 |
Business Directory |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coupons |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Classifieds |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| | Author | Messages | |
chessman
Posts:244
 | | 03/12/2008 8:03 PM |
 Alert | I'm asking this as a serious question. I won't attack you for an honest answer. For those of you who voted for Will Dunn - Why? What is it that you like about him as councilman that would win your vote? For that matter, I'll ask the same for Kelly Haddad. | |
This message was composed entirely of 100% recycled electrons; minimum 35% post-consumer content. | |
| | globalgirl
Posts:11
| | 03/12/2008 10:05 PM |
Alert | Hi Chessman. Here is why I voted for both Will Dunn and Kelly Haddad and will again do so in the general election.
I have been attending city council meetings now for the last two years and have done so in other places that I have lived as well. Dunn and Haddad, incidentally, are quite different individuals and don't necessarily think, or vote alike. Actually, that is one of the things that I like in them, and want on a city council - a diversity of thought. I don't think having everyone with the same agenda is necessarily in the best interest of the city - any city. It seems that "some" of the people who are trying to get 3 new members are trying to do so to influence the council's agenda and decisions - and it is pretty clear from the backing that many of the new candidates have from other council members that are not up for re-election that part of the strategy is to "control" future outcomes of decisions. While this may "seem" like a good idea and a way to get things "done", I have to disagree and I would think that most people should be concerned that the agenda may not actually be what is in the best interest of the city, but could in fact be "more of the same" in terms of what has already been accused of this present council in corruption and self-serving interests. Now, I realize that the other side of the coin could very much mean that this is a good idea. But, in general, it has been my experience that any time you have the game of politics being played to the level that people are trying to control the seats and thereby the future decisions, it is never in the best interest of the people. Having people who disagree with each other on council is a good thing - even if it means that it takes a little longer to get to an agreement or decision. At least it means that the elected officials are thinking about the outcomes and trying to make informed decisions.
I realize that we have a lot of issues in Maricopa - any growing community will have these kinds of issues and the solutions are often time consuming, difficult and painful. But when the people complain, as they always will (heck I complain too), and the answer always is to change the people, it often doesn't change anything at all - especially when we are dealing with the reality that we face. Make no mistake, the "new" candidates who are running, as well as those who are not up for re-election who are backing some of those candidates, are playing on the theme that works - that everyone is unhappy and wants change and they will be the answer to the problems. Honestly, each person on council gets one vote. It takes a majority - 4 votes - for anything to pass. The more things change, the more they stay the same - unless they are being played as puppets and frankly, I hope that wouldn't be the case but I do have some honest concerns based on the serious support that existing council members are throwing at "new" candidates - I don't see that as being in the best interest of Maricopa.
Let me be clear. I don't have any close friendships with Dunn or Haddad or anyone else on council or in the city. I have met them all as I frequently attend city meetings and have often expressed my opinions to all of them and have found everyone on council to be very open to what the people are concerned with, ideas and suggestions. But I have no "ties" to any of them on any real level. I am simply an informed, and I believe relatively intelligent, person who has been watching things for a while now. We have major issues in Maricopa with no easy answers - regardless of who is on council - and unfortunately, the pain will continue for a while regardless of who is elected.
I don't always agree with the decisions/votes that Dunn or Haddad have made. But that is the nature of a council - they will never please all of the people all of the time no matter what they vote. I want to know that my council members are being thoughtful and are making the decisions that they truly feel, in their heart are in the best interest of Maricopa. Having watched both of these men in the past two years, even when I have disagreed with their votes, I can honestly say that they have weighed their decisions carefully. While it seems almost everyone on council has been hit with some sort of allegations of conflict of interest or whatever, that is common in a small city and a growing city. Heck, there have already been allegations towards Tony Smith because of where he goes to church before he was ever even elected. I am kind of tired of all the nonsense talk. Again, each person only has one vote so it is difficult to sway the decision with that and typically, if there is a conflict or a perceived one, they will recuse themselves. Guess what? It is likely to happen again at some point in the future. It doesn't make these people bad people - it is the nature of a small community and I think we all need to stop being so nit-picky and scrutinizing every little thing that often is so irrelevant to the bigger picture.
I have witnessed, frequently, Dunn asking a LOT of questions at council meetings. He wants to always make sure he has all the facts before he votes on things. He would rather ask for additional information if in doubt, and delay the vote, than vote for something he feels ill-informed about. I like that. I want informed voting - not rash decision making. Dunn has worked very hard on a lot of issues in the city and is very involved in wanting to make Maricopa a great place to live - and work. He is very passionate about the people who are here. Many people don't know that he and his wife are heavily involved in charitable work here in the city - they don't toot that horn - they see the need and they address it and they don't want fanfare - they truly care about the people. He has a lot of passion and concern for this city and honestly, I was of the same mind as everyone else when I first got involved here - I thought he was a good ole boy and looking out for his own interests etc....but seriously, having watched him over the past two years, my critical view of him changed and he has really proven himself to me to be very serious about this city.
Kelly Haddad is not a good ole boy - he hasn't lived in Maricopa all of his life. But let me tell you, of all of the people on that council, he is one person I have NEVER doubted for even a second had his head on straight and was there for the right reasons. He takes his role on that council incredibly seriously. I have mentioned it before but I really saw it during the Peed property debate. Haddad came into the council meeting with bloodshot eyes and said he hadn't slept in days laboring over that decision. He took it that seriously!!!! Really, I think he spent more time researching and thinking over that than probably anyone else on council. He wanted to make sure that when he voted, he was voting in the best interest of the people. Isn't that what we want in a council member? Again, having watched him over the past 2 years, I have never once doubted his sincerity or passion for this city and in making the right choices.
I think that it is really easy to blame council when we are all stuck in traffic every day, when there are no jobs here, when businesses keep going out of business etc......and to some degree, they do have some responsibility for these issues. But, the fact of the matter is that 347, that we all moan and complain about, is out of the city's jurisdiction. Sure, they can try to work with the state and the tribal community but the answers are not going to come easy or quickly. Haddad for example has done extensive research on public-private partnerships as a solution to more quickly bring in the needed money to get the roads we need. I only know this because I was writing a paper for one of my classes on the subject and I asked all of the council members for any insight. Haddad gave me a wealth of information and contacts at ADOT. Guess what - the state of Arizona does not allow public-private partnerships to be used for road infrastructure (with some exceptions for approved pilot programs). But the reality is that these council members have done work to try and find solutions for US and yet nobody knows all of that or gives them any credit - we just blame them for what the problems are and no solutions yet. Really, if you put 3 new people on council, plus a new mayor, how does that solve these monumental tasks any quicker? The state laws are still there and none of these new people have done any of the leg work that our current members have. So, if we replace them, all that work is basically lost and we go through a whole new learning curve for a while which actually will slow things down, not speed things up. Dunn has worked hard on trying to help with old-town revitalization and attracting business here as well. The reality is that there is a lot of work to do and it isn't going to happen overnight. I have great respect for the work that they have done and have tried to do and I don't see anyone "new" doing any better. I guess my questions to the other "new" candidates would be for some serious "solutions" to be put forth in their campaigns for how they would address the problems. But you see, what we hear from them is not what they will do or how but a re-iteration of the problems, that we all already know, and that they feel that they are important to find solutions too. Great. But they don't have the answers either. And magically winning the election and becoming a council member doesn't give you a crystal ball with the answers suddenly. What I am saying is that these two men have worked tirelessly for this city and while we have issues here, they really have worked hard, as has the council in general, to try and find solutions and bring in business and truly, I don't think new people will do it better - and what if they do worse???
At the end of the day, what I want on council are people that are devoted to this city and in helping it grow and develop and in solving our growing pain problems - even if that takes a little longer than we would all like. And I want to know that the people on council are really taking the decisions to heart and not playing politics. Really, I have that confidence in Dunn and Haddad and I think that having debate over the issues on council is healthy and leads to better decisions for the city in the long-run rather than having everyone who thinks "alike" because they were "chosen" by and supported by, the other council members.
I hope I answered your question- and I want to be clear that I have nothing against anyone who is running for office here. Really, I am just a citizen and voter like the rest of Maricopa but in my view, I believe strongly that Dunn and Haddad are assets to the council and I think losing them would not be in Maricopa's best interest.
| | | |
|
| | chessman
Posts:244
| | 03/13/2008 5:57 AM |
Alert | | Thanks for taking time to answer globalgirl. ANybody else? | |
This message was composed entirely of 100% recycled electrons; minimum 35% post-consumer content. | |
|
| | crazyforcopa
Posts:0
| | 03/13/2008 9:30 AM |
Alert | I read in the Maricopa Monitor and have heard from several sources that Haddad rarely picks up his council packet before council meetings. That concerns me. How can you be prepared if you haven't studied your council packet to have the information to make smart decisions?
Also, how can you get a feel from the public on issues, prior to the meeting, if you haven't studied your packet?
Also, we don't hear much from Haddad at city council meetings. He rarely talks. I'd like more discussion on topics between the council members. Particularly, the hot issues! True, there are concensous topics that are passed easily. But the hot topics should be discussed more. We should know why a council member is voting the way they are, not simply 'yes' or 'no'. | | | |
|
| | globalgirl
Posts:11
| | 03/13/2008 9:52 AM |
Alert | I have never heard, myself, that Haddad doesn't pick up his packet and frankly, from what I know about him and have seen from him, I find it hard to believe. But I agree with your assessment that it is important for council members to pick up their packets and review the material prior to a meeting to make informed decisions.
A lot of the council members are "quiet". Dunn does a lot of the talking and question asking. But I have heard Kelly Haddad ask important questions on important topics - clarification and the "why should I vote for this" comment/question. Sometimes deep thought and listening is better than talking - or discussing and arguing. I agree that sometimes the council, as a whole, needs to discuss things more. | | | |
|
| | gilbertglcn
Posts:213
| | 03/13/2008 10:02 AM |
Alert | | At least the council has stopped passing everything in an emergency setting. Since it was pointed out to them several months ago, during a public meeting, that unless something is an actual emergency, then passing it with limited discussion and thought is not good for the community. | | | |
|
|  | hastings1066
Posts:883
| | 03/13/2008 12:52 PM |
Alert | Posted By gilbertglcn on 03/13/2008 10:02 AM
At least the council has stopped passing everything in an emergency setting. Since it was pointed out to them several months ago, during a public meeting, that unless something is an actual emergency, then passing it with limited discussion and thought is not good for the community.
Is that legal? | | | |
|
| | Sinbad
Posts:3046
| | 03/13/2008 1:10 PM |
Alert | I wouldn't vote for either of them.
After the way they poorly handled the Rick Buss "take this $80,000 + and run situation that now has turned into the $5.7 million "I can't get a Job" law suit... I am holding all of the old council at fault.
Now the new council has to deal with it. That's going to be hard for Tony, Carl, Brown, and Griffin since they took his money. No matter how you slice it, if and when they take office, the only way to handle this Buss thing is to not talk or vote on it.
Otherwise people are going to think bad thoughts.
I taked to Carl about it and he isn't touching this Buss thing with a 10 foot pole. Not do to the money, but due to the close relationship he had way before he ever wanted to run for office.
So.. this is just my thoughts.... | |
Just doing it one day at a time. Change is good and it should be looked upon as an improvment! not a problem.
______________________________________
***************************************
San Diego Super Chargers! GO!!!
Joined old forum March 2006
Post count: 3068 + these | |
|
| | gilbertglcn
Posts:213
| | 03/13/2008 2:30 PM |
Alert | hastings1066 - The council originally appointment Roger Kolman as the interim City Manager, without appropriate public notice, with the statement from the Mayor being that they had to do this quickly due to the fact you cannot have the City Manager continue on in the position once a resignation has been given. What was revealed during the second council meeting that they had to have was that;
1. The council did not declare an emergency, so the interim appointment would have not become effective for 30 days,
2. Rick Buss had not resigned from his position,
3. Lots of communities maintain their manager until the agreed upon last day of work, no one could point out in the City Code that the requirement that upon resignation that the Manager had to immediately be replaced.
The City may do things by the "law", that does not make it right. With the nearly $5.8 million law suit we now face, it will be for the lawyers and courts to see if the City does things legally. Remember also, despite the fact the council had an outside attorney come in and inform them what was and was not appropriate activity, one of the current council candidates did not remember going over that in a meeting, and had to withdraw certain signatures from his nomination petitions due to improperly collecting them. Again, legal is up to a court to determine, right is up to the citizens to determine.
Do what is right - Clean the Slate in '08! | | | |
|
| | globalgirl
Posts:11
| | 03/13/2008 3:31 PM |
Alert | | Well, for the record, the vote on Buss' severance package was a 4-3 vote. The votes "FOR" the severance package were pretty much the people who are not up for re-election right now and/or didn't run (Mayor Anderson). So, if you want to clean the slate, as you say, the people you are removing are the people who did NOT vote to give him a severance package. Kelly Haddad actually not only voted "NO" he stated "I can't in good conscious agree to this while the investigation is ongoing". The people who voted "yes" to giving Buss the severance are pretty much the same people who are backing "new" people for council. So, let's think about this logically, shall we? If the "new" people are elected and the people who made many of the decisions that people are unhappy about are backing them, how do you think this helps Maricopa going forward? To me it just means you are going to have a lot more of those "Buss" decisions - NOT LESS......... You all might want to think about that. And I suggest checking the voting record for that meeting and getting all the facts before making assumptions. | | | |
|
| | globalgirl
Posts:11
| | 03/13/2008 3:44 PM |
Alert | | To set the record completely straight, the 3 votes from council AGAINST the severance package for Buss, were Haddad, Dunn and Estes!!!!!!!!! So, 2 of the 3 "No" votes are the incumbents you are suggesting we should remove.........Yea, that makes sense to me. Put a bunch of people on there that will side with the 4 people who said "yes"......Okay.......so I guess that means our "new" council will likely bend over and give Buss his $5 Million because they will all be his lackeys.......Yea, that makes total sense to me!!!!!!!!! So, I hope I have made at least one more point as to why we SHOULD vote for Dunn and Haddad to remain on council. They, along, with Estes were the only ones who seemed to make a conscious decision that day and voted NO to the severance package!!!!!!!!!!! | | | |
|
| | gilbertglcn
Posts:213
| | 03/13/2008 4:11 PM |
Alert | | Mr. Haddad, if I remember correctly, did vote on the interim manager position, as the vote had no dissenters, was aware of when the initial meeting was posted, and did not make any statements in the council meeting during the first nor the second meeting about slowing down the process in order to ensure the correct person was put in there, even on an interim basis. As we see now, the interim selection may just cost the city $5.77 million. | | | |
|
| | globalgirl
Posts:11
| | 03/13/2008 4:42 PM |
Alert | | Okay, so you are upset about the interim manager placement and not the severance vote? As I recall, you are correct (although I haven't verified it - just my recollection) and that all 7 voted for the interim manager. However......I don't think Kohlman was a poor choice and for that matter, if the city didn't handle this appropriately, I don't blame the council exclusively - I blame their attorney and city clerk who should have known better and advised them. Elected officials rarely "know" all of the rules and hence that is what the attorney's and city staff are there for. From what I recall, Buss resigned prior to the appointment of Kohlman.......If I recall correctly, it was pretty much done at the same meeting - First they accepted the resignation and then they appointed Kohlman.........but I could be wrong - I am trying to do this from memory. I just remember it being a special session. Really, let's face it.......Buss was going to look for a reason to sue and was going to use anything he could, whether valid or not, to try and force the city into a settlement. | | | |
|
| | mrwonderful
Posts:257
| | 03/13/2008 5:40 PM |
Alert | Chessman your question is very appropriate considering all the action that is going on in the big MC. I finally got my laptop back after loaning it out and they had a good time with the COH fiasco. Will Dunn might be beneficial to the city in one very important filing some day. He seems to be experienced in petitioning the federal bankruptcy court for relief. If it is up to the fireman and the Rick Buss camp we might as well get the doc's ready now. Mission Viejo, California knows how to start the bankruptcy filing when police and fire salaries /retirement benefits surpassed the actual city budget. It would be very interesting to look at the number of fire and police employees double dipping. I have heard a couple of remarks that they could not turn down the job offerings, knowing it is a small new town. Oh well, sure hope the annexation area sit back and take a long, long, long, look at the financial obligation they will be taking on. | | | |
|
| | crazyforcopa
Posts:0
| | 03/13/2008 5:44 PM |
Alert | Posted By Sinbad on 03/13/2008 1:10 PM
Now the new council has to deal with it. That's going to be hard for Tony, Carl, Brown, and Griffin since they took his money. No matter how you slice it, if and when they take office, the only way to handle this Buss thing is to not talk or vote on it.
Sinbad, I don't see your point on all your postings about the 4 candidates who took money from Buss. If elected, they won't have to deal with it on city council. It will be handled in the courts. I really don't see any problem for any of them. There will be nothing for city council to decide.
Can we move on? Or can you help me understand how these people would even need to be involved if elected? It seems pointless to me at this point. | | | |
|
| | chessman
Posts:244
| | 03/13/2008 10:02 PM |
Alert | Interesting discussions. Will Dunn received 477 votes and we've only received one endorsement from this question. Thanks again globalgirl for responding with honesty. I disagree with your assessment, but as I promised, I will not attack you for it.
Will speaks with passion. So do door-to-door salesmen. Being passionate and verbose on any subject doesn't make your opinions right, it just makes them yours. Will makes grand speeches. He sometimes reminds me of Mr. Smith (Mr. Smith Goes to Washington) as Will grabs the mic and filibusters. Yes, some of the rest of us go to the meetings too. Will talks. And talks....... And talks..................... In the end the results are that he hasn't swayed the council one bit. It doesn't matter if anybody feels that his opinion is right or wrong. The fact is that he fails to influence. As a councilman he has the power of one vote, and however much influence he can produce to convince the other councilmen to vote the same way. I've seen Will grab the mic and watched the other councilmen roll their eyes. Haddad is the worst of the bunch. He actually pouts and refuses to look at him as Will spouts from his soapbox. Neither is effective as a civic leader. Petty childishness at council meetings doesn't live up to the role they were elected to fill.
I don't expect any councilman to solve all of today's problems. That would be unreasonable. What I expect from an elected official is to exit the term with a clear legacy that they have caused a change that is leading to betterment. What is the legacy of these two councilmen? What have they accomplished? What better position is the community in (note that I didn't say city) because of their hard work? What have they achieved, other than being noted for caring very much about their causes? What they owe to the public isn't the solutions to all the problems, but rather, a plan on how to get to where we need to be. At the end of this term, are we in a better position with clear goals for the future? The answer is no. No matter how passionate the incumbents are, they have not accomplished much of note that has helped position the city and the greater community for success in the future. I am shocked and disappointed that these two men are on the ballot for the general election. I don't say that as an individual attack on either, because they have been behaving as polar opposites. This statement is made as a reflection on where we are now after they have had their chance in office. | |
This message was composed entirely of 100% recycled electrons; minimum 35% post-consumer content. | |
|
| | leehopper
Posts:120
| | 03/13/2008 10:18 PM |
Alert | Hi Chessman, In response to your signature regarding airport or hospital. At this point in time in Maricopa I think both hospital and airport are out of the question. Regarding hospital, there are not enough people in Maricopa to keep it afloat, patient wise $$$$$ plus how would you attract doctors and nurses away from the metro area, heck, we can't attract teachers, much less medical personnel. And the airport, wel maybe we can get UFO's to land here | |
There are no real reasons for failure,
only excuses | |
|
| | chessman
Posts:244
| | 03/14/2008 6:11 AM |
Alert | I like the UFO idea.
I didn't state the size of the hospital. I grew up in a little town not far from here. The community at large has about 10,000 people. And it has a little hospital. Not a huge facility, but better than nothing. It also employs more people than the airport where my current office is, and none of thoe employees is on the city payroll. It's going to take decades for this city to grow up. In the meantime, let's see the city fathers identify a list of things we truly need here. Then rank the list and let the public comment. Follow this with a rough plan outlining the major steps it takes to get there, then let the available funds determine how much gets done each year. The city has done some of this, but not very well. The council are there to see to it that this planning gets done. | |
This message was composed entirely of 100% recycled electrons; minimum 35% post-consumer content. | |
|
| | gilbertglcn
Posts:213
| | 03/14/2008 9:19 AM |
Alert | So globalgirl is ok with the City Council selecting an interim manager who had never been a finance director anywhere prior to coming to Maricopa, and had zero city manager experience, well I believe an informed council that acts for the benefit of the community could have found another person, with experience, to do the job in the interim; especially since not a single council member can find a reference in the City Code requiring they immediately replace the City Manager.
Further, Buss never resigned, so there was no emergency in place. A well informed council would not jump, but ask questions of the Attorney and City Clerk. As the council did not do that, they ended up giving us the mess we are in now. A council that is comprised of people who ensure our community is run with intergrity and fairness would have never allowed Mr. Buss to have a reason to sue. If there was no investigation, and the City officially claimed there was, then it is each and every single council member's duty to ensure that appropriate accountabilities are made. It is not the council's millions that will be lost, it is our communities. And $5.7 million buys a lot. | | | |
|
| | DesertDweller
Posts:2559
| | 03/16/2008 7:45 AM |
Alert | | We can argue the details forever. Based upon the multitude of issues, emergencies, lawsuits, conflicts of interest, resignations, firings, investigations that did or didn't take place depending upon which city official you're talking to, what's needed is a change of city leadership. | |
Stupid should hurt!
Desert Dweller - Senior Member - Posts: 2982 - Joined: Feb 2006 | |
|
| |
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.6 |
|
|
|