This week's Dayton Review had a very good section in one of its articles this week concerning the ad-hoc group that met this past week. I believe the ad-hoc group had a very good suggestion in leasing the restaurant, which will be brought up to the rec board by some of the members of this ad-hoc group.
Tonight the new park board will meet. I would like to hear from anyone on his or her thoughts regarding tonight's meeting.
Even though the rec board could be considered a sub-committee, this board is tasked with a very important function of essentially overseeing the golf course, looking over financials, and making suggestions about the course's future. Yes, some citizens do have concerns about some of the appointments and that is why my suggestion is to allow for public input. This may already be in the works with the ad-hoc group. I hope even more public input is allowed. I would also like to see some of the board's goals early on so we know what to expect. What in their mind would be considered a successful year? At what point will the board look to leasing the golf course if that is deemed to be the way to go?
Finally, some people have been critical of members on the city council because of the golf course. Tax issues are a very hot topic with lots of people. As stated before, some see the golf course as an extra tax burden in an uncertain economy. Just to see how heated other tax issues get we should look no further than today's Des Moines Register. http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090401/NEWS10/904010378&theme=LEGISLATURE_ISSUES
Taxes certainly are a heated topic. The Des Moines Register article is timely to this discussion. If you get too emotional over the topic at hand, you can't use good judgement.
ReplyDeleteLast post there was much discussion over councilwoman Gallentine voting for her son to work as a part-time groundskeeper. I feel this should have been a simple situation that spiraled out of hand needlessly on both sides.
First, could have Gallentine abstained from the Vote? Yes. Was it legal for her to vote? Yes. Was it reasonable for councilman Benson to question if she could vote? Yes. Would have it been an act in good faith to abstain? Yes.
Was the young man qualified for the job? Yes. Did whoever took applications and interview feel he was the best candidate to recommend for the job? Yes. Did the attorney clarify there was not a conflict of interest in him working for the city? Yes.
What are the legally acceptable reasons Benson and Vegors voted to deny him employment? None come to mind. Could have he argued this was retalitaion and discrimination? Yes. Could have he brought suit against the city for violating his right to work? Yes. Who knows if he would have done that or if he would have won but the City of Dayton would have had costs fighting it either way.
I think Gallentine, Benson and Vegors all have good intentions. Had the atmosphere been more calm, this could have and should have been a 2 minute vote and discussion.
I believe I have seen 15A.2, 721.2, 362.5, and 362.6, Code of Iowa all addressing Conflict of Interest in these posts. I have taken more than 2 minutes to read them. Even to a novice, I could concur that Ms. Gallentine should not have voted, that in the very least, she should have abstained. No wonder there is such an outcry about the Mayor asking her husband to serve on important board, have all lost our common sense? Come on, as Mayor and council people, you are not above the law.
ReplyDeleteThe Mayor is not a woman and he does not have a husband serving on any boards.
ReplyDeleteI believe the person meant to write him, not
ReplyDeleteher. The Mayor does have a wife serving on a
board and a councilwoman Gallentine has a husband serving on a board.
T.E.A. Taxed Enough Already!!!!!
ReplyDeleteIsn't it fun to play Sunday Morning quarterback and anonymously critique whoever we want without any accountability.
ReplyDeleteYeah dang that dang Publius who wrote those stupid federalist papers. Of course I'm not comparing this to that, but its not that big of deal that people don't reveal there names. Also I think more people would speak up if they were not afraid of being black listed by some.
ReplyDelete8:50 p.m. Posting may have meant Mayor asking her husband (Gallentine) to serve on an important board.
ReplyDeleteCould he have brought a suit against the city for violating his right to work? Do you literally mean the right to work statute(which states no person shall be deprived of the right to work at a chosen occupation because of membership, affiliation, etc.)? I'm guessing not.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I don't think Iowa has a law that says someone is entitled to a job.
I think the point being missed as far as councilperson Gallentine not abstaining is, it would have come down to a split council. Considering that the mayor doesn't have the tie breaker vote, we still wouldn't have anyone working on the golfcourse. Which means the course would have been in bad shape, which would mean we wouldn't have any golfers, which means the course wouldn't make any money,which means WE the taxpayers would have lost ALL of our investment, which means we wouldn't be able to Lease or sell the course if we wanted to. We would have just been out a whole lot of money. So, if I had to choose between her abstaining, and ME losing the investment I've made (my tax money), I'm picking her to vote to get SOMEBODY out there to get the course up and running, and maybe getting some return on MY money(taxes).
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone know how the first meeting of the
ReplyDeletePark Rec Board went last evening?
does anyone know how the first meeting of the Park Rec Board went last night?
ReplyDeleteI'll post a little bit later tonight regarding the meeting.
ReplyDelete