Tax money should never be used for advertising.
If a government agency has to advertise it's wares in order to get 'customers', it shouldn't be in business.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Letter to the Editor Submission - Dick got it wrong again.
“You better get your facts straight….” How many times have different councils heard that? Whenever Dick Pasco is getting ready to proclaim what he wants everyone to think he knows, that is how he starts out.
A few years ago, when council was caught violating the open door laws during budget meetings, his published stance was that no one can keep up with all of those laws. Now he claims that a 20 year politician shouldn’t be expected to know all of those laws.
You know what? He’s right.
Government is too big and there are way too many regulations for anyone but a lawyer. Interestingly enough Dick has been a big proponent of more regulation on the people that he rules. If you don't believe it, take a look at the current zoning code in its bloated form. Does he expect everyone to memorize that document? He sure does, because he approved the fines and fees that go along with it.
With that said, I invite all of you to take a look at the banner outside of Dick’s house and maybe you should mention to him that he needs to get the facts straight… the election is in 2007, not 2008.
Monday, April 2, 2007
Is it a big deal?
The newspaper has devoted a lot of space to the fact that we currently have 3 members of city council that are either paid police or firemen. After the November elections, we could potentially have 4 with a 5th having a son that is on the Greenfield Police force and a husband that was a volunteer on the fire department.
Is that a bad thing? Is it that big a deal? The real answer is that it depends on the people in office.
First off, you can't prohibit them from running for office. Yes, i know that there are currently some national laws that do... but do you really believe it is constitutional? Is it the right thing to do to keep someone off the ballot based on their job? Most people would say no.
With that said you can end up heavily loaded with public safety people on council. The fire department is a huge voting block. If they throw their support towards a candidate, then you have each department member, his immediate family, much of his larger family and many neighbors voting that direction also. It turns out to be an election based on community associations... just like most small town elections are.
I was on City Council from 2000 thru 2004. We had one council member that was married to a FD Volunteer and had a son on the PD. We had one council member that was an ex-volunteer. That was it as far as direct public safety ties. We spent a ton of money on both departments. My campaign was based on getting a new ladder truck and providing take home police cars. I also was a proponent of thermal imaging cameras. Each of those items had been proposed in years past but were ignored. All were purchased during my 4 years.
Purchased items that I didn't like included the fire training trailer. We also turned a project calling for separate showers for the women into a $1.2 million expansion. I was in favor of the showers... not the other $1.15 mill.
I think what I'm saying is that the money will be spent. Some of it in needed ways and some just because it is a "want". I think very little of it depends on who is voting.
I also think that a public servant voting on thier own raises or monetary items that directly affects them could be taking part in political suicide... but maybe not. Our legislators at the state and national level do it every year but you folks keep voting them back into office. Is it immoral or unethical? I don't think so.
Is that a bad thing? Is it that big a deal? The real answer is that it depends on the people in office.
First off, you can't prohibit them from running for office. Yes, i know that there are currently some national laws that do... but do you really believe it is constitutional? Is it the right thing to do to keep someone off the ballot based on their job? Most people would say no.
With that said you can end up heavily loaded with public safety people on council. The fire department is a huge voting block. If they throw their support towards a candidate, then you have each department member, his immediate family, much of his larger family and many neighbors voting that direction also. It turns out to be an election based on community associations... just like most small town elections are.
I was on City Council from 2000 thru 2004. We had one council member that was married to a FD Volunteer and had a son on the PD. We had one council member that was an ex-volunteer. That was it as far as direct public safety ties. We spent a ton of money on both departments. My campaign was based on getting a new ladder truck and providing take home police cars. I also was a proponent of thermal imaging cameras. Each of those items had been proposed in years past but were ignored. All were purchased during my 4 years.
Purchased items that I didn't like included the fire training trailer. We also turned a project calling for separate showers for the women into a $1.2 million expansion. I was in favor of the showers... not the other $1.15 mill.
I think what I'm saying is that the money will be spent. Some of it in needed ways and some just because it is a "want". I think very little of it depends on who is voting.
I also think that a public servant voting on thier own raises or monetary items that directly affects them could be taking part in political suicide... but maybe not. Our legislators at the state and national level do it every year but you folks keep voting them back into office. Is it immoral or unethical? I don't think so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)