself, and for everyone else out there,people are allowed to bring matters to the attention of Council members that are of importance to them, or to report misconduct as provided under whistleblower statues. As Gary Explained, there has to be a balance between the need to report an issue and curbing attempts by employees to undermine the authority of the City Manager or a department head because that employee doesn't like what they have been told to do.
Employees who feel that some ethical violation or legal violation of local, state of federal law should take that complaint up with an appropriate authority. If you can't talk to your supervisor, or the city manager, or feel like you will be targeted for reporting a legitimate offense, take it to someone who can get the problem properly reported and addressed through an effective venue.
Mike, you're reading the wrong section of the open meeting laws. Look at the section on closed sessions.
ReplyDelete