I find this deeply disturbing.
If we can't trust our own government to administer the laws impartially, fairly and without prejudice against the people, we no longer have, as John Adams famously put it,"a government of laws and not of men".
Instead, we have an arbitrary, capricious tyranny. Abraham Lincoln's famous hope for "government of the people, by the people, for the people" becomes instead 'government of, by and at the whim of biased bureaucrats'.
In less than a month our city will have a new sitting council.
A council not of the "good ole boys club", but of people without the strong family and friends, which kept that club in power over the decades.
All we need do is look around at how the elitist groups before whom ran our city did.
Yet this past election showed them all that our government is of the people, by the people and for the people.
Yet those before have left a mess for the new to clean up.
The difference between what was and is now is simple.
Those whom used the power of government against us are gone.
We do not have the fear of being targeted by government any longer for speaking out.
We have informed our government that we the people are the government here.
Yet being the government is more than just electing people to run our city.
It is also being involved and making your voices heard.
We all know the problems we face so who better to fix them than the people?
This post is for the people.
Lets use this medium to target the problems and work towards solutions.
So I ask you to point out the problems.
If you have more than one, then do each one separately.
Then give your suggestion of how this problem could be resolved.
I would hate for everything this election changed, to not address what happened, leading to how we got here, only to stay the same.
Cody
31 comments:
It seems our biggest problem is soon to be out the door.
That being our city administrator.
I find it curious as to why he would do this now.
Could it be he knew this new council could see past his BS?
P.W.D.
IMHO the charter needs to be changed to incorporate the municipal electric department and clarify fees and charges that can be used for city administration, the process for rate adjustments, the handling of rebates from BPA, etc.
The time has come to remove both the City Administrator and the Contract Planner for failing to uphold state and local laws.
Once the CA is removed we need a thorough financial audit.
I agree with Gary, the charter is the logical place to start. Let the people redefine / reaffirm what they want their government to be/do.
I think everyone needs talk to your council people and attend this final meeting. Rumors of one final push to pass as many pet projects as possible are surfacing. The three lame ducks might not care if you agree or not, but it takes 4 votes to pass anything.
Anyone who supports this type of nonsense obviously doesn't have any regard for the voice of the voters. If the community supported BL and KO('d)s agenda, they would still have their seats on the council.
Evaluate performance objectively,
make changes accordingly.
P.W.D. and Gary
After inquiring it appears that our City Administrator, according to the rumor mill, may be leaving.
As this is just a rumor at this point, even the rumor is not positive as it depends on him making the final cut.
Regardless it is apparent that if this rumor is correct our City Administrator is floating his resume.
I would believe that this brings forth enough cause for council to ask him directly and make a public statement.
In my mind if this is true, it would appear our City Administrator would prefer to work elsewhere and we should ablidge him.
After all his floating that resume makes us second best and in no way, do I want my City to be treated as second best to any other City.
Who's to know how many other resumes he has sent out and it is only a matter of time, before he gets his wish and gets out of here.
Cody
Gary
Your humble opinion is correct.
Once again you struck at the heart of the problem.
Yes the charter needs to specifically state what not only this utility can and cannot do but all other utilities as well.
As far as incorporating I feel that is a problem as incorporating means to merge or combine.
I feel we need to segregate each utility and base the rates on the cost of doing that specific business alone.
If you have a reason to incorporate other utilities with our electrical utility please explain as maybe you have a good reason I may not fully understand.
As the people are the only bodies whom can change a city charter, under the constitution, this is a good starting point.
Let's take the electrical utility to begin with.
Lets start at the beginning.
Then we can work out the details you mentioned as we go.
Let's discus it here and get it on paper so we have something to work with.
Lets determine what the purpose of this utility is to begin with.
Lets not overlook the fact that our very charter, does not have the legally required information in our charter, to be a municipal electric company.
I will do a new post on this in the next couple of days.
This post will be concerning, what we the people want with our electrical utility.
So all those whom read this think about these 2 issues.
1-What is the purpose of our electrical utility?
2-Who should we state as the officer of that utility in our City Charter?
Remember that as this goes along that we must consider two sides.
What is in the best interest of the City and the consumers of this utility.
Cody
Gary
I understand the reasons for removal of these officers.
In knowing the how's and why's of these actions I also must consider another player in all of this.
Our City Attorneys.
It is my opinion that our City Attorney's are retained by the City to protect the City.
Not to protect workers of the City.
I feel that these City Attorneys had a lack of knowledge of the law to have allowed these matters to have gone before council to begin with, without objection, much less reach the court of law.
All I see in our City Attorneys is they are looking for loop holes in the law,for employees, not in the best interest of the City, which have cost this City financially, all the while increasing their income from these lost court challenges.
I hope this new council realizes this and puts some rules that our City Attorneys must follow and that our City Attorneys will step up to the plate and object to questionably legal actions which did not occur previously.
Cody
Cody
I agree with your assessment of the attorneys.
As to the incorporating of the electric department: I used the wrong term. I meant to say that their purpose, authority and management policies need to spelled out in the charter.
Gary
Be it our City Administrator is or is not here after January 30th or not we need an audit.
We need to determine the financial health of our City regardless.
With all these internal transfers of funds along with budgeting of funds, that has been happening without an ordinance or resolution to authorize them, we need to know what effects this has done to to all other funds.
We need to separate the funds and determine them on their own accounting.
Then we need to see where we stand as a City.
Because as it is this City must change the way it has been doing business.
This City knows this after the last election.
This City knows this with the mood of the people.
This City knows this with the lost legal challenges.
The City knows this after all the legal complaints.
This City knows the State and other legal officials are watching, yet they do not know just who really is, but they know something is up.
So yes Gary we need an audit as we need transparency in our financial well being.
Besides the people have a right to know.
Cody
Anonymous Dec. 7, 2010 7:28 P.M.
Oh you are so right that the people need to define and affirm what we want our government to do.
Yes Gary was right that the Charter is where to start.
I myself expected something would occur in this final meeting this month.
Especially after the way that the electrical resolution failed at the last meeting.
I would expect that the lame ducks would want to do something to get back for that.
Yet that would only cut off their noses to spite their faces.
It would seem to me that this council would want to pay the bills and get out of there.
To add any more controversy to their record would only cause irreparable harm at this time.
If I were any of these councilors, I would insure that this meeting dealt with the rate study and setting of the rates, as that is a legal requirement, which must be done before January 1st.
Being a legal requirement it does not matter if they are not in office after January 1st, that requirement has to be upheld.
To do otherwise is a crime against the State.
Lame duck or not every member of this council has a duty to uphold this law.
I myself do not see how this council is going to fulfill this legal obligation in one meeting.
I can foresee blame being placed for not having this on the agenda before now.
But tearing up the books and setting the rates in accordance to the law, in one meeting will be a miracle, if it is even mentioned by this council.
I guess the next council packet, will determine the fate of those in office at this time.
As I already said if this is not done in accordance to the law, I will be meeting with the sheriff and district attorney and the attorney general is, on my complaint, already aware of this matter, in advance.
So we need not concern ourselves in my opinion with these lame ducks.
We need to concern ourselves with the one of the four whom has two more years.
We need to see if this person learned anything by this last election or not.
Then we need to give this new council time to get a feel of the process and see where each of them stand on the issues.
Remember anything this council does this new council can repeal.
Cody
Anonymous Dec. 7, 2010 7:32 P.M.
Your absolutely right.
Cody
Gary
I am glad to hear that.
That definition is exactly what our charter needs to spell out.
So well stated.
Then that general grant of power these attorneys keep referring to, to violate the law or the will of the people, is non existance.
Then these attorney's must first consider, the powers the people granted the city to have.
We then take it from this so called general powers, to specific powers specified in our city charter.
Then and only then will it be for the people, of the people and by the people.
Cody
If any of the newly elected councilors or the new mayor have emails.
Would you please contact me at codysteelman@embarqmail.com
Or call me at 541-490-9273
You need to be caught up on some issues, which you will be facing soon after you take office and I would like to go over them with you to catch you up.
Cody
Cody,
The audit should not be conducted until the present CA is gone for the simple reason that he can't be trusted to not alter incriminating evidence.
Regardless of whether or not he gets another job, he should be removed by January 31st for violating election laws, and for doing so against the written advice of the attorney.
Has anyone heard an apology from him or a least a statement as to why he decided to not heed the attorney's advice?
The city attorney is a city official who works for and at the will of the city council. He doesn't represent the workers, the citizens, the administrator, or anyone else.
On an audit, I think it would be a good idea, even if it only establishes a "reset" point for future operations and eliminates the "It wasn't me" excuse.
I don't think a financial audit goes far enough though. I believe we need a complete operational examination. It could be expensive, but not nearly expensive as not doing it.
Imagine the outrage if someone stole $50,000 from the city. There would be investigations, new safeguards established, much finger pointing, and complaints about what could have been accomplished with that money.
Now imagine the city employing just 1 position they could operate without through good management practices. Doesn't this have the same impact as having money stolen? This consumes the same amount of money, but it continues year after year.
Suppose it would cost $50,000 to have this type of examination done. With a 1 year payback would it be worth the investment, or would we be better off claiming poverty?
Gary
Concerning the audit. Point well taken.
Concerning removal from office. I fully understand and agree yet I have reservations.
My reservations are based on the fact that although the Secretary of State determined our City Administrator violated elections law, The Secretary of State waived any penalties "due to a review by the legal council of the City of Cascade Locks prior to publication of the newsletter."
That very action split the blame between our City Administrator and our legal council.
I do however beleive that this matter should be raised before the new council, as his floating his resume after this, puts the city on notice and we need to protect ourselves and prepare to fill that position, should we choose to, or abolish it. So now we are not left with the he said I could argument alone. His floating that resume let us know he wants to leave as well.
As far as the apology I myself heard council mention it to him, yet he remained silent to the facts.
For him not to expect the public to deserve an apology over this would be like me not expecting the Ducks to play in the national championship game.
Where the Ducks will fly to the national championship game, his silence on this matter will ground him.
I also believe our legal council owes us an explanation as to why this happened, as the Secretary of State placed blame on them as well, for this happening.
Then if legal council made a mistake in judgment them maybe they owe us an apology as well?
Or maybe they should be replaced?
Cody
Cody,
In the last email from the attorney Jordan advised Seeger to include in his article a paragraph in which the benefits of passing the initiatives should be spelled out.
So the attorney did do his job in this case, but Seeger chose not to include the pro paragraph.
Why the state did not pick on this point is a question that begs to be answered.
Sloppy work?
Refer to page 5 of the complaint PDF and you will see that the state determined that the articles by Seeger "....did constitute advocacy in support of Ballot Measures 14-32 and 14-33."
Actually Seeger's articles advocated against both measures.
Again, sloppy work?
Is the complaint and finding information available on the web?
Is the email referred to part of the finding?
Is anyone who has bothered to watch even one council meeting surprised?
Anonymous, December 8, 2010 2:07
That's how it is supposed to work.
I suggest you request the attorney opinion concerning using electrical funds to pay for the fire hall.
When you read this answer me this.
Does it look to you like he is working for the best interest of the City or an agenda for someone?
I also have many videos which I could post which to me conflict with what you wrote here.
It was not until Councilmember Pruitt called out our legal representation, on this very subject.
Told him he worked for the City, not City employees and read him the rules of conduct for attorneys.
Just get that document I mentioned and then come back and if that is not enough, as I said I have video on line already and will give you the link.
If you cannot get that document ask and I will put it on line for you.
Cody
Anonymous, December 8, 2010 2:38 PM
I see your point about a reset point and yes this new council needs that new beginning, as well as to see where the financial health of our City is at presently.
But I also believe this City is owed and deserves, for those who abused their powers we placed in them, if there was any wrong doings on their parts.
I think those responsible under the law should be forced to pay this city back from their own earnings.
But that is what I think.
Yes I would imagine it would be expensive, but think how expensive it would be, should something hidden in the closet come out and bite us in the butt?
As far as imagine the outrage this City would have.
Think about what happens if your late paying your utility bills here.
This City now jumps the gun in confliction with State law and shuts consumers off.
Or be a business owner in the downtown zone and try to improve the apearance of your business with out paying $800.00. Going through the red tape only to learn that your business must look like the City wants it to look.
We don't have to imagine as we live it now.
I am glad you mentioned good management practices.
Now without having hands on time at City Hall I cannot comment but yes the reference you make is with merit and yes this matters as well.
We need to remember that the success or failure of any business comes down to the management.
Cities are a business and they can go bankrupt just the same.
Whatever it costs this independent audit needs to be done.
We all need to know where we stand so decisions can be made to start anew.
Look around at our City and tell me how much more poverty can we claim here.
When a City, which is in one of the natural wonders of the world, which the City cannot create cost of living jobs alone, means to me, something is wrong.
Start in the downtown zone and what do you see?
Poverty.
Just start with the roads and go from there.
Cody
Gary
I read all this as well.
Now to begin with we do not know what the drafts referred to in these emails were.
All we see in the record is the final document that was released by the City.
It is also apparent that on both of these ballot measures these emails were just a brief to our City Administrator.
Notice the ending from our City Attorney.
I will call you later.
So there again we do not know what happened in those talks as no notes were submitted into evidence.
Yet I do see why blame was placed on the attorney in this matter.
All I need do is read the Carla Corbin, Investigators report.
This investigator did what the our City Attorney should have done.
She tore that newsletter apart, just how our City Attorney should have, before it was released.
So in my mind that 7 pages of that report, far outweighed what the City introduced into evidence.
Yet your points are relevant concerning our City Administrator. He did not make the changes the Attorney suggested.
Now the City Attorney could come back after the fact and tell us what was said in those phone calls or release unknown documentation to clear his name.
As it is apparent our City Administrator submitted all evidence and our City Attorney submitted nothing on behalf of him.
So there could be more here than we have seen to date.
But from the record the City Administrator violated elections law and our City Attorney it appears did not fully do his job.
That's what I read of this.
I not only agree with you that it was sloppy work, but if you read our City Administrators response letter he knew what the law was and he did it anyway.
That to me constituted a willful violation of the law.
Now that I understand this entire matter I have seen the light!
Sandra had every right to file this complaint as it was more than just being allowed to publically speak on the issue, which I was led to believe.
Shows just how wrong I was on this issue to begin with doesn't it?
Good job Sandra!
Cody
Anonymous, December 8, 2010 10:56 PM
As this is a document over 50 pages it would be far more than this blog would allow.
So I searched for on line storage and found a free site to give you access to this document.
When you open the link chose the free option.
It will make you wait for about a minute.
Then enter the security clue and download the document.
Here is the link.
http://rapidshare.com/files/435832013/08-4774_Intent_to_Impose_with_exhibits.pdf
So now it is on line to all whom have not read it yet.
All documentation and evidence are in this pdf document.
Enjoy!!!
Surprised? I passed that decades ago!
I am stuck on gobsmaked now!
Cody
From the recently released minutes:
"AC Price said that most of the people that are on the tag list are people that appear on the list are there all the time. She said that if someone is on the disconnection list that isn't normally there a phone call is made."
Why do we treat some of our citizens different than others? Does anyone else find this automatic prejudice by an employee outrageous?
Gary and Cody,
I believe your insights are all correct with one major omission: all of the e-mail correspondence between BS and the attorney dealt with a STAFF report not for a mass publication. It was Bernard who took it upon himself to apply his interpretation of the attorneys advice and go ahead with a mailing. This complaint sat on somebody's desk for two years! The investigation was done almost immediately. Somebody dropped the ball and then carelessly finished this complaint. I got what I wanted when the HR News put Bernard on the front page before the election, hopefully this undid some of the damage done by Bernard's illegal actions. Thank you for your acknowledgment Cody.
Wren
Open this link and go to
OAR 860-021-0405
Notice of Pending Disconnection of Residential Electric or Gas Utility Service
http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARS_800/OAR_860/860_021.html
This is statutory authority which utilities must obide by.
So after reading this law can you see just how correct your assessment of your comment is?
I have asked the City what statutory authority they base their ordinances on yet have not gotten an answer.
If you truly want to understand the fight I am in with this City all one needs to do is contact Kathy Woosley and request my December 10, 2010, complaint to council on this very issue.
It is in her email box at this time.
It cover this issue, as well as many other issues, I question the City about.
Cody
Sandra
Thank you for telling me about the staff report.
I think you could tell that I knew, that what the emails referred to where something else.
As the references in the attorneys email did not match the news letter.
Right then I knew that the final document was not was going back and forth between Administrator and Legal Council.
That is why I based my final judgment as I did to Gary.
I could not base my decision on those emails realizing this.
So maybe legal council did not make a mistake and Gary is correct.
Yet unless someone speaks out how will the public ever know?
I am glad you feel you got some justice with the Hood River News as the State fining Bernard a cheesy $75.00 and waiving the fine was a slap in the face in my mind.
As far as the acknowledgement you earned it.
All I can say is, way to go girl.
Cody
Yes, it is a cheesy $75.00. But this now on his record forever, and that's the part that hurts him and his career.
Anonymous December 10, 2010 12:18 PM
Yes it is on his record and rightfully so.
But an election law violation is a fraud against the people.
My point is for $75.00 government can commit a fraud against the people if they get caught.
But what happens to the people when they fraud government?
People whom jay walk and get caught pay more than that.
I just think the scales of justice are a little out of balance here.
All this shows me is that crime does pay if you work for the government.
Cody
Post a Comment