Stacy,
Because you are Bob's daughter, I guess I should expect you to jump to the same conclusions as him before actually listening to what I was saying.
When I was talking about financial dealings between the city and the members of council, I wanted to make it clear that I was not singling anyone out. So, I pointed out the amounts paid to EACH councilman by the city in the past 2 years. Unfortunately, I was immediately interrupted before I could get to my real point by your father and others.
The only purpose in bringing up the subject was to ask them to keep their required disclosure documents current. Your dad and all of the council members certainly have a right to do business with the city. I have no problem with that. None at all. However, the people have a right to fully understand the financial arrangements between their elected officials and the public funds they are responsible for overseeing. That's why the law requires that they have current disclosure forms on file. I simply want them to abide by the law.
They are responsible for knowing the law on this matter.
I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that I want your dad thrown in jail.
I pointed out that when I asked about how these matters are enforced, I was told that I could file suit, or file complaints and have them investigated. I simply investigated them myself and went to the meeting to ask them to comply without going to such drastic means.
I stated at the beginning what my purpose was. I want fair, honest and open government from our council. I want discussions about important city matters conducted in public, instead of behind closed doors. I want them to stop violating their own rules by interfering with city staff. I want them to comply with ALL of the city and state ordinances that they expect us to comply with.
I have not asked for fines.
I have not asked for penalties.
I have not asked for decisions to be overturned.
I have not asked for resignations.
I have not asked for recall petitions.
I ask only for open discussions in public meetings and full disclosure of financial arrangements according to the law. I am offended when they simply thumb their noses at the rules that govern them and expect us to do nothing out of fear.
Your dad should have listened to what I was saying instead of jumping to the conclusion that he did. It wasn't easy standing up there and talking about these things. That's why so few people do it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Just as a note. Bob did fill out the required form back in 1993 so he did know about it.
ReplyDeleteSince you only print the facts...
ReplyDeleteHe's 75
He is an inventor
He is a business owner
He is politically active
He gives anonymously
He has served in the military
He works 7 days a week w/cancer.
He's my hero.
You questioned his integrity and his character.
en garde!
Kelly,
ReplyDeleteI have not questioned his integrity and his character.
I have questions about his actions as a councilman. I have asked them openly and honestly.
Are you saying that we have no right to question our government?
As a politically active person, Bob has been questioning the acts of elected officials for decades. That's his right.
I'm exercising mine.
The fact that you can not tell that you questioned his integrity and his character tells me a lot. And I was so hoping for a lively debate.
ReplyDeleteI was just online to read the letter from Stacy, and interestingly enough, it is no longer posted online, nor is Julie's response. Does the paper have something to hide? I must say, the paper's story about what happened at the council meeting is very accurate, and no one should ever question Julies motive. A lot of different things could have happened that would have brought investigations. The issue would be settled if the Mayor would release another statement saying that council has no intention of ill will or underhanded dealings and they will work diligently in the future to make sure there is no adverse public perception. That is all that is being asked of them. Seems a pretty easy thing to do to make the constituents happy.
ReplyDeleteBoo Radley
So really it's ok for Bob to question but no one should question him?
ReplyDeleteWow, such a lively debate...
ReplyDeleteBoo.. in response to your statement about how easy it would be to put all this behind us...
I know for a fact that there is a group of people who will be satisfied with nothing less than the resignation of three councilman.
People have a right to demand their government be open and honest.. No problem there. What people are doing now is going after people personally.
There is no evidence whatsoever that Bob Van Vleet went after Mike Palmer. The supposition is that this is the case and the way Julie has spun it, mixing it with her facts (which some I agree with and some I do not) is unproductive.
There is no way under heaven that those people who are stirring their own pot will go away, until Bob and/or other councilmen have resigned and another puppet can be installed to maintain the current balance that they seek to have on council.
Bob made his views known to anyone who would ask before his election. Why don't you question the motives of those who oppose him under a thinly disguised veil of openness.
I am of the opinion that were there not the issues Julie chose to hang her argument on, someone would have dug until they found some way to smear the very people they say they are glad to have enjoyed the help of all these years.
Small town values my foot.
Michael Rowland
Boo the paper has it all up and more.
ReplyDeleteMike no spin intended. And you don't get to decide what everyone thinks is productive or not. If they think twice the next time they go in to closed meetings it's worth it. If Marv fills out his paperwork it's worth it. And if they do the above what will people have to talk about? So in the end whether you like my method or not, if things get done as they should it's worth it.
The question was and is "why the next day?" Had Bob made his request 3 weeks prior to Palmer standing up nothing would have been said, at least by me.
And my issue, as I have told you, is do the job right. And no, they are not lawyers but they are responsible to know the job they were elected to do. And if they don't wish to follow the rules, then they should not have run.
And it is "small town values" people of Sidney will push to the end to defend the way of life they seek. It really matters not if you and I agree with them.