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
This to me only confirms that the Dayton Review has turned its back on being a true newspaper. It would rather be a weekly publication of one man's personal opinion on local matters. Printing a rumor is a mistake, but is perhaps understandable. Now printing this rumor as fact the next week is simply ridiculous. Especially when the editor of the paper was in attendance for the city council meeting and the subsequent correction of this rumor. Also printing two similar articles two weeks in a row while (basically) only adding opinion and a young man's name is simply astonishing. Then considering Mr. Ott got his numbers from the city clerk, I don't see how you can call him out by name. It seems to me the Review is trying to unfairly make a mockery of the young man simply because he disagrees with the newspaper's opinion.
ReplyDeleteThis to me only confirms that the Dayton Review has turned its back on being a true newspaper. It would rather be a weekly publication of one man's personal opinion on local matters. Printing a rumor is a mistake, but is perhaps understandable. Now printing this rumor as fact the next week is simply ridiculous. Especially when the editor of the paper was in attendance for the city council meeting and the subsequent correction of this rumor. Also printing two similar articles two weeks in a row while (basically) only adding opinion and a young man's name is simply astonishing. Then considering Mr. Ott got his numbers from the city clerk, I don't see how you can call him out by name. It seems to me the Review is trying to unfairly make a mockery of the young man simply because he disagrees with the newspaper's opinion.
ReplyDeleteThis does not surprise me at all.
ReplyDeleteAlso, like the author said, everyone needs to go to the council meeting this Wednesday to make sure we get the right responsible members on this future board.
A couple of points
ReplyDelete1)The Dayton Review is not owned or operated by the city of Dayton
2)freedom of speech is in the constitution.
3)If you read the Dayton Review you know that it's full of mistakes every week. So you shouldn't be suprised.
1. Yes, I think most everyone knows this.
ReplyDelete2. This is correct, the paper has every right to print what it wants. However, I feel with the paper printing opinion not news in front page "news" articles this is unprofessional. The paper has, especially lately, very unprofessional.
3. This we agree on. lol