Issue No. 2, the Sidney Citizen

Publisher's Note: I am taking no position on this item below, except to post it for the benefit of those who said they did not get the first one and wanted to see it. Perhaps the author will forward a copy of the original version. I expect to take some flack for the references it makes to me, as well as Julie Young, but this is an on-going news item of interest to the city and as such will be posted here. Please feel free to comment for or against.


============Letter==================

The Sidney Citizen
Prepared by a group of concerned citizens of Sidney, nebraksa
February 11, 2010

Wow, “THE SIDNEY CITIZEN” published on January 13, 2010, was well received.
Although there were some cantankerous old cronies that chose to call us gutless cowards since we did not sign our names, they were the same people that circulated our letter, talked about us the most and made it clear why we must remain anonymous.  Thank you for your support.  And, there were others that recognized that the facts included in the unsigned Sidney Citizen letter were worthy of discussion.
Upon watching the January 26, 2010, and subsequent council meetings, the necessity for this letter’s authors and contributors to remain anonymous was quickly verified.  The supporters of city management were applauded as they spoke, while the individual that brought forward items for discussion that were in disagreement with the vocal minority was quickly and regularly booed.  The anonymity of the pundit of the past was well accepted as certain council members were bashed, and now the pundit’s wife refuses to accept anonymous comments on her blog (sidneyne.blogspot.com).  Mike Rowland’s blog (theguardiannews.blogspot.com) has apparently been bombarded with hateful comments since he was willing to read and recognize facts and questions that should be discussed.  Is this productive, open discussion? 
This must remain our only and best way to present facts for discussion.  If you, the reader of this letter, feel anonymous comments are not valid because they are anonymous, stop reading now, throw this away and ignore the reasonable options and questions of fact that will be presented below.
While some names may be mentioned, it is only in reference to fact, not character.  Here are a few of the comments and concerns being expressed by the quiet majority:
Julie Young asked some pointed questions at the last council meeting, pointed questions only of the council members.  The grand and glorious result of her pointed questions….the city attorney represents the city manager and himself.  He refused to take any responsibility for his inaction in supporting the council members.  He should be taking the initiative to understand the legal aspect of every item on the agenda.  If he doesn’t have enough information to write the motion for a closed session, he needed to ask and acquire that information prior to the meeting.  He does receive a base salary and benefits from the city, and if it takes extra time to do his job, he gets paid for that as well.  Other city employees on salary put in the extra time for their job, without extra pay.  If Mr. Ball is unable or unwilling to fulfill his responsibilities as legal counsel for the city manager, the city AND the city council, then either the city council needs to spend the extra money on an attorney that will represent them in all matters, or Mr. Person needs to hire a new city attorney, period.  If Mr. Person as city manager is unwilling to fulfill his duties as city manager, then the city council should hire a new city manager that will fix the problem.
Mike Rowland has also stood up at the council meetings and asked general questions of the council and staff.  Mr. Rowland needs his turn at center stage to ask more pointed questions of city staff, based on fact.  He has taken a great deal of retribution for asking unpopular questions.  Thank you Mike, keep digging, you will get the information you need to ask the questions that should be asked in public.
As a blogger, Julie Young injects more of her opinion and reports “facts” that fit her agenda.  As a true blogger, that is her right.  As a journalist, Mike Rowland uses less opinion and more facts.  He appears to be less committed to an outcome of the discussions than Julie Young.  This writer is not a journalist, so yes, this is this writer’s opinion.  The coffee shop talk indicates Mike Rowland is more factual.
Mr. VanVleet made a good decision Tuesday night when he said he wouldn’t do business with the city in the future.  It is not worth the headache.  Based on the mob mentality, I’m not sure why being on council is worth the headache either.  For VanVleet, Filsinger and Weiderspon, it would indicate a true desire to do what is right, not what is popular.  Gaston seems to want to be popular.  Yes, opinion again.  The voters will support what is right.
For Mr. Filsinger, it would be great if Julie Young or Mike Rowland would ask the city to document the amount of money saved by taxpayers based on his or VanVleet’s input and support of projects, ranging from improvements to the downtown storm water system, to drainage at the Fed-X site, to Kathy Wilson’s camp outlook and cemetery.
There has been a lot of talk about Robert’s Rules of Order and parliamentary procedure.  Dr. Cornelious seems to be the expert in this area, yet he didn’t cry foul when Ibs Young or Kathy Wilson wouldn’t come up to the podium and speak into the microphone.  Was this so the public at home can’t hear them, or because they are special, or because they are part of Gary’s mob?  C’mon Doc, apply the rules to everyone.  Speaking of Doc’s, when was the last time Dr. Dorwart built anything and what are his qualifications to doubt Mr. Filsinger’s expertise or research on building a better and cheaper path?  Filsinger has saved this community several hundred thousand dollars, just to get bashed.  How much would it cost to build an 8’ sidewalk without the state’s help, especially with the support of Cabela’s?  It will be nice when the path is done so the homeless guy and his dog at Runza can come on down to shop in downtown Sidney and when the kids from the park can sneak up the hill to venture into the truck traffic at Sapp’s.  While the majority of the truck drivers are good people, if a sex offender can’t get a job in town, they get a job driving a truck down the interstate. There’s a reason the porn store wanted to be on the interstate.  Let’s tell the state to take a hike and build it ourselves in the right location, away from the heavy interchange traffic.  The economic development director wanted the path so bad the city manager looked the other way.  Another gift from the taxpayers for economic development?
Most of the talk about city employees Jo Houser and Mike Palmer speaking up is positive.  They do have a right to speak at public meetings and were well received by council members.  But, it is also quickly pointed out that they or other city employees would risk losing their jobs if they publicly challenged city management.  As it was pointed out, there is a chain of command to follow, but how easy is that to do if the problem is the city manager or public services director or the city attorney.  Some have said, well, then they need to find a job they like.  They like their jobs, but if something is wrong, how do you blow the whistle?  Are city employees encouraged to think out of the box or reprimanded for it?  Is there an ordinance or statue that protects those employees from staff retribution? 
Here are some questions that could be asked:
1.    Does the city have an ordinance that protects an employee that comes forward as a whistleblower?
2.    Does the city have an ordinance that requires items legally discussed in a closed session to remain undisclosed by those attending the closed session?
3.    Gary Person sated he has never told a city employee they could not speak to a member of the city council.  Has the public services director or other department head threatened retribution or given the perception of retribution against any employee that gave information concerning questionable practices of city management to a member of the city council?
4.    Does the city council have the ability to freeze hiring and firing of city employees?
5.    Joe Aikens has assumed the police chief duties.  He lives a few hundred feet outside of the city limits.  City resolution #851202 passed 12-17-85, Use of City Vehicles, provides that the head of the Police Division who is on call at all times is hereby required to use a city vehicle, marked as a police vehicle, provided that any personal use of the vehicle outside of the city is prohibited, other than for commuting.  He is not allowed to take the marked police vehicle home.  Doesn’t this jeopardize the public safety due to reduced response times?
6.    Why does the golf pro live in Kimball?
7.    Can a list of all of the city owned vehicles be compiled, showing the amount of use during the last 12 months?  There are a number of city vehicles just sitting, not being used.  Use them or sell them.
8.    What are the city manager’s spending limits on something without being put out to bid?  Who sets this limit and should it be reduced during this budget crisis?
9.    How many purchases have been made “just under” the limit?
10.  Gaston stated that the current city manager has too much power, and that this is only because the current city manager is special, one of a kind.  Shouldn’t the citizens demand the city council as a whole to control this level of power and have safeguards against this?
11.  How many “private” meetings has the city manager requested with the mayor or other council members to discuss city business?
12.  Mr. Person commented at the council meeting Tuesday that the economic development money comes from the general fund?  Is this different than the money that comes from the sales tax fund being kept by the state?  Are the taxpayers paying for this twice, once as a sales tax the state regularly keeps, and once as property tax?  If we have a budget problem, can we cut the economic development fund until the economy picks up?
Twelve questions should be enough for now.
The vocal minority asks why we don’t come to the meetings to state our case.  Watch one person get crucified at the meetings by the vocal and rude minority, following their Rules from hell, and the others won’t come forward, especially the employees.  We will come forward when it comes time to vote.  Again, we ask the council members to listen to all of us, make your decisions, just as we will when it comes time to vote.  Bring your plans forward.  We must all do what is best for our city. Tea anyone?
We watch - we listen - we vote!