A blatant lie was told by the chairman of parks and rec at last night's public meeting, agenda item: golf coarse hiring issues. I would advise if you do not want to be labeled liars, cheats and thieves then you would not do those things.
I never thought that this community would become so dishonnest in their quest for control or power. Is this what it is. Whatever happened to telling the truth and following laws. Is that so hard? Intimidation, mistruths, and blatant lies to prove your point or to cover you behind. Try telling the truth you sleep better at night and you don't need to try to keep tract of what you have said. It's interesting to have to watch your back for knives being thrown at you because you have a cause you believe in. Especially when you have been forthright and honest throughout this.
I am just not talking about the board. There is the mayor and several people in Dayton that are doing outlandish things. They are using intimidation to control. This will not work. I hope they keep trying. I don't choose to give facts right now because I am smart in enough to keep my ace in my pocket.
Why don't you ask the chairman? I have a right to comment. The games have gotten to dirty. All along some of the pro golfers have tried to slience this blog and the opinions of those of us that want lower taxes. I am sure someone else will fill you in on the exact comments. I will not. Good Luck.......
Call the city Mayor or to city hall, I am sure they would be more than happy to tell you who the chairman of the rec board is. I believe they are also named in the minutes printed in the Dayton Review.
There's a councilman who threatens law suits when he doesn't get his way. He breaks open meeting laws regularly by either discussing employees or trying to get other board and/or council members to discuss employees. He says he wants the golf course to break even but goes out of his way to make those uncomfortable who volunteer to help it profit (that's also intimidation). Some of you have posted you are not against the golf course if it breaks even and are even in agreement some of the Parks and Rec board members are good choices. Why don't you ask the members you like how supportive they feel this councilman is or if they feel he's going out of his way to make things more difficult for them. Heck, they're probably too scared of how he will retaliate if they honestly answer. You want those who are in favor of city ownership of the golf course to hold the mayor accountable? It would probably go a long way for those who are against city ownership of the golf course to quit making excuses for this councilman's behavior.
Is that the same counilman that gave a member of your board a booklet on open meetings and public records at the council meeting. I believe one member of your board said that they had not been given one or is this a lie? The councilman probably has read the booklet before he gave it one of your members, so he probably knows what it contains. Maybe you should read it and understand it before you conduct another meeting. It was a must that you be given one when you were appointed to the parks and rec board, the knowledgable Mayor in all his infinite wisdom should have gotten you one before you started making all your mistakes. Try to throw up a smoke screen so you can continue to break the law.
Here's the issue that some people have been trying to figure out, under the new minutes from the previous City Council meeting: representatives from the Rec Board recommended applicants to be hired for the golf course. Council members moved to offer the superintendent position; motion carried unianimously.
Something happened between then and now which makes it seem like that the Rec Board has unilateral power to make hiring decisions, but Ordinance 233 has not passed yet.
My board? I'm not on the board. If you are a citizen of Dayton, it's just as much your board as mine? People on the blog accuse the "pro-golf people" of trying to silence this blog when they mention something about the mayor. Didn't you just do the same thing? I didn't know the councilman handed out a booklet on open meeting laws. Did he read the entire thing or just the parts the suited his interests?
But it was stated at the park and rec meeting that the the mayor and the city attorney had come up with a new idea on how to circumvent the actions of the city council by implementing a new golf course matinence proposal. I don't believe that is in the scope of the mayor's duties to try to circumvent the powers of the city council for his own agenda of keeping a golf course that is costing the taxpayer's a lot of money.
5:22 I understand and I completely understand why there are questions. The problem is, you can't discuss specifics about employees at meetings.
The council motioned to approve the board to offer the job. We don't know if the job was offered. If it wasn't, no harm done.
You might feel better if you knew about some more members of the board or met them. Many have very respected business backgrounds. This might add to trust. I do understand your questions though.
I believe the open meeting rules booklet has been posted here on this blog since April 9th. If anyone would have bothered to click on the attachment provided by D.O. you would have found this. Yes, the board is the city of Daytons board. Since the open meeting laws are very simply spelled out in this booklet I think that it would be beneficial for the councilman you are refering to and the rest of boards best interest to know this booklet. If the person who posted about breaking open meeting laws about employees you will find that indeed you can discuss employee issues in and open meeting and it is up to the person you are discussing to request a closed session, that also has many rules. I feel there is no excuse since the open rules have been discussed lately that those members of both boards don't know them. As far as silencing me, Good Luck. I am not easily intimidated and if you feel the need for retaliation, I'm sorry for you because it will not help you.
5:43 I think you had better re read the open meeting rules. If you need a copy go click on the attachment under April 9th post by D.O. It's pretty simplistic.
5:22pm, As you can see I provided information for those that not apparently read the open meeting laws.
Yes, there are several members on the board that do have some business background and also those same are respected members of the community. There has also been some questions about the several of the others that were appointed. I do know the mayor said in an open meeting that any name given to him he would visit with them. I know of two people that were mentioned and the mayor never talked to them. I have no idea if they would have been interested or not. Two members of the parks board brought three names to the city council to be voted on for hiring. All three were approved to be offered the jobs. This is from the minutes of the City Council meeting. From the minutes at the park board meeting, two were hired. What did happen to the third one. Does the park board have full hiring rights now?
Also for everyone's information The Golden Rules were also posted on the same April 9th article by D.O. This is written by the Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller. Not the Golden Rules were taught as children. I know this was a topic of conversation a few days ago.
Also as you are reading the open meeting laws please note that ignorance is not an excuse.
So those members who giggled and made some off the wall statements about open meeting laws, I think had better read the last few pages of this booklet and see that it does have consequences and importance
After re-reading the open meeting laws posted on this site (April 9th, not March 9th), there are some things must be clarified. There is an immediate disclaymer that the information is meant for general education and not meant to be taken as legal advice. An employee can ask to go into closed session for an evaluation. In that event, the employee is notified that they are going to be evaluated and given the opportunity to go into closed session. It would be reckless and irresponsible to interpret that to mean you can adlib just start critiquing employees or applicants during open meetings. Anyone can read into laws what they want to support their opinion. Nothing would probably make the Parks and Rec board happier than to put out a public notice about why they chose or chose not to hire people. It is responsible on their part not to lured into doing this.
I believe that I said April 9th on both of my posts. Please go back and read. Also please note that on most pamplets in the business and state/federal world these same disclaimers are on them. But if you are not to follow these rules then why are there punishments written if you choose not to, and ignorance is not an excuse.
To: 5:22pm post, Since someone chose to tell you about the make up the boards, I would like to tell you, you should hear some of the language that is used during these meetings. I don't believe that most professionals use this type of language on a routine basis at their meetings. FYI
You did post April 9th. Sorry. I also agree, ignorance is not an excuse. Yes, you are suppose to follow the rules and that's why there are punishments if you chose not to. Yes, this disclaimer is on many pamphlets, for very good reason. Laws are open to interpretation. If the council violates someones rights during a meeting because they misinterpreted a law, the city is open to litigation. Like you said, ignorance is no excuse. It is in a council or boards best interest not to critique an employee or aplicant during an open meeting.
I also wonder, what would you think if you applied for a job and were interveiwed, then you read it in the newspaper that the city council approved your hiring. Wouldn't that make you wonder.
Also I know that if you hire that person the only way without circumventing another excuse, you would have to prove that, the person lied on their application or resume. Very interesting concepts. In the grey area maybe leaning towards the black, but still not good business practice. This is beginning to sound like a broken record.
Ok, I'm confused as heck who is saying what here. Could we please try to get names. Especially because I think a few people (or just one) are just trying to stir the pot.
I guessing you feel I'm stirring the pot. I've read on here many anonymous blogs making comments about the mayor and a councilwoman and it's not considered stiring the pot, no names are asked for. I've read numerous comments on breaking open meeting laws because of agendas not being posted. That's not considred stiring the pot, not names are asked for. People are critical and name calling of the parks and rec's board. It's not considered pot stirring, no names are asked for. Why is it different for a person posting who supports the efforts of the Parks and Recs board, questions another councilman, and has different interpretation of the law? I am curious how in this situation it is pot stirring and names are requested, in the exact oposite situation, names are not requested and its just fine. I feel like its a double standard. I feel like there should be some clarification that this is a blog to complain about the city council and the parks and rec board - which is fine - but the Dayton Observer should post his intentions this way. He's always claimed the other way. Your thoughts?
I think Dayton Flyer meant that we should sign a ficticious name or sign into a google account so that it is easier to follow the discussion. I do think he/she wanted us to name people by name. It's o.k. to post without a name you pick out yourself but on most blogs people go by what is kind of like a screen name.
The Dayton Observer has made it clear that it's o.k not to use a name. It is easier to follow the discussion if a ficticious name or screen name is used. I can never remember my password to sign into my google account. I'll try to work on this so I can use my screen name. I know I'm not calling it the right thing but people who are very computer literate and younger people could help me out with the right wordage.
It would be nice to have a screen name so someone can respond in the proper manner. Responding to Anon and a time gets confusing. As far as naming real names, I think and I believe the D.O. agreed with me that as long as it is public record it is okay. Naming the Mayor and council members by name and the Rec Board members should be okay as long as any quote or vote by them is credited to the right person. Basically as long as it is public knowledge. To the 8:09 post try substituting the two o's in google with your age or birth year. (g44gle). Not exactly rocket science, but it might help. Or use your numbers front or back of google. (44google). Or use yah44. Works for me. And no I am not 44. Just a ficticious one I made up.
I meant google/blogspot name. I am against using real names. Also, I mean stir the pot like the one line quips saying they hope the golf course fails. So I doubt that's you 7:58pm.
Since someone asked, I will give you my opinion. I am sure that some will not agree and that is okay. I haven't really heard the whole story of the so-called blatant lie by the Rec board President so I cannot comment on that. From what I gather here it was whether or not the board got a booklet on open meetings. Please someone correct me if I am wrong. I personally think there should be someone on that board with no direct interest in the golf course. Not to sink it, but to have input from those of us who would like to share in decisions that we think would help. I do mean help it succeed. In other words to look at what they are spending and why and maybe give some input. Also we need an escape plan if this thing tanks again. Not to be negative, but when you are ass deep in alligators it is a helluva a time to think of draining the swamp. If it shows signs of making a profit or breaking even that is one thing, but if by the end of the season it is in the hole again we need to figure out how best to recoup some of our losses. Leasing would be an option as long as the city doesn't lease it for a dollar and get it back trashed in 5 years. As far as some having a hidden agenda or trying to hide things that aren't quite on the up and up, I think that is going on. How much I don't know. It is my personal opinion that some in town think they are entitled to a golf course no matter what we have to pay for it. One thing that does bother me, it seems those that don't agree with us asking legimate questions really seem upset when they respond on this blog.
Samadamslite: I agree with you. The Rec board fiasco last night wasn't about open meeting laws but I don't want to go into it at this time, except some strong language was used at the meeting that I personally feel was uncalled for by a so called professional. I have never been at any meeting where professionals used this kind of language. I was not there but have been told what was said by several people. The open meeting laws still seem to be a thorn of contention with some, but I feel if they were followed it would make a better, open and honest meeting. I also feel there needs to be a plan in case the golf course does not break even or make a profit this year. I feel we cannot go on any longer than this year raising taxes on the whole community.
Maybe the profressional is really not all that profressional after all. I also feel the open meeting laws are really getting to some. Most likely some didn't realize when this started that there would be public revelations as to what went on at the meetings. I have lived in this town for many years and there has been here as in most towns been a sort of "sweep it under the carpet" mentality. Looks like their carpet is getting to small to hide all the dirt. Following rules is good thing and makes things run smoother. It would also cut down on criticism of a Board or Council Even following rules there can be oopses once in awhile that would probably not be questioned if it was not a constant problem. I am sure it is hard to keep in mind all rules and laws govening meetings. Mistakes can happen, no problem, but blatant violations are something else.
I know what you mean about the carpet getting smaller. This really is starting to remind of what used to be called the "Dayton Mafia" era. I think following rules would help all the council and board get along better. There will always be an occasional oopse as we are all human, but you are right I think that could be forgiven. I would hope that some are learning from all of this. I worry about it.
When there are patterms of retaliation, manipulation, and many other decietful ways to get what you want-People tend to figure you out. 1.) Getting councilman overtly removed, I'll he was appointed, but the Mayor wanted him out. 2.) Snow removal tickets issued by young police officer on the Mayor's order. 3.) Mishandling of council meetings-agenda's not specific=hidden agendas. 4.)Naming your own parks and rec board-your wife, mayor protem's husband, former mayor's husband and person who wanted to convince city to buy golf course,and all others affiliated with golf course, overlooked other people who were nominated but not golfers. 5.)Actively working with city attorney on ways to circumvent city council authority, 6.)Threatening retaliation against citizen who is working diligently to keep city gov't accountable and is truly an asset to this community, 7.)Not giving parks and rec board valuable information necessary for them to their job well. This list is just a few I can think of now but mounting daily. Do you think a common sense person could reasonably figure out what is going on?
If I was legally following city ordinances regarding snow removal and parking and the mayor ordered a police officer to illegally ticket me - this is what I would do. I would call the county attorney and discuss or provide evidence that I was following the law and was ticketed anyway. I would also tell the county attorney the mayor ordered the police officer to illegally ticket me (the officer could be questioned under oath). I could also call the Sheriff at the time of the event to document that I was indeed removing snow or parking within the law - of course I could move my car quick or remove my snow quick before the Sheriff got there so that might not work out. Anyway - if I was following the law and illegally fined because the mayor didn't like me - that is what I would do.
I don't think anything would astound me anymore.
ReplyDeleteA blatant lie was told by the chairman of parks and rec at last night's public meeting, agenda item: golf coarse hiring issues. I would advise if you do not want to be labeled liars, cheats and thieves then you would not do those things.
ReplyDeleteCan someone explaine what they did last night at the meeting? What was the lie?
ReplyDeleteI never thought that this community would become so dishonnest in their quest for control or power. Is this what it is. Whatever happened to telling the truth and following laws. Is that so hard? Intimidation, mistruths, and blatant lies to prove your point or to cover you behind. Try telling the truth you sleep better at night and you don't need to try to keep tract of what you have said. It's interesting to have to watch your back for knives being thrown at you because you have a cause you believe in. Especially when you have been forthright and honest throughout this.
ReplyDeletecan anyone explaine what the board did? If you are going to talk bad about what they do, you should at least be able to give facts.
ReplyDeleteWhat did the chairman say?
ReplyDeleteI am just not talking about the board. There is the mayor and several people in Dayton that are doing outlandish things. They are using intimidation to control. This will not work. I hope they keep trying. I don't choose to give facts right now because I am smart in enough to keep my ace in my pocket.
ReplyDeleteI won't repeat what the chairman said because I will not be that unprofessional even on this blog.
ReplyDeleteIf you won't repeat the comment then why should you even comment on the statement?
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you ask the chairman? I have a right to comment. The games have gotten to dirty. All along some of the pro golfers have tried to slience this blog and the opinions of those of us that want lower taxes. I am sure someone else will fill you in on the exact comments. I will not. Good Luck.......
ReplyDeleteI can't ask the chairman because i don't know who it was.
ReplyDeleteCall the city Mayor or to city hall, I am sure they would be more than happy to tell you who the chairman of the rec board is. I believe they are also named in the minutes printed in the Dayton Review.
ReplyDeleteOk thanks for the information
ReplyDeleteWhat was the lie?
ReplyDeleteThere's a councilman who threatens law suits when he doesn't get his way. He breaks open meeting laws regularly by either discussing employees or trying to get other board and/or council members to discuss employees. He says he wants the golf course to break even but goes out of his way to make those uncomfortable who volunteer to help it profit (that's also intimidation).
ReplyDeleteSome of you have posted you are not against the golf course if it breaks even and are even in agreement some of the Parks and Rec board members are good choices. Why don't you ask the members you like how supportive they feel this councilman is or if they feel he's going out of his way to make things more difficult for them. Heck, they're probably too scared of how he will retaliate if they honestly answer.
You want those who are in favor of city ownership of the golf course to hold the mayor accountable? It would probably go a long way for those who are against city ownership of the golf course to quit making excuses for this councilman's behavior.
Is that the same counilman that gave a member of your board a booklet on open meetings and public records at the council meeting. I believe one member of your board said that they had not been given one or is this a lie? The councilman probably has read the booklet before he gave it one of your members, so he probably knows what it contains. Maybe you should read it and understand it before you conduct another meeting. It was a must that you be given one when you were appointed to the parks and rec board, the knowledgable Mayor in all his infinite wisdom should have gotten you one before you started making all your mistakes. Try to throw up a smoke screen so you can continue to break the law.
ReplyDelete4:43 PM:
ReplyDeleteHere's the issue that some people have been trying to figure out, under the new minutes from the previous City Council meeting: representatives from the Rec Board recommended applicants to be hired for the golf course. Council members moved to offer the superintendent position; motion carried unianimously.
Something happened between then and now which makes it seem like that the Rec Board has unilateral power to make hiring decisions, but Ordinance 233 has not passed yet.
My board? I'm not on the board. If you are a citizen of Dayton, it's just as much your board as mine?
ReplyDeletePeople on the blog accuse the "pro-golf people" of trying to silence this blog when they mention something about the mayor. Didn't you just do the same thing? I didn't know the councilman handed out a booklet on open meeting laws. Did he read the entire thing or just the parts the suited his interests?
But it was stated at the park and rec meeting that the the mayor and the city attorney had come up with a new idea on how to circumvent the actions of the city council by implementing a new golf course matinence proposal. I don't believe that is in the scope of the mayor's duties to try to circumvent the powers of the city council for his own agenda of keeping a golf course that is costing the taxpayer's a lot of money.
ReplyDelete5:22 I understand and I completely understand why there are questions. The problem is, you can't discuss specifics about employees at meetings.
ReplyDeleteThe council motioned to approve the board to offer the job. We don't know if the job was offered. If it wasn't, no harm done.
You might feel better if you knew about some more members of the board or met them. Many have very respected business backgrounds. This might add to trust. I do understand your questions though.
I believe the open meeting rules booklet has been posted here on this blog since April 9th.
ReplyDeleteIf anyone would have bothered to click on the attachment provided by D.O. you would have found this. Yes, the board is the city of Daytons board. Since the open meeting laws are very simply spelled out in this booklet I think that it would be beneficial for the councilman you are refering to and the rest of boards best interest to know this booklet. If the person who posted about breaking open meeting laws about employees you will find that indeed you can discuss employee issues in and open meeting and it is up to the person you are discussing to request a closed session, that also has many rules. I feel there is no excuse since the open rules have been discussed lately that those members of both boards don't know them. As far as silencing me, Good Luck. I am not easily intimidated and if you feel the need for retaliation, I'm sorry for you because it will not help you.
5:43 I think you had better re read the open meeting rules. If you need a copy go click on the attachment under April 9th post by D.O. It's pretty simplistic.
ReplyDelete5:22pm, As you can see I provided information for those that not apparently read the open meeting laws.
ReplyDeleteYes, there are several members on the board that do have some business background and also those same are respected members of the community. There has also been some questions about the several of the others that were appointed. I do know the mayor said in an open meeting that any name given to him he would visit with them. I know of two people that were mentioned and the mayor never talked to them. I have no idea if they would have been interested or not.
Two members of the parks board brought three names to the city council to be voted on for hiring. All three were approved to be offered the jobs. This is from the minutes of the City Council meeting. From the minutes at the park board meeting, two were hired. What did happen to the third one. Does the park board have full hiring rights now?
Also for everyone's information The Golden Rules were also posted on the same April 9th
ReplyDeletearticle by D.O. This is written by the Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller. Not the Golden Rules were taught as children. I know this was a topic of conversation a few days ago.
Also as you are reading the open meeting laws please note that ignorance is not an excuse.
ReplyDeleteSo those members who giggled and made some off the wall statements about open meeting laws, I think had better read the last few pages of this booklet and see that it does have consequences and importance
After re-reading the open meeting laws posted on this site (April 9th, not March 9th), there are some things must be clarified.
ReplyDeleteThere is an immediate disclaymer that the information is meant for general education and not meant to be taken as legal advice.
An employee can ask to go into closed session for an evaluation. In that event, the employee is notified that they are going to be evaluated and given the opportunity to go into closed session. It would be reckless and irresponsible to interpret that to mean you can adlib just start critiquing employees or applicants during open meetings.
Anyone can read into laws what they want to support their opinion. Nothing would probably make the Parks and Rec board happier than to put out a public notice about why they chose or chose not to hire people. It is responsible on their part not to lured into doing this.
I believe that I said April 9th on both of my posts. Please go back and read. Also please note that on most pamplets in the business and state/federal world these same disclaimers are on them. But if you are not to follow these rules then why are there punishments written if you choose not to, and ignorance is not an excuse.
ReplyDeleteTo: 5:22pm post, Since someone chose to tell you about the make up the boards, I would like to tell you, you should hear some of the language that is used during these meetings. I don't believe that most professionals use this type of language on a routine basis at their meetings. FYI
ReplyDeleteYou did post April 9th. Sorry.
ReplyDeleteI also agree, ignorance is not an excuse. Yes, you are suppose to follow the rules and that's why there are punishments if you chose not to.
Yes, this disclaimer is on many pamphlets, for very good reason. Laws are open to interpretation. If the council violates someones rights during a meeting because they misinterpreted a law, the city is open to litigation. Like you said, ignorance is no excuse. It is in a council or boards best interest not to critique an employee or aplicant during an open meeting.
I also wonder, what would you think if you applied for a job and were interveiwed, then you read it in the newspaper that the city council approved your hiring. Wouldn't that make you wonder.
ReplyDeleteAlso I know that if you hire that person the only way without circumventing another excuse, you would have to prove that, the person lied on their application or resume. Very interesting concepts. In the grey area maybe leaning towards the black, but still not good business practice. This is beginning to sound like a broken record.
Does the park board have unilateral hiring power, even with 232 not passed? I have not saw this addressed yet.
ReplyDeleteFor people with all this business experience they sure do seem to SCREW UP alot of times!!!!
ReplyDeleteOk, I'm confused as heck who is saying what here. Could we please try to get names. Especially because I think a few people (or just one) are just trying to stir the pot.
ReplyDeleteI guessing you feel I'm stirring the pot.
ReplyDeleteI've read on here many anonymous blogs making comments about the mayor and a councilwoman and it's not considered stiring the pot, no names are asked for. I've read numerous comments on breaking open meeting laws because of agendas not being posted. That's not considred stiring the pot, not names are asked for. People are critical and name calling of the parks and rec's board. It's not considered pot stirring, no names are asked for.
Why is it different for a person posting who supports the efforts of the Parks and Recs board, questions another councilman, and has different interpretation of the law? I am curious how in this situation it is pot stirring and names are requested, in the exact oposite situation, names are not requested and its just fine.
I feel like its a double standard. I feel like there should be some clarification that this is a blog to complain about the city council and the parks and rec board - which is fine - but the Dayton Observer should post his intentions this way. He's always claimed the other way.
Your thoughts?
I think Dayton Flyer meant that we should sign a ficticious name or sign into a google account so that it is easier to follow the discussion. I do think he/she wanted us to name people by name. It's o.k. to post without a name you pick out yourself but on most blogs people go by what is kind of like a screen name.
ReplyDeleteThe Dayton Observer has made it clear that it's o.k not to use a name. It is easier to follow the discussion if a ficticious name or screen name is used. I can never remember my password to sign into my google account. I'll try to work on this so I can use my screen name. I know I'm not calling it the right thing but people who are very computer literate and younger people could help me out with the right wordage.
ReplyDeleteIt would be nice to have a screen name so someone can respond in the proper manner. Responding to Anon and a time gets confusing. As far as naming real names, I think and I believe the D.O. agreed with me that as long as it is public record it is okay. Naming the Mayor and council members by name and the Rec Board members should be okay as long as any quote or vote by them is credited to the right person. Basically as long as it is public knowledge. To the 8:09 post try substituting the two o's in google with your age or birth year. (g44gle). Not exactly rocket science, but it might help. Or use your numbers front or back of google. (44google). Or use yah44. Works for me. And no I am not 44. Just a ficticious one I made up.
ReplyDeletesamaddamslite: Thanks, I know it's crazy that I can't remember the silly password. I'll try, thanks I'm not 44 anymore but kind of wish I was. Thanks
ReplyDeleteBy the way what is your opinion on what has been going on.
I meant google/blogspot name. I am against using real names. Also, I mean stir the pot like the one line quips saying they hope the golf course fails. So I doubt that's you 7:58pm.
ReplyDeleteDaytonFlyer, that's what I thought you meant.
ReplyDeleteThanks
Since someone asked, I will give you my opinion. I am sure that some will not agree and that is okay. I haven't really heard the whole story of the so-called blatant lie by the Rec board President so I cannot comment on that. From what I gather here it was whether or not the board got a booklet on open meetings. Please someone correct me if I am wrong. I personally think there should be someone on that board with no direct interest in the golf course. Not to sink it, but to have input from those of us who would like to share in decisions that we think would help. I do mean help it succeed. In other words to look at what they are spending and why and maybe give some input. Also we need an escape plan if this thing tanks again. Not to be negative, but when you are ass deep in alligators it is a helluva a time to think of draining the swamp. If it shows signs of making a profit or breaking even that is one thing, but if by the end of the season it is in the hole again we need to figure out how best to recoup some of our losses. Leasing would be an option as long as the city doesn't lease it for a dollar and get it back trashed in 5 years. As far as some having a hidden agenda or trying to hide things that aren't quite on the up and up, I think that is going on. How much I don't know. It is my personal opinion that some in town think they are entitled to a golf course no matter what we have to pay for it. One thing that does bother me, it seems those that don't agree with us asking legimate questions really seem upset when they respond on this blog.
ReplyDeleteSamadamslite: I agree with you. The Rec board fiasco last night wasn't about open meeting laws but I don't want to go into it at this time, except some strong language was used at the meeting that I personally feel was uncalled for by a so called professional. I have never been at any meeting where professionals used this kind of language. I was not there but have been told what was said by several people. The open meeting laws still seem to be a thorn of contention with some, but I feel if they were followed it would make a better, open and honest meeting.
ReplyDeleteI also feel there needs to be a plan in case the golf course does not break even or make a profit this year. I feel we cannot go on any longer than this year raising taxes on the whole community.
Maybe the profressional is really not all that profressional after all. I also feel the open meeting laws are really getting to some. Most likely some didn't realize when this started that there would be public revelations as to what went on at the meetings. I have lived in this town for many years and there has been here as in most towns been a sort of "sweep it under the carpet" mentality. Looks like their carpet is getting to small to hide all the dirt. Following rules is good thing and makes things run smoother. It would also cut down on criticism of a Board or Council Even following rules there can be oopses once in awhile that would probably not be questioned if it was not a constant problem. I am sure it is hard to keep in mind all rules and laws govening meetings. Mistakes can happen, no problem, but blatant violations are something else.
ReplyDeleteI know what you mean about the carpet getting smaller. This really is starting to remind of what used to be called the "Dayton Mafia" era.
ReplyDeleteI think following rules would help all the council and board get along better. There will always be an occasional oopse as we are all human, but you are right I think that could be forgiven. I would hope that some are learning from all of this. I worry about it.
When there are patterms of retaliation, manipulation, and many other decietful ways to get what you want-People tend to figure you out. 1.) Getting councilman overtly removed, I'll he was appointed, but the Mayor wanted him out. 2.) Snow removal tickets issued by young police officer on the Mayor's order. 3.) Mishandling of council meetings-agenda's not specific=hidden agendas. 4.)Naming your own parks and rec board-your wife, mayor protem's husband, former mayor's husband and person who wanted to convince city to buy golf course,and all others affiliated with golf course, overlooked other people who were nominated but not golfers. 5.)Actively working with city attorney on ways to circumvent city council authority, 6.)Threatening retaliation against citizen who is working diligently to keep city gov't accountable and is truly an asset to this community, 7.)Not giving parks and rec board valuable information necessary for them to their job well. This list is just a few I can think of now but mounting daily. Do you think a common sense person could reasonably figure out what is going on?
ReplyDeleteIf I was legally following city ordinances regarding snow removal and parking and the mayor ordered a police officer to illegally ticket me - this is what I would do.
ReplyDeleteI would call the county attorney and discuss or provide evidence that I was following the law and was ticketed anyway. I would also tell the county attorney the mayor ordered the police officer to illegally ticket me (the officer could be questioned under oath). I could also call the Sheriff at the time of the event to document that I was indeed removing snow or parking within the law - of course I could move my car quick or remove my snow quick before the Sheriff got there so that might not work out.
Anyway - if I was following the law and illegally fined because the mayor didn't like me - that is what I would do.