I have had several questions regarding the accuracy of the City website’s listing of Council people’s phone numbers…. From what I know the numbers listed are correct. You’ll just have to leave a message if they are not answering. Maybe some of them have plans that turn on the anonymous automated voice greeting if they receive too many calls. Also, I am not comfortable disclosing the unlisted home phone numbers (for those that are unlisted).
….the article in Sunday’s Telegram struck a nerve with the voters or the Pro Selfers?
….phone calls can make a difference? Notice Mayor Pro-Tem’s comments in the article referenced above.
….supporters of the status quo will come up with all kinds of reasons why the voters should not be allowed to vote on this “silly” Charter amendment?
….that any sensible person really believes that a prohibition against elected officials doing business with the City will eliminate qualified people from running for office? I mean really! We live in a city of 60,000+ people - surely there must be one or two people that could run for office. FYI, only five elected officials have done business with the City since the ban was lifted 20 years ago. Three of the five are currently on the Council; the Mayor (quarry and steel), Councilman Schneider (dirt pushing and road paving) and yours truly (design services). How did we survive all those years pre-1989?
….that saving the City a couple hundred grand is really the issue here? If it is really about what’s good for the City why not resign from the Council and remove the entire conflict of interest cloud from our midst? You know - that, “it may not look good but it’s legal”, grey mass that casts a long and dark shadow on the credibility of the Council.
….that practical politics consists of ignoring facts?
….the two members of the Council actually doing business with the City will vote no on the proposed Charter amendment thus depriving the citizens from having a say on this issue?
….that the “voters will approve anything”?
….that those that vote no will rationalize away their vote by stating that “if the public really had a problem with this, then they would’ve done a petition drive”?
We’ll have the answers to these questions soon enough.
A few houses up the street from house from yesterday is giveing away a easy chair if you know anybody looking for one.
The trash in the picture below has been waiting to be picked up for close to three weeks. The house in the picture is on North 3rd – the main corridor from the industrial park, I-35, CAC and the Mayborn Center into downtown area. I am fairly confident that this mess appeared on or before September 2. I know for a fact it was there on the 3rd – this was when I made my first note about it. The bulk pick up day for this house was supposed to be on September 8th. This Tuesday, September 22, is the next pick up day. According to the plan approved by the Council (4 of the 5 members) the maximum amount of time garbage is supposed to sit in a front yard is nine days. So what happened here? I know, I know…. I could’ve called it in myself and gotten it picked up a long ago. But I was curious how long it would sit. Is this really the kind of curb appeal we want to be known for?
Yesterday was a good day! The article in the Telegram was well done and I got stopped by folks everywhere I went. When you combine that with the calls and emails I got it was a good day indeed. BTW, there are a whole lot more people that read the newspaper than one would think in these days of the Internet.
For those of you that want to communicate with me via email my address is tony@tonyjeter.com
My cell phone is 541-1110.
I have had several people question me on one of the revisions I made to my proposed Charter amendment. They were wondering why I deleted “appointive officer” from the draft. It’s pretty simple really - I don’t think it is wise to exclude people that do business with the City from serving on our City boards. While it is no secret that I think our appointment process is somewhat flawed I don’t think this prohibition should be added to that mix. In truth it is up to the Council to vet its appointments and work diligently to choose the right people for the right boards. In the instances that there is a conflict of interest on one of these boards the party(s) involved will just follow the rules as stated in our Charter. So is this a double standard? I think not. When it comes to conflicts of interest I believe that elected officials should be held (or hold themselves) to a much higher standard than our City board volunteers.
