"KSGF" and Vincent David Jericho sponsored a tea party at Fassnight Park in Springfield on Saturday.
Mark "Stormy" Davis, a co-chair of the event, was asked by the Young Conservatives of America to organize the tea party.
"The last one we had here in town, we had at noon on a Friday in 28 degree weather and in a part of the parks that nobody could find on a map, and we still had 300 people show up," Davis said.
One of the objects of the event was to collect tea bags which will be sent on to Washington D.C., if not to land on the floor of the Senate then, at least, the group hopes they'll make it to the rotunda floor.
"This is something we wanted to bring people together on, to say that we're done with all the spending, we're done with all the taxes," Davis said.
Jericho hopes that the Young Conservatives of America group will work together to make an impact in the future for conservative ideas and values.
"I really believe that through things like Young Conservatives, through things like some of the leaders that we are raising up in our community here, in Southwest Missouri, I really do believe we are going to touch the nation," Jericho said.
JackeHammer asked some of the tea party attendees (there were between 750 and 1,000 estimated to be in attendance) what brought them to the gathering. Following are their responses, in their own words, and excerpts from speeches made at the event.
THE PEOPLE
Alice Rainbolt: "I came out today because I want my government back."
Dan Dunaway: "To support the effort to restore our government to the people."
Joel LeBoida: "I want the country back that I grew up with."
Hans Stickel: "I would like to see our taxes reduced."
Bruce Holcomb: "I came here today to spread the gospel message that Jesus Christ is Lord, and we're passing out gospel tracts and asking people to repent of their sins and turn to Christ."
Laura (declined providing her last name): "Our individual liberties and freedoms are being taken away, and the ridiculous spending, the large government, everything, it needs to be pared back down to the people, for the people, by the people."
Jerry McAdams: "I'm tired of all the waste of my money, pretty much, and spending it on things I'd never spend it on."
Faith Stilts: "I think the main reason I wanted to come was because I was very dismayed about conservative people and Christian people being listed as "terrorists," possible terrorists, and things like that, and I think because we have a right to peacefully assemble. We need to show them that we're here and remind them that they had plenty of protests when President Bush was in (office) and we have that right too.
"If you don't 100 percent back what the federal government is doing, that makes you an enemy, and that's just not American."
Benjamin Plunk: "I'm here because of my son. He's 8 years old. The President and the Congress are the real pirates, not the people off Somalia. They're spending money he hasn't even earned yet and he's not old enough to have a voter say in this discussion. I don't care what party you're from, it's morally wrong, and as a father, over my dead body. You can take that any way you want, over my dead body."
Terry Klock: "I'm here because government is out of control in their spending of our tax dollars and they're choking out our freedom, and that scares me and concerns me. I've had my head in the sand too long, and I think everybody else has too, and we're out here to try to make a difference and to bring our country back to its first principles."
John Putnam: "I'm the Missouri State FairTax Director, with Bill Phelps, and we're really excited about the fact that Missouri has become the first state in the nation to pass the FairTax bill that reflects the prebate of the national bill. It passed the House this week, 90 to 65, it's going to the Senate, and we need people to call their State Senators and tell them to support HJR36, starting Tuesday morning, when the Senators show back up in Jefferson City. So, that's the message I'm trying to get out."
Brad Mayberry: "I came out today because I believe in liberty, freedom and small government, and I think it's everybody's job to preserve it."
Jim Jenkins: "I'm here because I'm sick and tired of the government digging into my pockets when I didn't invite them to."
Charles Coates: "I came out here today because I believe that the people that founded the constitution had the right idea, and I really, truly do believe that bigger government, and higher taxes does equal destruction."
Kelly Tuder, with daughter Kenna: "We came out because we're opposed to all the taxes that they are putting upon us, and I don't want my daughter to have to pay them when I'm old and gray."
Vicky King (Kelly's mother, Kenna's grandmother): "Kenna is why we're here. We're tired of paying the taxes. We don't want to pay back the stimulus. We don't want to pay for people who don't want to work. You know, we all have to get up and work, no matter what's wrong with us and we can make it if we do, and then, I don't mind helping people if they're trying to make it on their own, that's why."
THE SPEAKERS
The speakers at the tea party were: Andrea Lord, Councilman Nick Ibarra, State Representative Bob Dixon, Nixa Councilman Mike Durbin, State Representative Eric Burlison, Darin Chappell, Ozark City Councilwoman Melissa Wagner, Vincent David Jericho, and Mel Hancock.
Following are excerpts from their speeches.
Andrea Lord: "The values of family, marriage, life, and God, these are the values that built this country, these are the values that have sustained this country."
Councilman Nick Ibarra: "I'm not here today to tell you of all of our nation's shortcomings without telling you that there is a bright side. The bright side is that we're all here together, having our voices be heard. The bright side is that all across this nation, people had their voices heard this week. The bright side is that we have some pretty level-headed representatives up in Jefferson City who, just this week, decided that we should be taxed on our consumption rather than our production. There is a bright side."
State Representative Bob Dixon: "Under our constitution, our government was not created to break the American spirit or to silence us but, it was sent forth to be a wall and a shield built around government in order to protect our liberties.... By rededicating ourselves to the principles of liberty, by renewing our commitment to constitutional principles, and by remaining energized in our efforts, we can, as Ronald Reagan so eloquently said, win again for our generation the blessings of liberty, and that we will do."
Nixa Councilman Mike Durbin: "Even in colonial America, not everyone was willing to stand up and speak out. It was few who realized government is only what we allow it to be, and they were willing to say, 'don't tread on me.'"
State Representative Eric Burlison: "I've read articles from the media, their interpretation of what we're doing here, and I don't think they quite get it but, I want to give them a hint. To me, this is not a Democrat party event because, quite frankly, the Democrat party has been failures, and this isn't a Republican party event because, quite frankly, the Republican party has been a bunch of failures. This is an event to remind ourselves that there are still people in this world who believe that government should belong to the people, and not the other way around."
Darin Chappell: "Liberty is the absence of governmental control. We are in liberty to do as we please in those areas wherein government has no say. Therefore, any time government expands its area of control, we need to be clear it is, by definition, the death of liberty.
"We have a responsibility to withstand the temptation of relying on government to care for us so that we can be free from the burden of caring for ourselves. Unfortunately, there are too many of our fellow countrymen who have determined that it is, by far easier and more palatable, to care for the government so that the government can care for them. I believe that we are, by far better, by far better served, if we tell the government, 'you take care of those things that we established you to take care of, we'll handle the rest the way we see fit.'"
Ozark Councilwoman Melissa Wagner: "We, as Americans, have a huge stresser, and it's called Washington D.C. They continually cause situations that make us, as Americans, very nervous, and we have focused in and we are shaking our fist at Washington right now. While we stand here and we shake our fists and we get angry, we need to remember that there are commissioners, and there are mayors, and there are city council people, that while we are shaking our fists, they have their hands out for this money, and I want to encourage you today, that while you're protesting the spending, to remember to also hold your local officials accountable...."
KSGF Radio talk show host Vincent David Jericho: "...how many of us claim to be conservatives but have never read and studied the constitution or the writings of our founding fathers? If you don't know the rules, you can't be an effective player in the game, and how much damage might you do to the cause if all you're seen as doing is breaking the rules and being inconsistent in the values you purport? People, know the rules. Read the writings of our founders and the constitution. Understand the sacrifice and the honor that went into writing our Declaration of Independence.
"The Apostle John said, 'Love one another, by this all men will know you,' as the guardians of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and that shining city on a hill that is a beacon to all mankind of freedom and liberty, bind yourselves to one another with the commitment that you, that we, will do better, that we will continue the fight, you will learn the rules and the tenets and that you will work to spread these truths to all America and Americans so that, once again, they might know and celebrate freedom."
Mel Hancock's speech will be posted in its entirety in a separate entry.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Showing posts with label Citizen interest/activism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Citizen interest/activism. Show all posts
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
News, Niches and the Nine Percent
Or, Springfield Citizen Survey Says
In a "Springfield News-Leader" article, "Sign project to cost $600,000," Wes Johnson answered questions regarding the Wayfinding Signs Project, which five members of the City Council approved through resolution at Monday night's meeting. A companion "Our Voice" column pretty well drove home any editorial comments I might have on the subject but, you know me, I'm not one to let that stop me from commenting. ;)
Johnson's article provided the sort of "meat" voters need to go with their "potatoes" when making decisions about how to vote on tax measures.
The current, 2008-2013 CIP plan, similar to the previous CIP plan which contained the Wayfinding Signs Project, has 134 pages. I don't know how many pages were in the CIP plan that contained that project but, one could wonder, considering only 17 percent of voters turned out on February 3, after intensive community discussion and promotion of the 1-cent police and fire pension sales tax, how many voters read and understood the previous CIP plan prior to voting in support of the 1/4-cent sales tax which included the Wayfinding Signs Program?
What other $600,000 "surprises" are in store for citizens of Springfield who have, or made, no time to read 100+ pages in the plan? And, I wrote "surprises," in quotation marks because it's doubtful many voters are educated about the projects within any given CIP they have voted to fund with a sales tax in the past. We could even wonder how many of our representative City Council members are educated about the projects within any given CIP, remember, Councilman Chiles didn't even know what "wayfinding" was, even though he had been presented, or had the documentation available to him, at least, by the Thursday preceding that City Council meeting.
The difficulty comes in, for citizen voters and their representatives, when these sort of lengthy plans are developed by City staff (based on public input, mind you) and presented to the City Council with a limited amount of time for discussion. The projects included within the plan are a package deal. The Council approves the whole package, and in the amount of time they are allotted to make a decision regarding such plans, it is doubtful they have adequate time to seriously consider each individual project within it. Is it appropriate to be bound by a plan which spans 6 years while the voters who supported it are cutting back due to economic hard times?
The city must project what they believe their sales tax revenue will be from year to year and clearly, they don't have a magic 8-ball which gives them an infallible forecast. Sales tax revenue was projected to be an increased 3 percent for 2008, it has fallen short, in fact, it has decreased rather than increased. So, how can we, as citizens of Springfield, support plans which cannot consider what economic times we may be living in from month to month, let alone year to year?
The Bible says, "You have not because you ask not," our City government seems to have that asking part down pat. Though giving the usual lip service to finding cost efficient or cost free ways to receive public input about why the pension sales tax failed on February 3, there is little doubt a new sales tax measure will be placed on the ballot in an upcoming election.
Councilman Burlison, for some unknown reason, felt he needed to share with the public how he planned to make a motion that a new pension sales tax initiative be placed on the ballot as soon as possible. I'm sort of scratching my head about why he felt the need to share that sentiment publicly. He didn't make the motion so, why tell people, "I was going to make a motion but, now I'm not?" Further, before the vote on February 3, the Council was saying it was up to the voters, the voters should decide. Well, the voters decided but, it would appear that, until the voters decide the right way or the way the City and Council would like them to decide, their decision simply does not count. Now, clearly, and to be fair to Mr. Burlison, that is not to say that some sort of solution to the pension problem must be reached and most people realize that some sort of sales tax will likely, be a part of the mix.
My thoughts are: If the City didn't ask for so many taxes, like the CIP sales tax, the Park's sales tax, and the Transportation sales tax, in most cases for non-core services or lesser priority projects, to later offer $600,000 "surprises," the public might have passed a legitimate and necessary tax like the pension sales tax.
But, all that said, isn't it public apathy that is the problem, in most cases?
I understand, and am even sympathetic, that it isn't just simply a case of apathy, it is often a case of time constraint. How many Joes and Josephines have time to take on the daunting task of reading a 100+ page document to become educated on whether they should or should not support a Capital Improvement Plan sales tax? Should they be required to have to take on such a daunting task in the first place? I recognize they voted on City Council representatives in the hopes that those representatives would take care of such issues for them. After all, isn't that why we have an elected City Council? To represent us in such matters? Aren't they the ones who get paid for that? Well, no, or hell no, depending on your perspective. Much can be said for the public sentiment that the Council volunteered and they knew what they were volunteering for and they shouldn't have volunteered if they weren't up to the task of representing us but, I still think "you get what you pay for."
Neither do I think the media should take the entire blame for not exhaustively educating the public about every detail involved in such a plan. Some people wouldn't read the "cliff notes" version if they were in solitary confinement with nothing but the CIP in the room. The burden of oversight just isn't important enough to them to "waste" the brain cells needed to embrace the information. But, let's say they do spend their time educating themselves about the plan, 1). They might have to quit their day job to make the time. 2). If there are projects which don't meet their approval, their work has just started, now, they have to 3). Take action on what they know by starting to make noise about it. What's the answer? A charter rule against 100+ page governmental documents? A charter rule against 6 year plans?
HOW DO YOU MAKE PEOPLE CARE? Now, there's an age old question. You have the documents available for your perusal. You have the media doing the best they can to give you information about the plan(s) or the tax(es), or the pending legislation, whatever the case may be. You have open Council meetings (According to the 2008 Citizen Survey, 9 percent of you attended them in 2008) and you have a Public Information Office at your disposal, if you care to call with questions. You have City Web sites, City blogs, City Council representatives.
I don't mean to sound cynical but here's the deal, you have an important City Council election coming up in April. For whom will you vote? Will you take the time to even find out about the candidates or, will you sit down in a voting booth (if you bother to even go to the polls) and mark the name you think you might recognize?
Maybe I'm too harsh, maybe I'm too cynical, I don't know but, we'd all like to blame someone else. Joe and Josephine blame the new City Manager, "He has no experience." Pete and Peg blame the City Council, the City Council hired and are charged with the oversight of the City Manager, the City Clerk and the Internal Auditor, that much is true but, NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM arrived in their City Council or Mayoral positions in a vacuum. They were voted there, oftentimes with low voter turnout and sometimes by people who said to themselves, "I think I might recognize that name," or "I got a glossy brochure from this candidate," and we all know glossy brochures make for a credible candidate or an astute Council representative, right?
Bob Mace, veteran columnist for the Community Free Press (CFP), put it this way in the new issue of CFP:
I'd have to agree with Mace, voting away money to fund lesser priority services for a period of years during times of feast has it's downfall when the famine hits. In the end, however, the voter is the one who decides (and sometimes decides and decides and decides until the City likes and agrees with their decision) but, until a greater number of voters and potential voters in the City of Springfield take more of an interest in how the City is spending their hard earned dollars, it is doubtful it will change.
The Community Free Press has an new Managing Editor. He's trying to find his niche. I wish him luck. Council members would like to hear from the public too but, based on the fact that only 9 percent of respondents to the recent 2008 Citizen Survey had even attended a City Council meeting in that year, I'd say he may have a hard "row to hoe" in getting that elusive public input regarding what they'd like to read about. My natural inclination at the moment would be to suggest more frivolous topics which take little thought and bear little consequence to future generations, that way, you could appeal to 91 percent of the population rather than 9 percent. Then again, on the other hand, the media has a responsibility to report on City, State and Federal government issues whether the public bothers to read it or simply uses it to line their bird cages and mulch their gardens.
The times are hard but, I'm hopeful. Some people are waking up and asking, "How did we get here???" If you are one of those people, welcome to the 9 percent.
In a "Springfield News-Leader" article, "Sign project to cost $600,000," Wes Johnson answered questions regarding the Wayfinding Signs Project, which five members of the City Council approved through resolution at Monday night's meeting. A companion "Our Voice" column pretty well drove home any editorial comments I might have on the subject but, you know me, I'm not one to let that stop me from commenting. ;)
Johnson's article provided the sort of "meat" voters need to go with their "potatoes" when making decisions about how to vote on tax measures.
The current, 2008-2013 CIP plan, similar to the previous CIP plan which contained the Wayfinding Signs Project, has 134 pages. I don't know how many pages were in the CIP plan that contained that project but, one could wonder, considering only 17 percent of voters turned out on February 3, after intensive community discussion and promotion of the 1-cent police and fire pension sales tax, how many voters read and understood the previous CIP plan prior to voting in support of the 1/4-cent sales tax which included the Wayfinding Signs Program?
What other $600,000 "surprises" are in store for citizens of Springfield who have, or made, no time to read 100+ pages in the plan? And, I wrote "surprises," in quotation marks because it's doubtful many voters are educated about the projects within any given CIP they have voted to fund with a sales tax in the past. We could even wonder how many of our representative City Council members are educated about the projects within any given CIP, remember, Councilman Chiles didn't even know what "wayfinding" was, even though he had been presented, or had the documentation available to him, at least, by the Thursday preceding that City Council meeting.
The difficulty comes in, for citizen voters and their representatives, when these sort of lengthy plans are developed by City staff (based on public input, mind you) and presented to the City Council with a limited amount of time for discussion. The projects included within the plan are a package deal. The Council approves the whole package, and in the amount of time they are allotted to make a decision regarding such plans, it is doubtful they have adequate time to seriously consider each individual project within it. Is it appropriate to be bound by a plan which spans 6 years while the voters who supported it are cutting back due to economic hard times?
The city must project what they believe their sales tax revenue will be from year to year and clearly, they don't have a magic 8-ball which gives them an infallible forecast. Sales tax revenue was projected to be an increased 3 percent for 2008, it has fallen short, in fact, it has decreased rather than increased. So, how can we, as citizens of Springfield, support plans which cannot consider what economic times we may be living in from month to month, let alone year to year?
The Bible says, "You have not because you ask not," our City government seems to have that asking part down pat. Though giving the usual lip service to finding cost efficient or cost free ways to receive public input about why the pension sales tax failed on February 3, there is little doubt a new sales tax measure will be placed on the ballot in an upcoming election.
Councilman Burlison, for some unknown reason, felt he needed to share with the public how he planned to make a motion that a new pension sales tax initiative be placed on the ballot as soon as possible. I'm sort of scratching my head about why he felt the need to share that sentiment publicly. He didn't make the motion so, why tell people, "I was going to make a motion but, now I'm not?" Further, before the vote on February 3, the Council was saying it was up to the voters, the voters should decide. Well, the voters decided but, it would appear that, until the voters decide the right way or the way the City and Council would like them to decide, their decision simply does not count. Now, clearly, and to be fair to Mr. Burlison, that is not to say that some sort of solution to the pension problem must be reached and most people realize that some sort of sales tax will likely, be a part of the mix.
My thoughts are: If the City didn't ask for so many taxes, like the CIP sales tax, the Park's sales tax, and the Transportation sales tax, in most cases for non-core services or lesser priority projects, to later offer $600,000 "surprises," the public might have passed a legitimate and necessary tax like the pension sales tax.
But, all that said, isn't it public apathy that is the problem, in most cases?
I understand, and am even sympathetic, that it isn't just simply a case of apathy, it is often a case of time constraint. How many Joes and Josephines have time to take on the daunting task of reading a 100+ page document to become educated on whether they should or should not support a Capital Improvement Plan sales tax? Should they be required to have to take on such a daunting task in the first place? I recognize they voted on City Council representatives in the hopes that those representatives would take care of such issues for them. After all, isn't that why we have an elected City Council? To represent us in such matters? Aren't they the ones who get paid for that? Well, no, or hell no, depending on your perspective. Much can be said for the public sentiment that the Council volunteered and they knew what they were volunteering for and they shouldn't have volunteered if they weren't up to the task of representing us but, I still think "you get what you pay for."
Neither do I think the media should take the entire blame for not exhaustively educating the public about every detail involved in such a plan. Some people wouldn't read the "cliff notes" version if they were in solitary confinement with nothing but the CIP in the room. The burden of oversight just isn't important enough to them to "waste" the brain cells needed to embrace the information. But, let's say they do spend their time educating themselves about the plan, 1). They might have to quit their day job to make the time. 2). If there are projects which don't meet their approval, their work has just started, now, they have to 3). Take action on what they know by starting to make noise about it. What's the answer? A charter rule against 100+ page governmental documents? A charter rule against 6 year plans?
HOW DO YOU MAKE PEOPLE CARE? Now, there's an age old question. You have the documents available for your perusal. You have the media doing the best they can to give you information about the plan(s) or the tax(es), or the pending legislation, whatever the case may be. You have open Council meetings (According to the 2008 Citizen Survey, 9 percent of you attended them in 2008) and you have a Public Information Office at your disposal, if you care to call with questions. You have City Web sites, City blogs, City Council representatives.
I don't mean to sound cynical but here's the deal, you have an important City Council election coming up in April. For whom will you vote? Will you take the time to even find out about the candidates or, will you sit down in a voting booth (if you bother to even go to the polls) and mark the name you think you might recognize?
Maybe I'm too harsh, maybe I'm too cynical, I don't know but, we'd all like to blame someone else. Joe and Josephine blame the new City Manager, "He has no experience." Pete and Peg blame the City Council, the City Council hired and are charged with the oversight of the City Manager, the City Clerk and the Internal Auditor, that much is true but, NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM arrived in their City Council or Mayoral positions in a vacuum. They were voted there, oftentimes with low voter turnout and sometimes by people who said to themselves, "I think I might recognize that name," or "I got a glossy brochure from this candidate," and we all know glossy brochures make for a credible candidate or an astute Council representative, right?
Bob Mace, veteran columnist for the Community Free Press (CFP), put it this way in the new issue of CFP:
"It truly is past time to realize that it’s less a question of who serves on council than it is putting our collective will to addressing the issue of reorganization of Springfield government. Council has an impossible task when approaching funding priorities because the airport, parks and libraries have their own taxing authority and volunteer boards setting individual priorities.
We should be able to postpone park projects in order to deal with high priorities of the pension shortfalls and a hiring freeze for police and firefighters. Our approval of earmarked taxes and allowing municipal departments to have autonomy from the general fund budget leave council with hands tied."
I'd have to agree with Mace, voting away money to fund lesser priority services for a period of years during times of feast has it's downfall when the famine hits. In the end, however, the voter is the one who decides (and sometimes decides and decides and decides until the City likes and agrees with their decision) but, until a greater number of voters and potential voters in the City of Springfield take more of an interest in how the City is spending their hard earned dollars, it is doubtful it will change.
The Community Free Press has an new Managing Editor. He's trying to find his niche. I wish him luck. Council members would like to hear from the public too but, based on the fact that only 9 percent of respondents to the recent 2008 Citizen Survey had even attended a City Council meeting in that year, I'd say he may have a hard "row to hoe" in getting that elusive public input regarding what they'd like to read about. My natural inclination at the moment would be to suggest more frivolous topics which take little thought and bear little consequence to future generations, that way, you could appeal to 91 percent of the population rather than 9 percent. Then again, on the other hand, the media has a responsibility to report on City, State and Federal government issues whether the public bothers to read it or simply uses it to line their bird cages and mulch their gardens.
The times are hard but, I'm hopeful. Some people are waking up and asking, "How did we get here???" If you are one of those people, welcome to the 9 percent.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Highlights of the October 27, City Council Meeting
Upcoming Council Meeting Agenda
Here are a few items which will be up for public hearing at the Council meeting this Monday night:
> Item 8. COUNCIL BILL 2008-321: A portion of Phelps Street, between Kansas Expressway and LaFontaine Avenue is being considered to be made a private street, at the Paul Mueller Company's request.
The purpose is to allow the company to create a secured parking area. Muellers would take over all care and maintenence of the street should the bill pass.
Geoffrey Butler will represent Muellers in the matter. There has been no opposition raised.
> Item 10. COUNCIL BILL 2008-322: A special ordinance adopting the Internal Auditor’s Policies and Procedures and approving the annual Audit Working Plan.
If you'd like to read a summary of the Internal Auditor's Policies and Procedures, click on the cover shot of the paper at the Community Free Press Web site and scroll to page 4, you can also read the entire policy paper by clicking this and scrolling down.
> Item 11. COUNCIL BILL 2008-323: Will authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to appropriate $165,000 from the level property tax fund to construct a public parking lot at Jefferson Avenue and Phelps Street and amend the budget in that amount, if passed.
The parking lot is intended to provide parking for patrons and employees of the Jordan Valley Community Health Center, Greene County and the Missouri Highway Patrol.
Resolutions, which citizens may address but which will, likely, be voted on at the meeting (resolutions only require one reading) are:
> Item 13. COUNCIL BILL 2008-324: "...consenting to and approving financing of The Industrial Development Authority of Greene County, Missouri for the Pregnancy Care Center, a Missouri nonprofit corporation, by providing for the issuance of Industrial Revenue Bonds in an amount not to exceed $1,700,000 to pay the costs of financing and reimbursing the costs of the acquisition and renovation of an office facility for the Pregnancy Care Center."
> Item 14. COUNCIL BILL 2008-325: "A resolution adopting the City of Springfield's Legislative Policy for 2009. (Recommended by the Finance and Administration Committee.)"
The city's legislative policy for 2009 was recommended by the Finance and Administration Committee with a vote of 3 ayes, 1 nay. Councilman Burlison did not support some of the more contentious legislative policies included and so, as a member of the Finance and Administration Committee, opposed it.
One of the contentious policies has been written about in the local news, it was a request made by the Parks Department to lobby for a ban on guns in open park spaces.
It is my understanding that there is to be a citizen speaking out against the potential gun ban at the meeting Monday night, at least that's a rumor I heard today.
As always, the second reading bills will be summarized and note made of the votes in the next issue of the Community Free Press.
To view the consent agenda bills, click this. Citizens wishing to speak to an item on the consent agenda must let City Clerk Brenda Cirtin know that they'd like an item removed from that agenda so that they might address it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here are a few items which will be up for public hearing at the Council meeting this Monday night:
> Item 8. COUNCIL BILL 2008-321: A portion of Phelps Street, between Kansas Expressway and LaFontaine Avenue is being considered to be made a private street, at the Paul Mueller Company's request.
The purpose is to allow the company to create a secured parking area. Muellers would take over all care and maintenence of the street should the bill pass.
Geoffrey Butler will represent Muellers in the matter. There has been no opposition raised.
> Item 10. COUNCIL BILL 2008-322: A special ordinance adopting the Internal Auditor’s Policies and Procedures and approving the annual Audit Working Plan.
If you'd like to read a summary of the Internal Auditor's Policies and Procedures, click on the cover shot of the paper at the Community Free Press Web site and scroll to page 4, you can also read the entire policy paper by clicking this and scrolling down.
> Item 11. COUNCIL BILL 2008-323: Will authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to appropriate $165,000 from the level property tax fund to construct a public parking lot at Jefferson Avenue and Phelps Street and amend the budget in that amount, if passed.
The parking lot is intended to provide parking for patrons and employees of the Jordan Valley Community Health Center, Greene County and the Missouri Highway Patrol.
Resolutions, which citizens may address but which will, likely, be voted on at the meeting (resolutions only require one reading) are:
> Item 13. COUNCIL BILL 2008-324: "...consenting to and approving financing of The Industrial Development Authority of Greene County, Missouri for the Pregnancy Care Center, a Missouri nonprofit corporation, by providing for the issuance of Industrial Revenue Bonds in an amount not to exceed $1,700,000 to pay the costs of financing and reimbursing the costs of the acquisition and renovation of an office facility for the Pregnancy Care Center."
> Item 14. COUNCIL BILL 2008-325: "A resolution adopting the City of Springfield's Legislative Policy for 2009. (Recommended by the Finance and Administration Committee.)"
The city's legislative policy for 2009 was recommended by the Finance and Administration Committee with a vote of 3 ayes, 1 nay. Councilman Burlison did not support some of the more contentious legislative policies included and so, as a member of the Finance and Administration Committee, opposed it.
One of the contentious policies has been written about in the local news, it was a request made by the Parks Department to lobby for a ban on guns in open park spaces.
It is my understanding that there is to be a citizen speaking out against the potential gun ban at the meeting Monday night, at least that's a rumor I heard today.
As always, the second reading bills will be summarized and note made of the votes in the next issue of the Community Free Press.
To view the consent agenda bills, click this. Citizens wishing to speak to an item on the consent agenda must let City Clerk Brenda Cirtin know that they'd like an item removed from that agenda so that they might address it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Friday, October 17, 2008
Newborns in Need Always Needs your Help!
I received a newsletter from Newborns in Need (NIN) today.
For those interested, and those who might know someone else who is interested in volunteering to assist the local chapter of NIN, here is a notice straight from the newsletter:
For those interested, and those who might know someone else who is interested in volunteering to assist the local chapter of NIN, here is a notice straight from the newsletter:
Workday
"Each Saturday from 9-2, the Springfield Chapter has workday and we would like to invite you to come and participate.
Often there are layettes to pack, laundry to be done, clothing to be sorted and put away, deliveries to be assembled and delivered.
Sometimes student groups or church groups come to help, but there is always a variety of things to do.
Even though workday is from 9-2, feel free to come and go as you please or as your time allows. There are drinks in the refrigeration and you can bring your lunch.
Come and join us to serve God's tiniest children. Your help is needed."
Monday, October 13, 2008
Information on political meetings sought
I am trying to let people know when they have a campaign meeting or political information meeting of any kind to let me know and I will post meeting times and schedules here, at JackeHammer, in the hopes of being a one stop shop for political meetings in Springfield. I don't see anyone else offering this service to the community and I think it would be a valuable service.
I will be happy to post meetings, regardless of political affilitation, to this blog so that the public may become aware of them and can choose which meetings they might be interested in attending.
Update: You may email with meeting information at JMltnMO@aol.com, be sure to include the date, time, location, address and, if possible, a contact name and number for people who would like more information about your meeting event or organization.
I will be happy to post meetings, regardless of political affilitation, to this blog so that the public may become aware of them and can choose which meetings they might be interested in attending.
Update: You may email with meeting information at JMltnMO@aol.com, be sure to include the date, time, location, address and, if possible, a contact name and number for people who would like more information about your meeting event or organization.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
In response to a comment on Council Bill 2008-058
I decided to post this response to Jason's question on my last post about the City's Green Building policy resolution, Council Bill 2008-058, as an entry rather than in the comment section. Mainly, I just felt it was too long and covered too much territory to post in the comment section.
It is personal toward Jason because it is in response to his comment on concerns I raised about the Green Building Policy. He asked:
My response:
Jason, certainly the City Council makes requests of staff all the time. When they, as a whole, make requests of staff it is usually done in an open forum, at least that's what the Sunshine Law requires and we assume it is so unless they cite state law which makes it legal for Council to meet in closed session. Generally, when the public perceives they haven't had an opportunity to weigh in on an issue it's because they weren't paying attention and LOST their opportunity, not that there wasn't an opportunity in the first place.
Then, that scenario brings rise to what I think is the deeper question.
Look at the Storage Container issue for an example, and honestly I haven't had a chance to look over the proposed ordinance closely yet, but I did attend the last storage container meeting before they drafted it. At that meeting the owner of "Pods" was there and he was concerned about the signage being restricted to 12" x 12" for very legitimate reasons. His signage is larger and it is EMBEDDED into the pods but the limitations of signage wasn't changed when the draft was released. So sometimes, it seems that regardless of public input and how legitimate it is the City makes decisions, after celebrating a whole host of public input sessions, that appear to disregard legitimate issues. It makes it appear to be almost a bait and switch, the City has public input, is able to pat themselves on the back for providing ample opportunity for it and then, BAM! The City disregards it and does what they want anyway.
Offering an opportunity for public input isn't enough. There has to be a genuine want to listen, consider and make changes that legitimately rise out of those input sessions.
Look at Park Central Square, lots of opportunity for public input but no real consideration of the fact that it is a Halprin design. Should it have been a part of the process for the City to acknowledge and educate the public about the renowned landscape architect who designed it? Well, I think so, because clearly, now we may have a legal problem brewing because the public didn't realize the value of a Halprin design until it was, in the City's mind, too late to incorporate it and stay within the timeline of the Heer's development agreement. That was poor planning, in my opinion. Now, it seems to be a ticking time bomb, an unnecessary ticking time bomb that if handled correctly from the beginning could likely have been defused months ago, when there was time to handle it. To further complicate things, Councilman Chiles, on the Vincent David Jericho program said he DID raise that question at one of the first public input meetings. Tim Rosenbury later told me that if he'd considered Halprin's design earlier, right after Ruth Kelley's letter hit the News-Leader, the consideration wouldn't have effected the timeline.
The question in this posting is, and was in the previous posting I made about the Green Building Policy: Is it necessary to pass a resolution in order to build green? The city's attorney said no, it isn't. I question taxpayer money and resources being spent unnecessarily for really, no other reason than to make a statement about "being a leader in sustainability." There's nothing wrong with being a leader in sustainability but taxpayer MONEY could have been "sustained" without passing an unnecessary resolution meant to do nothing but make a statement.
Your question about, "if they had just done it and citizens found out later about the green building standard and perhaps higher construction costs...would we have a whole host of blog entries/talk radio show rants/talk radio phone calls/letters to the editor from all around the Ozarks about it being "done in secret"? With the addition of your statement: "At least they're being open about it." Do you mean to imply they've done something special by being open about it? There shouldn't be anything "special" about the Council doing something in the open. Under the Sunshine Law they are very limited in what they can do "in secret." Certainly, when the City does a good job they should be commended however, the openness of government, by law a requirement, should not be viewed as something "special".
It is a welcome thing to ask for public input and a good START, but then, when looking back over the process later, after all is said and done, the real proof in the pudding is whether the City Council holds the staff and contracted employees accountable for actually considering that input, all of it, not just the part that supports what they want to accomplish. There's where public input counts. It isn't in the opportunity to have it, it isn't in the opportunity the City then has to hear it, it is in the opportunity the city has to utilize it when it is legitimate. The Council is supposed to be representative of the people who voted them into their positions
I've heard Mayor Pro Tem Deaver on more than one occasion say, "We can't please everyone" and that's true. They'll never please everyone BUT, that said, I don't recall ANY member of the public making a statement that they think Council's actions SHOULD please everyone. That makes that statement a straw man argument, because no one has ever indicated the people expect the Council to please everyone. So, why bring that up? Is that an appeasment meant to excuse the Council for making decisions that don't consider legitimate complaints from the public they are supposed to represent?
I suspect your question wasn't raised to be answered, it was raised to make a statement but if asked in question form you are protected from being questioned about your assumption. The fact is, we don't and can't know the answer to your question. This is why I suspect it was raised to raise suspicion about someone who expressed a legitimate concern about the Green Building Policy. That's my take on it because it certainly didn't address my concern about the policy or anything I actually wrote. What does your question have to do with my concern about the unnecessary and perhaps untimely taxpayer money and resources spent to bring this bill to Council?
It is personal toward Jason because it is in response to his comment on concerns I raised about the Green Building Policy. He asked:
"Well, a question...if they (Council) had just done it and citizens found out later about the green building standard and perhaps higher construction costs...would we have a whole host of blog entries/talk radio show rants/talk radio phone calls/letters to the editor from all around the Ozarks about it being "done in secret"?
At least they're being open about it."
My response:
Jason, certainly the City Council makes requests of staff all the time. When they, as a whole, make requests of staff it is usually done in an open forum, at least that's what the Sunshine Law requires and we assume it is so unless they cite state law which makes it legal for Council to meet in closed session. Generally, when the public perceives they haven't had an opportunity to weigh in on an issue it's because they weren't paying attention and LOST their opportunity, not that there wasn't an opportunity in the first place.
Then, that scenario brings rise to what I think is the deeper question.
Look at the Storage Container issue for an example, and honestly I haven't had a chance to look over the proposed ordinance closely yet, but I did attend the last storage container meeting before they drafted it. At that meeting the owner of "Pods" was there and he was concerned about the signage being restricted to 12" x 12" for very legitimate reasons. His signage is larger and it is EMBEDDED into the pods but the limitations of signage wasn't changed when the draft was released. So sometimes, it seems that regardless of public input and how legitimate it is the City makes decisions, after celebrating a whole host of public input sessions, that appear to disregard legitimate issues. It makes it appear to be almost a bait and switch, the City has public input, is able to pat themselves on the back for providing ample opportunity for it and then, BAM! The City disregards it and does what they want anyway.
Offering an opportunity for public input isn't enough. There has to be a genuine want to listen, consider and make changes that legitimately rise out of those input sessions.
Look at Park Central Square, lots of opportunity for public input but no real consideration of the fact that it is a Halprin design. Should it have been a part of the process for the City to acknowledge and educate the public about the renowned landscape architect who designed it? Well, I think so, because clearly, now we may have a legal problem brewing because the public didn't realize the value of a Halprin design until it was, in the City's mind, too late to incorporate it and stay within the timeline of the Heer's development agreement. That was poor planning, in my opinion. Now, it seems to be a ticking time bomb, an unnecessary ticking time bomb that if handled correctly from the beginning could likely have been defused months ago, when there was time to handle it. To further complicate things, Councilman Chiles, on the Vincent David Jericho program said he DID raise that question at one of the first public input meetings. Tim Rosenbury later told me that if he'd considered Halprin's design earlier, right after Ruth Kelley's letter hit the News-Leader, the consideration wouldn't have effected the timeline.
The question in this posting is, and was in the previous posting I made about the Green Building Policy: Is it necessary to pass a resolution in order to build green? The city's attorney said no, it isn't. I question taxpayer money and resources being spent unnecessarily for really, no other reason than to make a statement about "being a leader in sustainability." There's nothing wrong with being a leader in sustainability but taxpayer MONEY could have been "sustained" without passing an unnecessary resolution meant to do nothing but make a statement.
Your question about, "if they had just done it and citizens found out later about the green building standard and perhaps higher construction costs...would we have a whole host of blog entries/talk radio show rants/talk radio phone calls/letters to the editor from all around the Ozarks about it being "done in secret"? With the addition of your statement: "At least they're being open about it." Do you mean to imply they've done something special by being open about it? There shouldn't be anything "special" about the Council doing something in the open. Under the Sunshine Law they are very limited in what they can do "in secret." Certainly, when the City does a good job they should be commended however, the openness of government, by law a requirement, should not be viewed as something "special".
It is a welcome thing to ask for public input and a good START, but then, when looking back over the process later, after all is said and done, the real proof in the pudding is whether the City Council holds the staff and contracted employees accountable for actually considering that input, all of it, not just the part that supports what they want to accomplish. There's where public input counts. It isn't in the opportunity to have it, it isn't in the opportunity the City then has to hear it, it is in the opportunity the city has to utilize it when it is legitimate. The Council is supposed to be representative of the people who voted them into their positions
I've heard Mayor Pro Tem Deaver on more than one occasion say, "We can't please everyone" and that's true. They'll never please everyone BUT, that said, I don't recall ANY member of the public making a statement that they think Council's actions SHOULD please everyone. That makes that statement a straw man argument, because no one has ever indicated the people expect the Council to please everyone. So, why bring that up? Is that an appeasment meant to excuse the Council for making decisions that don't consider legitimate complaints from the public they are supposed to represent?
I suspect your question wasn't raised to be answered, it was raised to make a statement but if asked in question form you are protected from being questioned about your assumption. The fact is, we don't and can't know the answer to your question. This is why I suspect it was raised to raise suspicion about someone who expressed a legitimate concern about the Green Building Policy. That's my take on it because it certainly didn't address my concern about the policy or anything I actually wrote. What does your question have to do with my concern about the unnecessary and perhaps untimely taxpayer money and resources spent to bring this bill to Council?
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Opportunity for public comment
for what it's worth
The Ozarks Transportation Organization is inviting public comment regarding "amendments to the 2008-2011 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)."
Among the amendments:
For more information:
More from the news release:
So, for what it's worth, you can weigh in on the city's amendments. There's no guarantee of how seriously your comments will be taken but if you want to weigh in, now's the time to do it and if you don't, well, it's sorta like if you don't vote in an election, your right to complain doesn't go away but you probably ought to do more than that. Decisions aren't made in a vacuum, they don't just happen.
And, by the way, did you know anyone can sign up for news releases from the City? Just go here, look at the bottom of the yellow box on the right hand side of the web page, at the bottom of the yellow box is a link to subscribe via email to news releases from the city.
And, for the record, I'm not necessarily suggesting there is anything wrong with the city wanting "to re-appropriate those funds to other enhancement projects in the City of Springfield" by singling that amendment out but people wonder how these things happen. This is one of the ways these things happen.
*emphasis mine
The Ozarks Transportation Organization is inviting public comment regarding "amendments to the 2008-2011 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)."
Among the amendments:
"The City of Springfield is requesting TIP amendments for enhancement projects. The City of Springfield was awarded enhancement funds for the Jordan Valley Car Park and is now requesting to re-appropriate those funds to other enhancement projects in the City of Springfield."
For more information:
The comment period began yesterday, February 19 and continues through Thursday the 28th."The amendments will be available for review at Ozarks Transportation Organization, 840 Boonville Ave., 3rd Floor. Comments may be submitted* in writing to the Ozarks Transportation Organization, PO Box 8368, 840 Boonville, Springfield, MO 65801 or e-mail to sedwards@ozarkstransportation.org or fax to (417) 864-1881."
More from the news release:
"The MPO Board of Directors will review and possibly approve the amendments at its February 28, 2008 meeting to be held from noon to 1 p.m. in the fourth floor conference room of the Busch Municipal Building, 840 Boonville Ave. An opportunity for public comment will be available at this meeting*. After reviewing recommendations and public comment, the MPO Board of Directors will decide whether to formally adopt the amendments."
So, for what it's worth, you can weigh in on the city's amendments. There's no guarantee of how seriously your comments will be taken but if you want to weigh in, now's the time to do it and if you don't, well, it's sorta like if you don't vote in an election, your right to complain doesn't go away but you probably ought to do more than that. Decisions aren't made in a vacuum, they don't just happen.
And, by the way, did you know anyone can sign up for news releases from the City? Just go here, look at the bottom of the yellow box on the right hand side of the web page, at the bottom of the yellow box is a link to subscribe via email to news releases from the city.
And, for the record, I'm not necessarily suggesting there is anything wrong with the city wanting "to re-appropriate those funds to other enhancement projects in the City of Springfield" by singling that amendment out but people wonder how these things happen. This is one of the ways these things happen.
*emphasis mine
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Recommended Reading 4
There's a first time for everything.
I don't think I've ever recommended an Our Voice column from the News-Leader before, here are some excerpts:
I don't think I've ever recommended an Our Voice column from the News-Leader before, here are some excerpts:
"Today, the polls mean nothing....
Today is Super Tuesday. Missouri is among 22 states choosing nominees for president in Democratic and Republican primaries. If we believe the most recent pollsters, this is a state in which the Democrats are leaning to Obama and the Republicans are leaning toward John McCain over other GOP candidates Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.
But today, those polls mean nothing....
Today's is an important primary. It's a primary in which each party is redefining itself, state by state, vote by vote.
It's a primary in which voters, just by turning out, can send a message to politicians that we're paying attention and they better address the issues that matter to us.
It's a primary in which every vote counts.
So, ignore the polls, we say. Maybe they're right. Maybe they're not. Only you, the voter, can decide that.
Go to your polling place and make a difference today."
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Citizens have a responsibility
When Councilman John Wiley and Councilwoman Cindy Rushefsky hosted their Town Hall meeting toward the end of last year, Wiley said the turn out was better than it had been in years past. Wiley, who has hosted these events annually since he was elected as a City Council member, told me at a Council meeting shortly after the Town Hall meeting that there had been a good turn out the first year he held the meeting but that it had dwindled after that first year and has been slowly building in attendance ever since. Is attendance of about 50 a success? Wiley might say yes, since it's a lot better than an attendance of 6 or 10.
Wiley may not be a perfect Councilman (I haven't met one yet) but even though there have been some years he's been disappointed by the turn out at his annual meeting he has kept having it! He kept having it because he told the people who voted for him that he'd have an annual Town Hall meeting so, whether those voters take advantage of the opportunity or not Wiley has kept his word and whether you like John Wiley or think he is a good Councilman or not he should be commended for it.
Look again at the list of people that he made available to answer questions at the last Town Hall meeting! They didn't HAVE to be there, folks. There they were, on a week night, honoring Wiley and YOU by volunteering to show up to answer people's questions....look at the line up! Wiley was right to be appreciative that they took time out of their busy lives to be there for people in Zones 2 and 4 to question.
About 50 people took advantage of it. 50 people.
I'm sorry folks, all the complaining about a "good old boy network," about how our City's staff doesn't do a good job, well, there they were. You could have asked them anything. They could have answered or they could have waffled, regardless, it would have offered some insight into how our city's government works.
City Council members have a responsibility to represent their constituents. Do their constituents have a responsibility to let them know how they would like to be represented? Are they just supposed to know how their constituents feel about issues as they come up? Maybe they're supposed to listen to Vincent David Jericho of KSGF or read JackeHammer? Are they supposed to find out what their constituents are interested in by reading the News-Leader forums? Is the Missouri Liberty Coalition going to inform them for you? Maybe if you leave a comment at busplunge or write a letter to the editor of the Community Free Press they'll know how you want them to react? How you want to be represented?
They listen to that show, they read those papers and blogs, believe me, I know, but when you speak at City Council meetings, when you take time out of your life to show you are passionate enough to attend a meeting, that is when they take you seriously, that is when they are prepared to listen. I think it's safe to say anything less than getting involved in the formal process is considered as so much sour grapes by Council and city staff.
When Councilwoman Rushefsky told me that the 68 citizens who had applied to be a part of the City Manager Search Committee was a good amount of people I was surprised. Maybe I shouldn't have been surprised and I'm struggling not to be pessimistic. I'm struggling not to be frustrated over the lack of interest in the City Manager's Search Committee Town Hall meeting last night and I'm struggling that no one had any comment at the Council meeting last night about the City and C.U. unnecessarily donating $20,000 each for a Partnership for Sustainability, HELLO?
Vince summed it up well on his program this morning. The State Auditor was as strong in her opinion as she could be from her position when she said she believed C.U. was violating the state constitution by contributing to such alliances, by contributing to charitable organizations from profits that a public utility shouldn't be making in the first place. I guess it doesn't matter, or it matters but it only matters as an issue to be complained about after it is approved, not when complaining could make a difference in the actual outcome of a bill.
I can report what citizens say at City Council meetings. I can write glowing articles about how citizens made a difference in city government but first they have to make a difference or there simply isn't anything to report.
"Present to answer questions were City Manager Bob Cumley, Police Chief Lynn Rowe, Traffic Engineer Earl Newman, Parks Director Jodie Adams, Economic Development Director Mary Lilly Smith, City Utilities Associate General Manager Scott Miller, and Public Information Director Louise Whall." ~ Community Free Press - Midweek Dec.19-Jan. 1, 2008.
Wiley may not be a perfect Councilman (I haven't met one yet) but even though there have been some years he's been disappointed by the turn out at his annual meeting he has kept having it! He kept having it because he told the people who voted for him that he'd have an annual Town Hall meeting so, whether those voters take advantage of the opportunity or not Wiley has kept his word and whether you like John Wiley or think he is a good Councilman or not he should be commended for it.
Look again at the list of people that he made available to answer questions at the last Town Hall meeting! They didn't HAVE to be there, folks. There they were, on a week night, honoring Wiley and YOU by volunteering to show up to answer people's questions....look at the line up! Wiley was right to be appreciative that they took time out of their busy lives to be there for people in Zones 2 and 4 to question.
About 50 people took advantage of it. 50 people.
I'm sorry folks, all the complaining about a "good old boy network," about how our City's staff doesn't do a good job, well, there they were. You could have asked them anything. They could have answered or they could have waffled, regardless, it would have offered some insight into how our city's government works.
City Council members have a responsibility to represent their constituents. Do their constituents have a responsibility to let them know how they would like to be represented? Are they just supposed to know how their constituents feel about issues as they come up? Maybe they're supposed to listen to Vincent David Jericho of KSGF or read JackeHammer? Are they supposed to find out what their constituents are interested in by reading the News-Leader forums? Is the Missouri Liberty Coalition going to inform them for you? Maybe if you leave a comment at busplunge or write a letter to the editor of the Community Free Press they'll know how you want them to react? How you want to be represented?
They listen to that show, they read those papers and blogs, believe me, I know, but when you speak at City Council meetings, when you take time out of your life to show you are passionate enough to attend a meeting, that is when they take you seriously, that is when they are prepared to listen. I think it's safe to say anything less than getting involved in the formal process is considered as so much sour grapes by Council and city staff.
When Councilwoman Rushefsky told me that the 68 citizens who had applied to be a part of the City Manager Search Committee was a good amount of people I was surprised. Maybe I shouldn't have been surprised and I'm struggling not to be pessimistic. I'm struggling not to be frustrated over the lack of interest in the City Manager's Search Committee Town Hall meeting last night and I'm struggling that no one had any comment at the Council meeting last night about the City and C.U. unnecessarily donating $20,000 each for a Partnership for Sustainability, HELLO?
Vince summed it up well on his program this morning. The State Auditor was as strong in her opinion as she could be from her position when she said she believed C.U. was violating the state constitution by contributing to such alliances, by contributing to charitable organizations from profits that a public utility shouldn't be making in the first place. I guess it doesn't matter, or it matters but it only matters as an issue to be complained about after it is approved, not when complaining could make a difference in the actual outcome of a bill.
I can report what citizens say at City Council meetings. I can write glowing articles about how citizens made a difference in city government but first they have to make a difference or there simply isn't anything to report.
“I don’t think most people understand how much influence they have on what government does,” Rushefsky said. “It carries a major impact and actually relieves a lot of the burden of governing because, as an elected official, you want to be responsive to their needs.” ~ CFP Midweek - December 19 issue, Citizens Helped Change City in 2007
Monday, December 31, 2007
MO Liberty Coalition to meet Saturday, January 5, 2008
Members of Springfield's local Libertarian party are the willing catalysts for a non-partisan citizen's group that you are invited to attend. Springfield's Libertarian party worked diligently to see the State audit of the City of Springfield, including the audit of City Utilities.
Originally, the Chief Petitioner of the petition drive to get the City audited was Doug Burlison, now City Councilman Burlison. Burlison passed that baton to Tom Martz after winning his Council seat in April of 2007.
The group, again, a non-partisan group, has been tentatively named "Missouri Liberty Coalition," the name is subject to change.
The first meeting of the MO Liberty Coalition will take place this Saturday, January 5, at the Kansas Expressway Library Station from 2:00 - 5:00 p.m. They will meet in the Frisco Room and everyone is invited to attend.
I believe this could be a very interesting meeting and a very interesting "coalition." I plan to attend and observe at least a part of the meeting on Saturday.
Originally, the Chief Petitioner of the petition drive to get the City audited was Doug Burlison, now City Councilman Burlison. Burlison passed that baton to Tom Martz after winning his Council seat in April of 2007.
The group, again, a non-partisan group, has been tentatively named "Missouri Liberty Coalition," the name is subject to change.
The first meeting of the MO Liberty Coalition will take place this Saturday, January 5, at the Kansas Expressway Library Station from 2:00 - 5:00 p.m. They will meet in the Frisco Room and everyone is invited to attend.
"It's just people who are concerned with where government is going, how our tax dollars are being spent and how we're being represented, not only on City Council but also when the various department heads seem to turn a blind eye to the people here within the city." ~ Tom Martz on KSGF's Vincent David Jericho Program this morning.
I believe this could be a very interesting meeting and a very interesting "coalition." I plan to attend and observe at least a part of the meeting on Saturday.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Mark Twain on irreverence
"Irreverence is the champion of liberty and its one sure defense." ~ Mark Twain
Some people today, after sitting through a contentious and some might even say "bawdy" City Council meeting last night, are going to suggest that citizens were wrong in calling out from the crowd and not following guidelines of mannerly decorum at the hallowed halls of City Council Chambers.
Considering that according to Councilman Ralph Manley the sheer presence of citizens coming to a Council meeting last night was "disrespectful" of the Council, I thought this might be a good time to share a few quotes from a master of irreverence...Mark Twain:
"...when you are in politics you are in a wasp’s nest with a short shirt-tail..."
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."
"In my experience, only third-rate intelligence is sent to Legislatures to make laws, because the first-rate article will not leave important private interests go unwatched to go and serve the public."
"No one's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session."
"Wherefore being all of one mind, we do highly resolve that government of the grafted by the grafter for the grafter shall not perish from the earth."
"Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it."
"The public is the only critic whose opinion is worth anything at all."
...and oops, one last quote, apply where needed:
"Good breeding consists in concealing how much we think of ourselves and how little we think of the other person."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
