Publisher's Note: I am making some changes to this entry based on information subsequently provided to me after the date of original post.
Julie Young's blog is a continual rant of baseless allegations of corruption and skewed interpretation of state law. She charges that Bob Van Vleet, Marvin Filsinger and Dave Weiderspon are conspiring to violate open meeting laws, holding illegal closed sessions and trying to fire the City Manager.
It is clear from council meetings that a majority of elected officials seek to examine the possibility of separating the positions of City Manager and Economic Development Director. The conspirators gave different reasons, so they apparently must not be very good at conspiring, but yet, they are evil men.
My gut feeling is that the positions should be separated, on the basis of providing a necessary check and balance between the need to grow, but also to be able to manage the current obligations effectively.
Instead of building a path to I-80, that 167k could have been spent on improving the worst areas of the city's streets, but we pressed on, stating that we had yet another grant that we would lose if we didn't go forward. Now we are told that we would only save 24k if we killed the project now. We are damned if we do (because highway, epa and other regulations will force us to incur additional expenses to maintain it) and damned if we don't. Maybe someone should have acted to kill the project outright, but that didn't happen, not from the City Manager, nor members of the City Council, who are both at fault, in my opinion.
If you are willing to take a position different from mine, I welcome your comment, you just can't be anonymous.
Mike-
ReplyDeleteYou have me LMAO! I would have to say you have the skewed view of the laws. I have never said conspiracy, those would be your words not mine. Mine would be stupidity theory. And I have pointed out that both the requests have come from one of the 3 (Van Vleet, Filsinger or Weiderspon).
Open meetings are just that. And what they can and can't do behind closed doors is the issue.
I pointed out the AG site only because YOU say that you only want the facts. You claim that what you posted is what is posted in the council meeting room, yet it is not.
You think the public or myself should follow rules, yet it appears you are above them. You claim I get favors from city hall but it is you who has asked for them. I have asked no favors or received any kind of preferential treatment.
People want lower taxes. They also want recreational opportunities, good streets, up-to-date firefighting equipment.
If you want low taxes, just move to an unincorporated village or a farmstead. Instead of paying taxes and fees, you can pay directly for your garbage pickup, well service, septic service, electricity, snow removal, etc. PLUS you can still come into town and walk on our paths, swim in our pool, golf on our public course, all while you are being protected by our police and firemen at no cost to you. That's how cities work.
What preferential treatment did I ask for that isn't provided for by law? If it is provided for by law, how can it be preferential.
ReplyDeleteWe all should follow the rules. Not everyone but me. I posted the open meeting act from the AG's site that is true. I thought the extra info would be helpful to people. I am sorry that I was not more precise and hope my error didn't cause anyone harm.
Your site is dedicated to making members of the council out to be fools because they want to separate Gary Person's dual roles. That is your choice. Time will tell if a reasonable plan to do so can be effective and affordable. It will be in the light of day and there will be ample public debate. The councilmen get their power from those who vote them in. If you don't like them, vote for someone else.
If you think they are criminally negligent, please stop talking about it and do something. All you are doing is stirring up additional rancor that the town could do without.
Mike-
ReplyDeleteI never said they could not or should not change the job. I said we get to be part of the discussion. They must do this in the open. As far as rancor goes maybe you should reread your own blog. And it is a blog NOT a reliable news source. you have no more standing as a news source than I do.
Julie
The public will be part of the discussion.
ReplyDeleteOnly because we have made an issue of it.
ReplyDelete