I think everyone would agree that each of us wants to see Dayton succeed. However, each of us has an opinion on what path Dayton should take in order to see Dayton succeed. This is simply a difference in principles and philosophy. I think it is too easy to deem one side's argument as negative when we are simply expressing our principles and philosophy for a better Dayton.
It is all but certain that the golf course will be owned and operated by the town of Dayton this year. Some suggestions have been made in trying to make this year's golf course a successful endeavor. The suggestions from this blog can be seen in the prior post's comment's section.
Some other interesting reads from this weekend's comments include the new board. With the comments currently posted and also talking to other people, it seems that quite a few are concerned with the composition of the board. As I stated last week, some of these board member selections are good selections. I believe one of these new board members has posted some good comments this past weekend.
However, there is a little unease regarding other board member selections. That is why I think it is important to have transparency in the decision making process of the board.
First, I think the release of all financial records (ideally a line item budget) from the past year to the public would allow everyone to see what was brought in and what was spend. Furthermore, there should be a public release of the year to date financials this July/August. This would allow the citizens of Dayton to see how the golf course is doing and would provide a good barometer of where things are going.
Next, I would say that there should be a monthly meeting of the new board that is open to the public. This would enable us to hear from the board members on decisions that the board made. Conversely, the public would be able to participate by asking questions and giving their input to the board.
Finally, the board should create some metrics on what they would deem as passing or failing with respect to the golf course. For example: What goals is the course going to try to meet this month/next month/this year? How long is the city going to hold onto the golf course if the course continues to lose money? This is also information that should be made open to the public.
I believe that more transparency would probably put more people at ease. If anyone has any suggestions they would like to put forward with regards to the golf course being more successful, please post them in the comment's section of the previous post.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Letter to The Dayton Observer
I hope all had a great weekend. First of all, I will have a post later today or tomorrow on some recent topics that came up over the weekend and that I wanted to opine on.
In the meantime I did receive a letter to The Dayton Observer earlier today, and I wanted to post that letter. Thank you to the author of this e-mail. The e-mail I received is as follows:
One Day Challenge: What can I do to positively assist in the success of the Dayton Golf Course or what positive suggestions do I have to promote the success of the Dayton Golf Course? Agree or disagree with the city owning the golf course there is one fact we all can agree on; The City of Dayton owns the golf course, it's currently open for business and advertised to remain open for business for the 2009 golf season.
Regardless if you feel the vote was fair or not, regardless if you agree with the information that has been presented, regardless of what council members you agree or disagree with, regardless if you think it will fail; the golf course is going forward for the 2009 golf season. All the taxpayers' in Dayton money is on the line. We need to get the best return on our money possible.
I'm challenging everyone for 1 day to be positive and promote success. I'm not asking you to change your view point.
I'm not asking you to turn your head from potentially damaging information or actions. I'm not asking you not to challenge information presented to you.
Many of you have said "I just want the golf course to break even." OK, what suggestions do you have for that to happen? What actions will you take for that to happen?
What can YOU do or suggest. No "well, if so and so did this, then I can do that." I'm not asking so and so, I'm asking you. No excuses for why you feel entitled to be negative. I'm not asking you to get on board with ownership of the golf course.
I'm asking for the best return on our money this year for a golf course that by all current indications WILL be owned and operated by the city for the 2009 golf season.
Come on samadamslite, come on daytonflyer, come on Al, come on all you anonymous posters; I want to hear from you.
Can Dayton pull together in conflict for 1 day in the spirit of success and prosperity?
In the meantime I did receive a letter to The Dayton Observer earlier today, and I wanted to post that letter. Thank you to the author of this e-mail. The e-mail I received is as follows:
One Day Challenge: What can I do to positively assist in the success of the Dayton Golf Course or what positive suggestions do I have to promote the success of the Dayton Golf Course? Agree or disagree with the city owning the golf course there is one fact we all can agree on; The City of Dayton owns the golf course, it's currently open for business and advertised to remain open for business for the 2009 golf season.
Regardless if you feel the vote was fair or not, regardless if you agree with the information that has been presented, regardless of what council members you agree or disagree with, regardless if you think it will fail; the golf course is going forward for the 2009 golf season. All the taxpayers' in Dayton money is on the line. We need to get the best return on our money possible.
I'm challenging everyone for 1 day to be positive and promote success. I'm not asking you to change your view point.
I'm not asking you to turn your head from potentially damaging information or actions. I'm not asking you not to challenge information presented to you.
Many of you have said "I just want the golf course to break even." OK, what suggestions do you have for that to happen? What actions will you take for that to happen?
What can YOU do or suggest. No "well, if so and so did this, then I can do that." I'm not asking so and so, I'm asking you. No excuses for why you feel entitled to be negative. I'm not asking you to get on board with ownership of the golf course.
I'm asking for the best return on our money this year for a golf course that by all current indications WILL be owned and operated by the city for the 2009 golf season.
Come on samadamslite, come on daytonflyer, come on Al, come on all you anonymous posters; I want to hear from you.
Can Dayton pull together in conflict for 1 day in the spirit of success and prosperity?
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Response to some comments
I wanted to take a second to respond to recent comment tonight:
"The part I disagree with is 'The Dayton Observer' is posting his biased opinons as fact."
I am not posting my opinions as fact. I am posting my opinions as opinions.
Also, in my original post, I stated the purpose of this blog was to give a voice to everyone in Dayton. In that regard, I believe I have succeeded.
I feel that this is a very important issue in Dayton, and I post my opinions which serves as a mechanism for debate. Too many times a person's political speech is quelled because he or she is afraid of retaliaiton. That's why I allow everyone to post here anonymously. This is the perfect forum to allow one to participate in an issue so important to a community. If you disagree with my opinions, I respect that. However, I will continue to give a voice to everyone in Dayton if he or she chooses.
Finally, if you do not think your side is being presented fairly then please e-mail me at dayton.observer@gmail.com with a text of your arguments. I will be more than happy to post your argument on the front page of the Dayton Observer. You do not have to include your name. All you have to do is create a free gmail account under a pseudo name and e-mail me your arguments. I will not alter your argument in any way, just a simple cut and paste. We can consider it a Letter to the Dayton Observer.
"The part I disagree with is 'The Dayton Observer' is posting his biased opinons as fact."
I am not posting my opinions as fact. I am posting my opinions as opinions.
Also, in my original post, I stated the purpose of this blog was to give a voice to everyone in Dayton. In that regard, I believe I have succeeded.
I feel that this is a very important issue in Dayton, and I post my opinions which serves as a mechanism for debate. Too many times a person's political speech is quelled because he or she is afraid of retaliaiton. That's why I allow everyone to post here anonymously. This is the perfect forum to allow one to participate in an issue so important to a community. If you disagree with my opinions, I respect that. However, I will continue to give a voice to everyone in Dayton if he or she chooses.
Finally, if you do not think your side is being presented fairly then please e-mail me at dayton.observer@gmail.com with a text of your arguments. I will be more than happy to post your argument on the front page of the Dayton Observer. You do not have to include your name. All you have to do is create a free gmail account under a pseudo name and e-mail me your arguments. I will not alter your argument in any way, just a simple cut and paste. We can consider it a Letter to the Dayton Observer.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Friday's Thoughts
I'm seeing some talk about what is called the multiplier effect. I wanted to give that talk some airtime on the post. I've seen a few posts that state if you spend $100,000 in Dayton that gets multiplied by 7 and it becomes $700,000.
Generally, the multiplier effect means that if you buy local, a portion of that money stays in the community. For illustration, I spend $1 at the grocery store, that dollar will be used to pay the wage of grocery store cashier and replenish supplies of the grocery store. That grocery store cashier will use his or her wage to buy something at the gas station, which in turn pays the wage of that person at the gas station.
One problem with the multiplier effect is that there is a cutoff, and that cutoff is Fort Dodge. Fort Dodge has the items that many of us need at cheap prices. That is just the name of the game. Therefore, many of these $1 that I talked about above get cut off at the second or third exchange by a person taking his or her wage money and going to Fort Dodge to buy items. This is also the case when local businesses have to replenish supply, they go to businesses out of town. Nothing wrong with that, that's just how business is transacted. As we can see, $1 does not simply get multiplied by 7 and it becomes $7. The $1 hopefully gets exchanged seven times in the small town. However, this exchange gets cut off by bigger markets like Fort Dodge.
Some argue that we need more attractions in order to get people to spend money here. That is very true, and if it were as easy as adding attractions or businesses I would be first in line saying the golf course is a must because that would mean money would be recycled in Dayton. However, we have to remember these local businesses must be sustainable and self-sufficient in order to continue recycling our money in the community. If that business is not sustainable, then it fails. The issue with the golf course is the town of Dayton is the golf course's credit line and as that business loses money, our taxes are increased. Remember that original $1? That $1 gets taxed a little more heavily this year to make up for the increased taxes going to the golf course. Therefore, I only 95 cents now. That's not good because my pop that I buy at the gas station is still the same price. I don't have as much expendable income as I did before. Plus, I like spending my expendable income on things that I like; I do not like my expendable income getting taxed more as I illustrated above.
If the golf course does bad again next year, my original $1 is only 90 cents now, and that pop is still the same price, which means I have to make up for the price of the pop by using more of my expendable income. This also means less of my $1 goes to the wage of the gas station cashier and less stays in the town of Dayton due to the increased tax. My illustrations further do not take into account the loss of my original $1 due to the fact that the time value of money goes down each year. My $1 (untaxed) is worth more now than that same $1 (untaxed) a year from now.
Finally, this illustration does not take into account that we are losing the opportunity to use our current tax dollars to improve the overall condition of Dayton now. No matter what, our taxes will still be near the highest in Webster County for years to come even if the golf course improves two years down the road. This is because the town will need to maintain a high tax burden on us in order to improve the conditions of Dayton that were neglected in lieu of the golf course.
Generally, the multiplier effect means that if you buy local, a portion of that money stays in the community. For illustration, I spend $1 at the grocery store, that dollar will be used to pay the wage of grocery store cashier and replenish supplies of the grocery store. That grocery store cashier will use his or her wage to buy something at the gas station, which in turn pays the wage of that person at the gas station.
One problem with the multiplier effect is that there is a cutoff, and that cutoff is Fort Dodge. Fort Dodge has the items that many of us need at cheap prices. That is just the name of the game. Therefore, many of these $1 that I talked about above get cut off at the second or third exchange by a person taking his or her wage money and going to Fort Dodge to buy items. This is also the case when local businesses have to replenish supply, they go to businesses out of town. Nothing wrong with that, that's just how business is transacted. As we can see, $1 does not simply get multiplied by 7 and it becomes $7. The $1 hopefully gets exchanged seven times in the small town. However, this exchange gets cut off by bigger markets like Fort Dodge.
Some argue that we need more attractions in order to get people to spend money here. That is very true, and if it were as easy as adding attractions or businesses I would be first in line saying the golf course is a must because that would mean money would be recycled in Dayton. However, we have to remember these local businesses must be sustainable and self-sufficient in order to continue recycling our money in the community. If that business is not sustainable, then it fails. The issue with the golf course is the town of Dayton is the golf course's credit line and as that business loses money, our taxes are increased. Remember that original $1? That $1 gets taxed a little more heavily this year to make up for the increased taxes going to the golf course. Therefore, I only 95 cents now. That's not good because my pop that I buy at the gas station is still the same price. I don't have as much expendable income as I did before. Plus, I like spending my expendable income on things that I like; I do not like my expendable income getting taxed more as I illustrated above.
If the golf course does bad again next year, my original $1 is only 90 cents now, and that pop is still the same price, which means I have to make up for the price of the pop by using more of my expendable income. This also means less of my $1 goes to the wage of the gas station cashier and less stays in the town of Dayton due to the increased tax. My illustrations further do not take into account the loss of my original $1 due to the fact that the time value of money goes down each year. My $1 (untaxed) is worth more now than that same $1 (untaxed) a year from now.
Finally, this illustration does not take into account that we are losing the opportunity to use our current tax dollars to improve the overall condition of Dayton now. No matter what, our taxes will still be near the highest in Webster County for years to come even if the golf course improves two years down the road. This is because the town will need to maintain a high tax burden on us in order to improve the conditions of Dayton that were neglected in lieu of the golf course.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
More Thoughts
Looks as if both sides of the issue have posted today. In one sense, people feel that we need to give the new board a chance to right the golf course. On the other side, people feel that the golf course is draining Dayton's limited resources. Some people feel that the golf course is a great asset to the town of Dayton. I think the other side would agree that the golf course would be a great asset if the golf course was profitable and self-sufficient.
However, the golf course is currently neither profitable nor self-sufficient. Over a year ago the city took on the obligation of trying to make the golf course profitable. Over this year the golf course made capital improvements to the course and to the restaurant. The course also lost money on top of that. Taxes need to be increased in order to make up for that loss. Basically, Dayton is the golf course's credit line and when the golf course needs a bail out, Dayton will be on the hook.
How is Dayton going to get paid back? Think of Dayton as a bank in this case. Now think of how much the golf course is currently indebted to the town of Dayton and think of how many years that will take to pay back the town of Dayton. In the alternative, the money could have been spent on improving the roads and overall conditions in Dayton.
As we can see, the board has some very tough decisions on its hands. This board must make the golf course profitable very soon in order to start paying back the town of Dayton. Otherwise, our taxes are going to be increased to pay for a very toxic asset. The opportunity lost will be huge as streets will be continue to be neglected and the overall appearance of Dayton will diminish.
What are we looking at now? Best possible scenario: golf course becomes profitable and gets Dayton paid back. Options if things go South: Dayton has to continue subsidizing the golf course until the board decides what to do with it. What possible options does the board have if things go South? Sell the course to a private entity. Unfortunately, this might be a loss because the golf course would probably be sold at a discount to what Dayton bought the course at. One other interesting option is selling shares of the golf course to the members to make the course member-owned. This is what is actually done in some communities. However, I believe this option is very unlikely.
However, the golf course is currently neither profitable nor self-sufficient. Over a year ago the city took on the obligation of trying to make the golf course profitable. Over this year the golf course made capital improvements to the course and to the restaurant. The course also lost money on top of that. Taxes need to be increased in order to make up for that loss. Basically, Dayton is the golf course's credit line and when the golf course needs a bail out, Dayton will be on the hook.
How is Dayton going to get paid back? Think of Dayton as a bank in this case. Now think of how much the golf course is currently indebted to the town of Dayton and think of how many years that will take to pay back the town of Dayton. In the alternative, the money could have been spent on improving the roads and overall conditions in Dayton.
As we can see, the board has some very tough decisions on its hands. This board must make the golf course profitable very soon in order to start paying back the town of Dayton. Otherwise, our taxes are going to be increased to pay for a very toxic asset. The opportunity lost will be huge as streets will be continue to be neglected and the overall appearance of Dayton will diminish.
What are we looking at now? Best possible scenario: golf course becomes profitable and gets Dayton paid back. Options if things go South: Dayton has to continue subsidizing the golf course until the board decides what to do with it. What possible options does the board have if things go South? Sell the course to a private entity. Unfortunately, this might be a loss because the golf course would probably be sold at a discount to what Dayton bought the course at. One other interesting option is selling shares of the golf course to the members to make the course member-owned. This is what is actually done in some communities. However, I believe this option is very unlikely.
Reaction, part II
Last night's post has received a few comments. I would like to address one of those comments in part now:
"As a concerned citizen of Dayton you may have missed an important point tonight. While it is correct that the amendment has given hiring and firing authority to the Park and Rec Board, it also gives the City Council veto authority over the hiring and firing decisions. If effect it give the City Council a safety net if they disagree with the Board decisions. "
First of all, thank you for your comment. I appreciate all of the comments I have received these past few days to all of my postings.
I was planning on talking about the amendment a little bit more today since I did not cover it very much last night. Generally speaking, the board will have hiring and firing power at the golf course. The amendment gives a council member the power to object to a hiring decision of the Park & Recreation Board within 3 days of that hiring decision. In that case, the hiring decision goes before the city council where the city council can either uphold or overrule the council member's objection. There must be a majority vote of the city council in order to overrule the council member's objection to the hiring decision.
I will take up a few of your other points later today. Again, thank you for your comment.
"As a concerned citizen of Dayton you may have missed an important point tonight. While it is correct that the amendment has given hiring and firing authority to the Park and Rec Board, it also gives the City Council veto authority over the hiring and firing decisions. If effect it give the City Council a safety net if they disagree with the Board decisions. "
First of all, thank you for your comment. I appreciate all of the comments I have received these past few days to all of my postings.
I was planning on talking about the amendment a little bit more today since I did not cover it very much last night. Generally speaking, the board will have hiring and firing power at the golf course. The amendment gives a council member the power to object to a hiring decision of the Park & Recreation Board within 3 days of that hiring decision. In that case, the hiring decision goes before the city council where the city council can either uphold or overrule the council member's objection. There must be a majority vote of the city council in order to overrule the council member's objection to the hiring decision.
I will take up a few of your other points later today. Again, thank you for your comment.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Reaction
Tonight was an interesting night as two important events took place.
1: A surprise amendment was introduced tonight. This amendment would give hiring and firing power to the newly created board that will oversee the golf course. I do not have too much to say about this right now; however, I would like to hear from anyone that does have thoughts about this amendment. You can e-mail me at dayton.observer@gmail.com I would also be happy to break down the specifics of the amendment if anyone would like.
2: The mayor made his choices for the board. I do think a few of his choices are alright. However, a few others are anything but independent. I wrote in earlier posts the importance of a board comprised of independent board members.
Right now, the current budget is hugely strained by the money earmarked for the golf course. There is hardly any money tagged for infrastructure. This board will be tasked with coming up with a budget for the golf course in future years and presenting that budget to city council. The current composition of the city council allows the mayor to pretty much get anything he wants. Finally, the mayor chose the composition of the expanded park board.
A pro-golf board establishing a budget and presenting that budget to a pro-golf city council. Sounds like the golf course may continue getting a large portion of of the city budget for years to come.
This does not take into consideration the balance sheet losses the golf course takes in. Last year, the golf course lost $107,000. Our increased taxes are making up for this loss. Unfortunately, Dayton's taxes probably will not decrease anytime in the near or distant future. These high taxes will need to be maintained due to the fact the city's infrastructure will need repaired (due to the current allocation of the city budget to infrastructure, or lack thereof).
Again, I know I sound very anti-golf course. The posts do look that way. However, I would say I am more anti-throwing good money after bad money.
1: A surprise amendment was introduced tonight. This amendment would give hiring and firing power to the newly created board that will oversee the golf course. I do not have too much to say about this right now; however, I would like to hear from anyone that does have thoughts about this amendment. You can e-mail me at dayton.observer@gmail.com I would also be happy to break down the specifics of the amendment if anyone would like.
2: The mayor made his choices for the board. I do think a few of his choices are alright. However, a few others are anything but independent. I wrote in earlier posts the importance of a board comprised of independent board members.
Right now, the current budget is hugely strained by the money earmarked for the golf course. There is hardly any money tagged for infrastructure. This board will be tasked with coming up with a budget for the golf course in future years and presenting that budget to city council. The current composition of the city council allows the mayor to pretty much get anything he wants. Finally, the mayor chose the composition of the expanded park board.
A pro-golf board establishing a budget and presenting that budget to a pro-golf city council. Sounds like the golf course may continue getting a large portion of of the city budget for years to come.
This does not take into consideration the balance sheet losses the golf course takes in. Last year, the golf course lost $107,000. Our increased taxes are making up for this loss. Unfortunately, Dayton's taxes probably will not decrease anytime in the near or distant future. These high taxes will need to be maintained due to the fact the city's infrastructure will need repaired (due to the current allocation of the city budget to infrastructure, or lack thereof).
Again, I know I sound very anti-golf course. The posts do look that way. However, I would say I am more anti-throwing good money after bad money.
Tonight's Council Meeting
As discussed in earlier posts, the city council will have a meeting tonight to vote on the third reading of Ordinance 232. Ordinance 232 will obviously pass tonight. The important question now is what to do going forward. I have given my thoughts on why the board should be comprised of independent members. A board of independent members will allow for greater oversight of the golf course. Unfortunately, I believe that this may be a tough year for the golf course again. I know people will argue I am not giving it a chance; however, the economy just does not allow for people to be spending their money on amenities. Loss of jobs, increased taxes (not just because of the golf course, but tobacco, etc.), and this uncertainty takes too much out of a families discretionary budget. Hopefully an independent board will give the citizens of Dayton the best possible information regarding the health of the golf course. This information will allow us to determine what should be done with the golf course later this year or early next year.
Don't get me wrong, I love to golf. In this situation, I am just trying to be pragmatic. This is where I don't understand the negative attitude shown towards Councilman Benson and Councilman Vegors this past month or so. It seems they have been asking the pragmatic questions regarding this golf course. However, being pragmatic has been characterized as being an obstructionist. The Dayton Review evidences this obstructionist idea perfectly by subtitling the main article in the recent issue as "Benson, Vegors vote no." These Councilmen are asking very important questions and raising concerns about an issue that will affect Dayton for years to come.
I do see the other side of the picture. There are people that are passionate about golf. I get that. They feel this golf course is vital to the town of Dayton. However, this issue seems to be placing what many consider to be an amenity above the overall health of the Dayton community. This is not being very pragmatic.
Therefore, it is very important that we have people like Councilman Benson and Councilman Vegors continuing to ask these very important questions and raising their concerns, even when some portray them as obstructionists. It is also very important that the council hears your questions and your concerns because the city council and the mayor are working for you.
dayton.observer@gmail.com
Don't get me wrong, I love to golf. In this situation, I am just trying to be pragmatic. This is where I don't understand the negative attitude shown towards Councilman Benson and Councilman Vegors this past month or so. It seems they have been asking the pragmatic questions regarding this golf course. However, being pragmatic has been characterized as being an obstructionist. The Dayton Review evidences this obstructionist idea perfectly by subtitling the main article in the recent issue as "Benson, Vegors vote no." These Councilmen are asking very important questions and raising concerns about an issue that will affect Dayton for years to come.
I do see the other side of the picture. There are people that are passionate about golf. I get that. They feel this golf course is vital to the town of Dayton. However, this issue seems to be placing what many consider to be an amenity above the overall health of the Dayton community. This is not being very pragmatic.
Therefore, it is very important that we have people like Councilman Benson and Councilman Vegors continuing to ask these very important questions and raising their concerns, even when some portray them as obstructionists. It is also very important that the council hears your questions and your concerns because the city council and the mayor are working for you.
dayton.observer@gmail.com
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
A Couple Quick Notes from Today's Dayton Review
I wanted to comment on some observations I made in today's Dayton Review.
First:
The Review incorrectly states that Councilman Benson presented the petition. Correction: This was Ms. Kristi Ott's petition. This was made clear in last Thursday night's council meeting.
Second:
I am not sure how the city attorney came to the conclusion that this was not a conflict of interest. I have included pertinent Iowa Code sections related to conflict of interest with respect to city council voting issues. Statutes and courts have widely found that a council member who has a direct personal interest, a financial interest, or an appearance of impropriety in a matter coming before the council is not eligible to vote in that matter.
Third:
I recently reprinted Mr. Jason Ott's letter to the editor of The Dayton Review. There seems to be some discrepancies in the numbers Mr. Ott presented and the numbers Councilman Diehl presented. Mr. Ott indicated in his communication with me that he received his numbers from the Dayton City Clerk. Councilman Diehl states that his numbers came from the fact he researched the financial/bookkeeping records of Oak Park Golf & Recreation.
This point relates to some of the posts I made earlier, the citizens of Dayton should be able to see these financial records also. This would clear up any discrepancies that are being made in The Dayton Review article. Also, the citizens of Dayton are shareholders of the golf course, which I believe entitles us to viewing the financials in order to properly determine how well the golf course is doing.
Next:
The Dayton Review stated that 88 paid members reside in the SWG school district, all of whom are taxpayers. This statement does not mean all these taxpayers are paying for the golf course because the SWG school district also encompasses communities and areas outside of Dayton. Therefore, I do not see the importance of the statement "all of whom are taxpayers."
Finally:
Tomorrow night there will be a council meeting. If you are able, whether you agree with The Observer or not, please go to this meeting. The third reading of Ordinance 232 is going to take place. Ordinance 232 is very important because it will establish the board to oversee the golf course. I have already posted how important that this board be comprised of independent members, as well as someone with a financial background. The meeting will take place at 7:00 pm. Let your voice be heard.
dayton.observer@gmail.com
First:
The Review incorrectly states that Councilman Benson presented the petition. Correction: This was Ms. Kristi Ott's petition. This was made clear in last Thursday night's council meeting.
Second:
I am not sure how the city attorney came to the conclusion that this was not a conflict of interest. I have included pertinent Iowa Code sections related to conflict of interest with respect to city council voting issues. Statutes and courts have widely found that a council member who has a direct personal interest, a financial interest, or an appearance of impropriety in a matter coming before the council is not eligible to vote in that matter.
Third:
I recently reprinted Mr. Jason Ott's letter to the editor of The Dayton Review. There seems to be some discrepancies in the numbers Mr. Ott presented and the numbers Councilman Diehl presented. Mr. Ott indicated in his communication with me that he received his numbers from the Dayton City Clerk. Councilman Diehl states that his numbers came from the fact he researched the financial/bookkeeping records of Oak Park Golf & Recreation.
This point relates to some of the posts I made earlier, the citizens of Dayton should be able to see these financial records also. This would clear up any discrepancies that are being made in The Dayton Review article. Also, the citizens of Dayton are shareholders of the golf course, which I believe entitles us to viewing the financials in order to properly determine how well the golf course is doing.
Next:
The Dayton Review stated that 88 paid members reside in the SWG school district, all of whom are taxpayers. This statement does not mean all these taxpayers are paying for the golf course because the SWG school district also encompasses communities and areas outside of Dayton. Therefore, I do not see the importance of the statement "all of whom are taxpayers."
Finally:
Tomorrow night there will be a council meeting. If you are able, whether you agree with The Observer or not, please go to this meeting. The third reading of Ordinance 232 is going to take place. Ordinance 232 is very important because it will establish the board to oversee the golf course. I have already posted how important that this board be comprised of independent members, as well as someone with a financial background. The meeting will take place at 7:00 pm. Let your voice be heard.
dayton.observer@gmail.com
Tuesday's Thoughts
Yesterday, I discussed how we can be seen as shareholders of the golf course. I decided that I wanted to expand my discussion of that thought.
When a person buys a stock in a company that person is protected by the Securities and Exchange Act. In essence, a company must publicly disclose all material information related to that company. This information disclosure was meant to protect the purchasers and shareholders from buying or holding onto a bad company's shares.
Why do I bring this up? As shareholders of the golf course, I do not believe that we have received material information related to the golf course. In this instance, I am talking about the financials of the golf course.
A corporation must issue quarterly and yearly financial reports to all of its shareholders. The same kind of information should be made available to all of us, the citizens of Dayton. We would be able to ascertain whether or not the golf course is a viable asset to the community. I am not saying we need a quarterly report. However, the best information in the current situation would be a line item budget from last fiscal year. This is the type of information that would be the most material to the shareholders of this golf course and helping to determine whether the golf course is a viable asset.
A thought that I will not go into great depths about unless others would like me to: alternatives.
Why was the golf course bought for $170,000 vs. buying the golf course when the course would have went into bankruptcy? This seems like it may have been a sensible alternative. Dayton would have been able to purchase the golf course at a much cheaper price potentially. Also, this kind of purchase would have saved the taxpayers of Dayton money.
Another quick thought: Dayton could always lease the golf course out to a private party to run. In return for leasing the golf course out, Dayton would receive lease payments. The burden would then be on the private party to make the golf course a profitable business and not on the town of Dayton. Therefore, our taxes would not be increased each time there is a shortfall in the golf course's business operations.
Finally, I encourage everyone to attend tomorrow night's City Council meeting. The meeting starts at 7:00 pm. Be a part of your local government's decision making because in the end it is you who will be footing the bill.
Feel free to e-mail or comment if you have questions regarding anything I have talked about. Even if you disagree with my posts, I welcome your input as well.
dayton.observer@gmail.com
More posts soon!
When a person buys a stock in a company that person is protected by the Securities and Exchange Act. In essence, a company must publicly disclose all material information related to that company. This information disclosure was meant to protect the purchasers and shareholders from buying or holding onto a bad company's shares.
Why do I bring this up? As shareholders of the golf course, I do not believe that we have received material information related to the golf course. In this instance, I am talking about the financials of the golf course.
A corporation must issue quarterly and yearly financial reports to all of its shareholders. The same kind of information should be made available to all of us, the citizens of Dayton. We would be able to ascertain whether or not the golf course is a viable asset to the community. I am not saying we need a quarterly report. However, the best information in the current situation would be a line item budget from last fiscal year. This is the type of information that would be the most material to the shareholders of this golf course and helping to determine whether the golf course is a viable asset.
A thought that I will not go into great depths about unless others would like me to: alternatives.
Why was the golf course bought for $170,000 vs. buying the golf course when the course would have went into bankruptcy? This seems like it may have been a sensible alternative. Dayton would have been able to purchase the golf course at a much cheaper price potentially. Also, this kind of purchase would have saved the taxpayers of Dayton money.
Another quick thought: Dayton could always lease the golf course out to a private party to run. In return for leasing the golf course out, Dayton would receive lease payments. The burden would then be on the private party to make the golf course a profitable business and not on the town of Dayton. Therefore, our taxes would not be increased each time there is a shortfall in the golf course's business operations.
Finally, I encourage everyone to attend tomorrow night's City Council meeting. The meeting starts at 7:00 pm. Be a part of your local government's decision making because in the end it is you who will be footing the bill.
Feel free to e-mail or comment if you have questions regarding anything I have talked about. Even if you disagree with my posts, I welcome your input as well.
dayton.observer@gmail.com
More posts soon!
Monday, March 23, 2009
Monday's Musings
I will start out by saying that I love golfing.
However, running a golf course is a business. As we stand now, the golf course lost $107,000 last year. How is that money being recouped? The answer is our taxes must be raised in order to meet that loss. Seems like more money to a currently losing proposition.
This may be ok in a good economic environment if the golf course was on the right track (more on that in a second). However, the economic environment is not good. People have lost their jobs at Electrolux and other various employers. People need this extra cash to buy groceries and other basic necessities.
What happens next year if the golf course loses money again? Taxes will need to be raised again in order to meet that shortfall. This would be another tax burden on the citizens of Dayton.
A quick note on the golf course being on the right track. I have not seen a business plan to try and make the golf course profitable. I do hear the arguments that the citizens just need to give the golf course time. However, the current economic times does not allow the golf course to have a lot of time to get profitable. I understand that the council is proposing ordinance 232 to implement a board to oversee the operation of the golf course, and the argument may be made that this board will have the answers to make the golf course profitable
If this board is the answer than the board should be comprised of people that are independent of the golf course. What do I mean by independent? Remember Enron? Enron brought Sarbanes-Oxley. Sarbanes-Oxley, in general terms, states that an audit board of the corporation must be made up of at least one person with substantial accounting background. Also, the audit board must be independent of the corporation that the board is tasked with auditing. This independence reduces a potential for a conflict of interest between the audit board and the corporation. Therefore, shareholders of the corporation know they are getting accurate financial statements.
We, the citizens of Dayton, can be thought of as the shareholders of the golf course now. I would argue that this board to oversee the golf course should be independent, and have at least one person with a good financial background. This would allow the board to review the financials and determine what financial condition the golf course is in. The board would also be tasked with reporting back to the City Council how well the course is doing.
Have we, the citizens of Dayton, seen any of the financial statements to see what assets, liabilities, and equity the golf course currently has? I believe the answer to this question is no. There is too much potential for the fudging of numbers to make the golf course look better than it might really be. Of course, the golf course may be in great shape, but we, the shareholders of the golf course, should know the financial condition of the course. Unfortunately, accounting rules allow for the fudging of numbers to make a corporation look better than it really is. This could be happening with the golf course. I would say it is imperative to see something like a line item budget so we can verify how solvent the golf course really is. If the numbers are good, all the better. If the numbers are not good, well that might make for some interesting discussions ahead.
The Observer understands this post is sounding very anti-golf course; however, this is an argument that must be made. Even if this was about any other business that the town of Dayton bought, The Observer would be making the same argument.
The Observer would be happy to hear from anyone who has thoughts, opinions, or anything else he or she would like to talk about. The Observer may have another post with other thoughts later today or tomorrow. Thank you again for reading The Dayton Observer.
However, running a golf course is a business. As we stand now, the golf course lost $107,000 last year. How is that money being recouped? The answer is our taxes must be raised in order to meet that loss. Seems like more money to a currently losing proposition.
This may be ok in a good economic environment if the golf course was on the right track (more on that in a second). However, the economic environment is not good. People have lost their jobs at Electrolux and other various employers. People need this extra cash to buy groceries and other basic necessities.
What happens next year if the golf course loses money again? Taxes will need to be raised again in order to meet that shortfall. This would be another tax burden on the citizens of Dayton.
A quick note on the golf course being on the right track. I have not seen a business plan to try and make the golf course profitable. I do hear the arguments that the citizens just need to give the golf course time. However, the current economic times does not allow the golf course to have a lot of time to get profitable. I understand that the council is proposing ordinance 232 to implement a board to oversee the operation of the golf course, and the argument may be made that this board will have the answers to make the golf course profitable
If this board is the answer than the board should be comprised of people that are independent of the golf course. What do I mean by independent? Remember Enron? Enron brought Sarbanes-Oxley. Sarbanes-Oxley, in general terms, states that an audit board of the corporation must be made up of at least one person with substantial accounting background. Also, the audit board must be independent of the corporation that the board is tasked with auditing. This independence reduces a potential for a conflict of interest between the audit board and the corporation. Therefore, shareholders of the corporation know they are getting accurate financial statements.
We, the citizens of Dayton, can be thought of as the shareholders of the golf course now. I would argue that this board to oversee the golf course should be independent, and have at least one person with a good financial background. This would allow the board to review the financials and determine what financial condition the golf course is in. The board would also be tasked with reporting back to the City Council how well the course is doing.
Have we, the citizens of Dayton, seen any of the financial statements to see what assets, liabilities, and equity the golf course currently has? I believe the answer to this question is no. There is too much potential for the fudging of numbers to make the golf course look better than it might really be. Of course, the golf course may be in great shape, but we, the shareholders of the golf course, should know the financial condition of the course. Unfortunately, accounting rules allow for the fudging of numbers to make a corporation look better than it really is. This could be happening with the golf course. I would say it is imperative to see something like a line item budget so we can verify how solvent the golf course really is. If the numbers are good, all the better. If the numbers are not good, well that might make for some interesting discussions ahead.
The Observer understands this post is sounding very anti-golf course; however, this is an argument that must be made. Even if this was about any other business that the town of Dayton bought, The Observer would be making the same argument.
The Observer would be happy to hear from anyone who has thoughts, opinions, or anything else he or she would like to talk about. The Observer may have another post with other thoughts later today or tomorrow. Thank you again for reading The Dayton Observer.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Letter to The Dayton Observer
Here is a letter that Mr. Jason Ott submitted to The Dayton Review. The Dayton Review has published Mr. Ott's letter with editor's modifications; however, I have republished Mr. Ott's unedited letter to the editor. Mr. Ott's numbers in this unedited republication came directly from the Dayton City Clerk.
Dear Editor:
I have lived in this town all of my life. I love this community and thoroughly enjoy most everyone in it. However, lately we have felt the effects of the recession that has also affected the nation as a whole. Our town of Dayton is an amazing little town. For a town of our size to have a grocery store, bank, pharmacy, nursing home, and several other businesses is a remarkable achievement. These businesses and the remarkable success of the Rodeo and Labor Day festivities are a true testament to the ingenuity, perseverance, and character of our town. However, I do not believe our town should continue to support (and run) a failing business that only will incur more and more debt on the community. When 10% of our town turned out and voted to take on the burdens of the struggling golf course, I was against it, as I am now. The golf course was $170,000 in debt when we took over the business. Now in only one year it has racked in another $107,000 in debt. The town has also heavily invested in this business and so far this has failed. Now is the time to rid our town of this burdensome property. Some have said that we can save the golf course by simply spending money playing golf there, eating food there, and/or renting out the building there. There are simple responses to those three recommendations. First, how many people play golf in Dayton? There are currently 106 members. With reports only 30 members living in the town of Dayton. I do not believe this is enough to support the bills the golf course incurs. Many golfers from the area will also go to other viable options such as Gowrie or Fort Dodge. Competition is not on our side here. For the restaurant, I believe that the continued attempts to run similar restaurants in our town that have not occurred great success in much better locations should be proof enough. Finally I also believe that renting out the golf club for events will not work consistently because of competition and poor location. Our own town provides much cheaper alternatives to the golf club and Fort Dodge, Ames, and Des Moines provide much more fancy options within a reasonable distance. So in order to support these debts the city council will have no other choice than to eventually raise taxes. This will take away from many people’s living conditions and their ability to do things they thoroughly enjoy (i.e. golfing).
So I am hoping that the citizens of Dayton will realize that we need to take on the practice of fiscal responsibility as a town. We must do what we need to do to prosper as a town. This does not include continuing to take on debt by sponsoring a failing business. It is simply not the intelligent thing to do. I realize that many people love the sport of golfing, (I am a fan myself, but cannot afford the sport at the moment.) but this not mean that the city must have a course to survive. Also I realize many wish we would have not to make cuts in order to make the city more sustainable. However, we are going to have to make cuts and we simply should not charge all citizens more with our already high electric and water rates (from information in a 2008 report) by raising property taxes. This doesn’t mean we want to cut jobs or programs, but if it is needed then we will have to do it. For example the State of Iowa has cut education spending drastically in the current budget. At Iowa State, the administration including President Geoffrey do not want to raise tuition (many have even taken furloughs), or cut jobs and programs, but in order to not fall apart at the seams some of these things are going to happen.
To conclude I hope that the golf course will be petitioned to come to a new election to decide whether we should keep or sell it. I also hope that every citizen of our wonderful community will recognize the need to get rid of an unnecessary weight that has the very real possibility of deeply wounding if not slowly killing our great town. Also just in case some question my commitment to this cause and why I have not attended a town council meeting on the subject. I am a student at Iowa State University and have weekly meetings on Wednesday nights starting at 6:15pm that last an undetermined amount of time; otherwise I would certainly be there. So I hope everyone takes a deep hard impartial look at this situation and the problem we are in.
Thank You,
Jason Ott
Dear Editor:
I have lived in this town all of my life. I love this community and thoroughly enjoy most everyone in it. However, lately we have felt the effects of the recession that has also affected the nation as a whole. Our town of Dayton is an amazing little town. For a town of our size to have a grocery store, bank, pharmacy, nursing home, and several other businesses is a remarkable achievement. These businesses and the remarkable success of the Rodeo and Labor Day festivities are a true testament to the ingenuity, perseverance, and character of our town. However, I do not believe our town should continue to support (and run) a failing business that only will incur more and more debt on the community. When 10% of our town turned out and voted to take on the burdens of the struggling golf course, I was against it, as I am now. The golf course was $170,000 in debt when we took over the business. Now in only one year it has racked in another $107,000 in debt. The town has also heavily invested in this business and so far this has failed. Now is the time to rid our town of this burdensome property. Some have said that we can save the golf course by simply spending money playing golf there, eating food there, and/or renting out the building there. There are simple responses to those three recommendations. First, how many people play golf in Dayton? There are currently 106 members. With reports only 30 members living in the town of Dayton. I do not believe this is enough to support the bills the golf course incurs. Many golfers from the area will also go to other viable options such as Gowrie or Fort Dodge. Competition is not on our side here. For the restaurant, I believe that the continued attempts to run similar restaurants in our town that have not occurred great success in much better locations should be proof enough. Finally I also believe that renting out the golf club for events will not work consistently because of competition and poor location. Our own town provides much cheaper alternatives to the golf club and Fort Dodge, Ames, and Des Moines provide much more fancy options within a reasonable distance. So in order to support these debts the city council will have no other choice than to eventually raise taxes. This will take away from many people’s living conditions and their ability to do things they thoroughly enjoy (i.e. golfing).
So I am hoping that the citizens of Dayton will realize that we need to take on the practice of fiscal responsibility as a town. We must do what we need to do to prosper as a town. This does not include continuing to take on debt by sponsoring a failing business. It is simply not the intelligent thing to do. I realize that many people love the sport of golfing, (I am a fan myself, but cannot afford the sport at the moment.) but this not mean that the city must have a course to survive. Also I realize many wish we would have not to make cuts in order to make the city more sustainable. However, we are going to have to make cuts and we simply should not charge all citizens more with our already high electric and water rates (from information in a 2008 report) by raising property taxes. This doesn’t mean we want to cut jobs or programs, but if it is needed then we will have to do it. For example the State of Iowa has cut education spending drastically in the current budget. At Iowa State, the administration including President Geoffrey do not want to raise tuition (many have even taken furloughs), or cut jobs and programs, but in order to not fall apart at the seams some of these things are going to happen.
To conclude I hope that the golf course will be petitioned to come to a new election to decide whether we should keep or sell it. I also hope that every citizen of our wonderful community will recognize the need to get rid of an unnecessary weight that has the very real possibility of deeply wounding if not slowly killing our great town. Also just in case some question my commitment to this cause and why I have not attended a town council meeting on the subject. I am a student at Iowa State University and have weekly meetings on Wednesday nights starting at 6:15pm that last an undetermined amount of time; otherwise I would certainly be there. So I hope everyone takes a deep hard impartial look at this situation and the problem we are in.
Thank You,
Jason Ott
Other Code sections possibly related to last Thursday's council meeting
I wanted to post some more of possible relevant Code sections related to the City Council vote that took place last Thursday night.
Iowa Code Section 15A.2 states:
15A.2 Conflicts of interest .
1. a. If a member of the governing body of a city or county or an employee of a state, city, or county board, agency, commission, or other governmental entity of the state, city, or county has an interest , either direct or indirect, in a private person for which grants, loans, guarantees, tax incentives, or other financial assistance may be provided by the governing board or governmental entity, the interest shall be disclosed to that governing body or governmental entity in writing. The member or employee having the interest shall not participate in the decision-making process with regard to the providing of such financial assistance to the private person. (emphasis added)
b. Employment by a public body, its agencies, or institutions or by any other person having such an interest shall not be deemed an indicia of an interest by the employee or of any ownership or control by the employee of interests of the employee's employer.
c. The word "participate" or "participation" shall be deemed not to include discussion or debate preliminary to a vote of a local governing body or agency upon proposed ordinances or resolutions relating to such a project or any abstention from such a vote.
d. The designation of a bank or trust company as depository, paying agent, or agent for investment of funds shall not be deemed a matter of interest or personal interest .
e. Stock ownership in a corporation having such an interest shall not be deemed an indicia of an interest or of ownership or control by the person owning the stocks when less than five percent of the outstanding stock of the corporation is owned or controlled directly or indirectly by that person.
f. The phrase "decision-making process" shall not be deemed to include resolutions advisory to the local governing body or agency by any citizens group, board, body, or commission designated to serve a purely advisory approving or recommending function for economic development.
2. A violation of a provision of this section is misconduct in office under section 721.2. (emphasis added) However, a decision of the governing board or governmental entity is not invalid because of the participation of the member or employee in the decision-making process or because of a vote cast by a member or employee in violation of this section unless the participation or vote was decisive in the awarding of the financial assistance.
Iowa Code 15A.2 has a possible application in:
Section 15A.2 indicates that city council members who work at one of their city's major industries, or whose spouses work there, may participate in council discussions on a proposed “economic development grant” involving the employer and vote on a resulting award of financial assistance to it. These council members should exercise great caution whenever an economic development measure involving the employer comes before the council for discussion or vote; disclose on the record the facts and general circumstances of their employment or a spouse's employment before the council discusses or otherwise considers any such measure; and consult with the city attorney before participating in any matter involving a financial benefit unique to the employer. Council members who wish to exercise caution in resolving conflicts of interest should abstain from participating in the decision making process or voting on any resulting award of financial impropriety. (emphasis added) Section 362.5 prohibits these council members from participating in council discussions on the employer's proposed purchase of vacated streets and alleys and from voting on any resulting contract with the employer.
The above was taken from Op.Atty.Gen No. 98-5-3.
Finally, Code section 15A.2 talks about a possible violation under section 721.2. Code 721.2 states:
Any public officer or employee, or any person acting under color of such office or employment, who knowingly does any of the following, commits a serious misdemeanor: (emphasis added)
1. Makes any contract which contemplates an expenditure known by the person to be in excess of that authorized by law.
2. Fails to report to the proper officer the receipt or expenditure of public moneys, together with the proper vouchers therefor, when such is required of the person by law.
3. Requests, demands, or receives from another for performing any service or duty which is required of the person by law, or which is performed as an incident of the person's office or employment, any compensation other than the fee, if any, which the person is authorized by law to receive for such performance.
4. By color of the person's office and in excess of the authority conferred on the person by that office, requires any person to do anything or to refrain from doing any lawful thing.
5. Uses or permits any other person to use the property owned by the state or any subdivision or agency of the state for any private purpose and for personal gain, to the detriment of the state or any subdivision thereof.
6. Fails to perform any duty required of the person by law.
7. Demands that any public employee contribute or pay anything of value, either directly or indirectly, to any person, organization or fund, or in any way coerces or attempts to coerce any public employee to make any such contributions or payments, except where such contributions or payments are expressly required by law.
8. Permits persons to use the property owned by the state or a subdivision or agency of the state to operate a political phone bank for any of the following purposes:
a. To poll voters on their preferences for candidates or ballot measures at an election; however, this paragraph does not apply to authorized research at an educational institution.
b. To solicit funds for a political candidate or organization.
c. To urge support for a candidate or ballot measure to voters.
This post is very law intensive; however, I felt I should post some relevant Iowa Code sections that may relate to the vote in addition to the Iowa Code sections that I posted earlier.
Iowa Code Section 15A.2 states:
15A.2 Conflicts of interest .
1. a. If a member of the governing body of a city or county or an employee of a state, city, or county board, agency, commission, or other governmental entity of the state, city, or county has an interest , either direct or indirect, in a private person for which grants, loans, guarantees, tax incentives, or other financial assistance may be provided by the governing board or governmental entity, the interest shall be disclosed to that governing body or governmental entity in writing. The member or employee having the interest shall not participate in the decision-making process with regard to the providing of such financial assistance to the private person. (emphasis added)
b. Employment by a public body, its agencies, or institutions or by any other person having such an interest shall not be deemed an indicia of an interest by the employee or of any ownership or control by the employee of interests of the employee's employer.
c. The word "participate" or "participation" shall be deemed not to include discussion or debate preliminary to a vote of a local governing body or agency upon proposed ordinances or resolutions relating to such a project or any abstention from such a vote.
d. The designation of a bank or trust company as depository, paying agent, or agent for investment of funds shall not be deemed a matter of interest or personal interest .
e. Stock ownership in a corporation having such an interest shall not be deemed an indicia of an interest or of ownership or control by the person owning the stocks when less than five percent of the outstanding stock of the corporation is owned or controlled directly or indirectly by that person.
f. The phrase "decision-making process" shall not be deemed to include resolutions advisory to the local governing body or agency by any citizens group, board, body, or commission designated to serve a purely advisory approving or recommending function for economic development.
2. A violation of a provision of this section is misconduct in office under section 721.2. (emphasis added) However, a decision of the governing board or governmental entity is not invalid because of the participation of the member or employee in the decision-making process or because of a vote cast by a member or employee in violation of this section unless the participation or vote was decisive in the awarding of the financial assistance.
Iowa Code 15A.2 has a possible application in:
Section 15A.2 indicates that city council members who work at one of their city's major industries, or whose spouses work there, may participate in council discussions on a proposed “economic development grant” involving the employer and vote on a resulting award of financial assistance to it. These council members should exercise great caution whenever an economic development measure involving the employer comes before the council for discussion or vote; disclose on the record the facts and general circumstances of their employment or a spouse's employment before the council discusses or otherwise considers any such measure; and consult with the city attorney before participating in any matter involving a financial benefit unique to the employer. Council members who wish to exercise caution in resolving conflicts of interest should abstain from participating in the decision making process or voting on any resulting award of financial impropriety. (emphasis added) Section 362.5 prohibits these council members from participating in council discussions on the employer's proposed purchase of vacated streets and alleys and from voting on any resulting contract with the employer.
The above was taken from Op.Atty.Gen No. 98-5-3.
Finally, Code section 15A.2 talks about a possible violation under section 721.2. Code 721.2 states:
Any public officer or employee, or any person acting under color of such office or employment, who knowingly does any of the following, commits a serious misdemeanor: (emphasis added)
1. Makes any contract which contemplates an expenditure known by the person to be in excess of that authorized by law.
2. Fails to report to the proper officer the receipt or expenditure of public moneys, together with the proper vouchers therefor, when such is required of the person by law.
3. Requests, demands, or receives from another for performing any service or duty which is required of the person by law, or which is performed as an incident of the person's office or employment, any compensation other than the fee, if any, which the person is authorized by law to receive for such performance.
4. By color of the person's office and in excess of the authority conferred on the person by that office, requires any person to do anything or to refrain from doing any lawful thing.
5. Uses or permits any other person to use the property owned by the state or any subdivision or agency of the state for any private purpose and for personal gain, to the detriment of the state or any subdivision thereof.
6. Fails to perform any duty required of the person by law.
7. Demands that any public employee contribute or pay anything of value, either directly or indirectly, to any person, organization or fund, or in any way coerces or attempts to coerce any public employee to make any such contributions or payments, except where such contributions or payments are expressly required by law.
8. Permits persons to use the property owned by the state or a subdivision or agency of the state to operate a political phone bank for any of the following purposes:
a. To poll voters on their preferences for candidates or ballot measures at an election; however, this paragraph does not apply to authorized research at an educational institution.
b. To solicit funds for a political candidate or organization.
c. To urge support for a candidate or ballot measure to voters.
This post is very law intensive; however, I felt I should post some relevant Iowa Code sections that may relate to the vote in addition to the Iowa Code sections that I posted earlier.
Friday's Fort Dodge Messenger
Friday's Fort Dodge Messenger had an article regarding the Dayton City Council's rejection of Kristi Ott's petition to reconsider a vote on the ownership of Oak Park Golf & Recreation. I believe the Messenger did get the increase per $1,000 wrong. If anyone has the correct figure would he or she post the correct increase in the comments section?
Another note from that night, a councilwoman voted on an issue that may be deemed a conflict of interest on her part. The issue this councilwoman voted on was the hiring of her son as greenskeeper at the Oak Park Golf & Recreation. The vote was 3-2 in favor of hiring her son. I did post in the comment's section of the Messenger article that Iowa Code sections 362.5 and 362.6 may play some part in this vote.
Code section 362.5 states in part: A city officer or employee shall not have an interest, direct or indirect, in any contract or job of work or material or the profits thereof or services to be furnished or performed for the officer's or employee's city. A contract entered into in violation of this section is void.
Code section 362.6 states: A measure voted upon is not invalid by reason of conflict of interest in an officer of a city, unless the vote of the officer was decisive to passage of the measure. If a specific majority or unanimous vote of a municipal body is required by statute, the majority or vote must be computed on the basis of the number of officers not disqualified by reason of conflict of interest. However, a majority of all members is required for a quorum. For the purposes of this section, the statement of an officer that the officer declines to vote by reason of conflict of interest is conclusive and must be entered of record.
I have included a link to the Fort Dodge Messenger article:
http://www.messengernews.net/page/content.detail/id/513826.html
Observer Note: The Observer has received an update to the correct increase per $1,000 request. The correct amount is $1.35; the amount originally quoted in the Messenger article was $.62. Thank you!
Another note from that night, a councilwoman voted on an issue that may be deemed a conflict of interest on her part. The issue this councilwoman voted on was the hiring of her son as greenskeeper at the Oak Park Golf & Recreation. The vote was 3-2 in favor of hiring her son. I did post in the comment's section of the Messenger article that Iowa Code sections 362.5 and 362.6 may play some part in this vote.
Code section 362.5 states in part: A city officer or employee shall not have an interest, direct or indirect, in any contract or job of work or material or the profits thereof or services to be furnished or performed for the officer's or employee's city. A contract entered into in violation of this section is void.
Code section 362.6 states: A measure voted upon is not invalid by reason of conflict of interest in an officer of a city, unless the vote of the officer was decisive to passage of the measure. If a specific majority or unanimous vote of a municipal body is required by statute, the majority or vote must be computed on the basis of the number of officers not disqualified by reason of conflict of interest. However, a majority of all members is required for a quorum. For the purposes of this section, the statement of an officer that the officer declines to vote by reason of conflict of interest is conclusive and must be entered of record.
I have included a link to the Fort Dodge Messenger article:
http://www.messengernews.net/page/content.detail/id/513826.html
Observer Note: The Observer has received an update to the correct increase per $1,000 request. The correct amount is $1.35; the amount originally quoted in the Messenger article was $.62. Thank you!
Furthermore, I would like to add that I am willing to post articles to this blog written by any citizen that wants his or her voice heard regarding the state of Dayton politics. If you have an artice you would like posted on this blog, please e-mail your article to dayton.observer@gmail.com Please include your name as I plan on including the author's name with his or her respective post. Thank you.
Dayton Observer's First Post
Hello all,
I would like to welcome you to the Dayton Observer! I felt the need to start this blog so all of the citizens of Dayton, IA have a voice in their local city government. First of all, I want to stress that this blog is for ALL the citizens of Dayton, IA (or anyone else that feels he or she should opine).
Unforunately, The Dayton Review has chosen a side that does not allow the citizens of Dayton to view The Dayton Review as an independent fact source. The purpose of a newspaper is to simply state the facts about what is going on in the world. Therefore, The Dayton Review should simply be stating facts about what is going on in and around Dayton, IA and not favoring one side over the other. Too many papers have gotten themselves into trouble over these kinds of decisions.
Everyone will be given the opportunity to have a voice on this blog. No posts will be taken down unless there is a post that is considered offensive. All I ask is that people be considerate and use common sense when posting.
The Dayton Observer
dayton.observer@gmail.com
I would like to welcome you to the Dayton Observer! I felt the need to start this blog so all of the citizens of Dayton, IA have a voice in their local city government. First of all, I want to stress that this blog is for ALL the citizens of Dayton, IA (or anyone else that feels he or she should opine).
Unforunately, The Dayton Review has chosen a side that does not allow the citizens of Dayton to view The Dayton Review as an independent fact source. The purpose of a newspaper is to simply state the facts about what is going on in the world. Therefore, The Dayton Review should simply be stating facts about what is going on in and around Dayton, IA and not favoring one side over the other. Too many papers have gotten themselves into trouble over these kinds of decisions.
Everyone will be given the opportunity to have a voice on this blog. No posts will be taken down unless there is a post that is considered offensive. All I ask is that people be considerate and use common sense when posting.
The Dayton Observer
dayton.observer@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)