 |
Business Directory |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coupons |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Classifieds |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| | Author | Messages | |
JasonY
Posts:3446
 | | 01/16/2008 2:20 PM |
 Alert | Yeah, like talking to a politician face to face in a public meeting always gets you the truth....ahahahahaha........
......oh what wicked webs we weave, when first we practice to deceive........ | |
"My favorite health club is the International House of Pancakes" -- Lewis Black | |
|
| | CliffinAZ
Posts:451
| | 01/16/2008 2:39 PM |
Alert | I do agree that it's useful to attend the council meetings. In terms of the rules for non-agenda items, I'm not sure how this works in council meetings for other local cities/towns, or if the rule for no conversation on non-agenda items is really necessary to keep the meetings from getting bogged down. But it does really limit the ability of folks to freely ask questions of those in charge during council meetings. I.e., Tempter is incorrect in saying that the questions would be answered in a council meeting, given that the topic itself would probably not be on the agenda--in that case, the council is NOT a place to get answers, given that it's against the rules of the meeting to have a discussion on the topic in the first place.
It seems to me that it would be helpful to have an open Q/A session at the end of the meetings that could include non-agenda items, after all agenda items have been fully discussed. | | | |
|
| | GilaGuy
Posts:789
| | 01/16/2008 3:01 PM |
Alert | Posted By Tempter on 01/16/2008 12:25 PM
Internal decisions, actions, and conversations by city employees will never have the level of transparency expected by the few posting here.
All that is being asked here is for the same level of honesty and transparency that exists elsewhere. Tempter for being someone "in the know," you have done nothing but make attempts at obfuscation time and time again. With everything that comes up, your answer is to tell others to look away. No matter which side you're on, that sort of thing reeks of cover-up and just encourages the sort of conspiracy theories you claim to despise.
Some of the statements you've made have helped contribute to this air of impropriety, even where it is possible that none exists. Your stubborn defense of Estes with the claim that events such as flashing badges at people and claiming to be the Police Chief's boss "happen everywhere" was a real eye-opener. When you say things like that as someone "in the know," it doesn't help your cause. If there's anything that has the tendency to draw the ire of average citizens, that's it right there.
In short, this is less about the citizens of Maricopa, or folks who post here, or people sitting on the fence observing all this...and more about you and your cohorts. When you and your fellow folks "in the know" stop acting as though there is something to hide, that'll be one fewer thing worth talking about. | | | |
|
| | CliffinAZ
Posts:451
| | 01/16/2008 3:13 PM |
Alert | | Thank you GilaGuy. That was my point exactly; so much of this thread has really been about (and fueled by) the nature of Tempter's responses, rather than the questions that were initially brought up. | | | |
|
| | gilbertglcn
Posts:228
| | 01/16/2008 4:13 PM |
Alert | | GilaGuy I agree with you. The only thing is that the "folks in the know" act as if there is something to hide", because there is. Not that they do anything illegal, but many of the City staff's actions are unethical. Add to this that many of the City staff are inexperienced with work in general and with government jobs specifically, and they feel they have to hide what they do, as they think that if We, the people found out how incompetent they really are, action would have to be taken. Incompetent people are the ones who do not want to ask questions, or have them asked of them. They want to remain hidden. Competent people ask questions, expect questions in return, and create dialogs, not defensive messages. Eventually, at least some of the City staff will have to be replaced with staff who are knowledgeable and experienced, it is just a matter of time now. | | | |
|
| | mrwonderful
Posts:282
| | 01/16/2008 6:20 PM |
Alert | | Temptor: I have been to meetings and asked questions and your fine mayor just blows them off and goes on. Are you and council scared to answer honestly the city constituients? When you put a college graduate student spearheading a major multi-million dollar annexation project, please advise justification. She was just a puppet you put forward to take a brow beating while the rest of you watched and laughed. Come out with the real facts and some of this critizing and grief would probably cease. Why are you so aggressive on this thread now? Answer I hope might come soon. | | | |
|
|  | Tempter
Posts:41
| | 01/17/2008 7:31 AM |
Alert | A good example of my point is on the front page where Smoking Gun has already started on Paulson and his Engineering firms business within the City Limits.
We've grown to learn that life goes on and the business of running a city continues. The accusations, and finger pointing come with the job.That would explain why there isn't a line running out the doors of city hall to fill positions or take over that responsibility.
My replys only seem aggressive to those who have a sensitive backbone and to those who draw false conclusions about the city and the people trying to make it better.
I've talked with some of in the past and have never been accused of being aggressive. | | | |
|
| | gilbertglcn
Posts:228
| | 01/17/2008 7:59 AM |
Alert | Tempter - you again do not get the point at all. We could care less if youare aggressive or not. Your responses are non reponses, and as such are not what I would worthwhile. Your viewpoint is that the only way to respond is to attack the questioner, and never get around to the issue itself. This is the empire that has been built at the City, and this is the empire that we are beginning to see cracks in. With a professional City Manager coming in; some, if not many city staff members are going to be in an awakening as to how city government's are properly run. Yes, life goes on, but those at the City that continue to hide in the dark, are going to eventually be left in that dark, while the rest of us come out into the light.
You seem to think that anyone who brings up the business relationships of our leadership, and anything else to do with our leaders is wrong to do that. It goes back to as a public official, we have a right to know what financial ties everyone has to companies, and others, that could influence a decision or series of decisions. This is our right to know, and the press and others can and should point out these relationships. Your city would be best served if you proactively revealed this information, instead of trying to ignore the requests for information for those of us who care about this community. | | | |
|
| | CliffinAZ
Posts:451
| | 01/17/2008 8:50 AM |
Alert | Posted By mrwonderful on 01/16/2008 6:20 PM
Temptor: I have been to meetings and asked questions and your fine mayor just blows them off and goes on. Are you and council scared to answer honestly the city constituients?
I know what you mean.. I've seen this happen a number of times at the council meetings, where someone asks a question and it's completely blown off by the mayor and/or council. Honestly, there is useful information provided at those meetings so they are good to attend, but trying to use them as a forum for getting a straight answer to a difficult question is like shopping for lemons in a hardware store. Tempter's suggestion to use the council meetings as a forum to ask questions is absolutely laughable to anyone who's been to one and seen what happens when someone tries to ask a question the council/mayor doesn't like. | | | |
|
| | DesertDweller
Posts:2569
| | 01/17/2008 9:33 AM |
Alert | Sometimes the question is more appropriately directed to staff than council.
The problem at present-day city hall isn't the inappropriate behavior itself, it's the culture of secrecy, the adversarial view of constituency including the media, and the arrogance with which some of the more senior staff conduct themselves. | |
Stupid should hurt!
Desert Dweller - Senior Member - Posts: 2982 - Joined: Feb 2006 | |
|
| | Tempter
Posts:41
| | 01/17/2008 9:35 AM |
Alert | The system that allows community members to voice concerns and opinions has been in place for a long time, this system wasn't created by the leaders of this community but is copied all around the country and not just in arizona.
The transparency you seek isn't realistic in any city goverment. All businesses succeed when partnerships are formed, it isn't reasonable to think that all information needs to be shared with the public on how those partnerships benefit one another. If city goverment works within the guidlines required by law then there isn't a breach of trust. Documents can be obtained when requested.
Your arguments aren't about city officials being transparent is minimized by your lack of effort in requesting the information you want.
The citizens of this community just need to use the system in place to get the information they want.
No open meeting laws have been violated.
Just because a few people want the rules changed to suit their personal agenda's they have this expectation of full disclosure.
All documents are public record. You'll just have to look for it.
The truth is difficult to swallow sometimes.
For me to say what you want to hear would not satisfy your desire to attack city officials. | | | |
|
| | CliffinAZ
Posts:451
| | 01/17/2008 10:17 AM |
Alert | Posted By Tempter on 01/17/2008 9:35 AM
The system that allows community members to voice concerns and opinions has been in place for a long time, this system wasn't created by the leaders of this community but is copied all the country and not just in arizona.
Is ignoring the questions asked that the council/mayor doesn't like part of the 'system?' I remember back when I was in NY City, seeing many televised council meetings in which the mayor was asked difficult questions (yep, they are actually televised there, given the population in NYC). Those listening did not always like his answers (and sure, there were some verbal sidesteps, as would realistically be expected), but he did answer all questions in some manner. I honestly don't remember him ignoring/not answering the ones he didn't like. I'm not saying that it couldn't have happened, but I just didn't see it happening in the council meetings I watched.
If you're referring to only allowing discussion about items that are on the agenda, that's more understandable; I can understand that you would want to keep things focused on what's on the agenda. | | | |
|
| | gilbertglcn
Posts:228
| | 01/17/2008 10:26 AM |
Alert | CliffinAZ - I agree with your point, but the part of Tempter's last response that concerns me more is the following;
"The transparency you seek isn't realistic in any city goverment. All businesses succeed when partnerships are formed, it isn't reasonable to think that all information needs to be shared with the public on how those partnerships benefit one another."
Any city council member, county supervisor, state legislator, public office holder is required to disclose any financial relationship they have that could benefit as a result of any of the governing bodies' decisions, rule settings, creation of law. By stating that we as the citizens have no right to know these relationships is not only ridiculous, but failure to disclose such relationships during council meetings, votes, etc., is exactly what the law has been created to preclude. Any government is not a business, for the fact that information must be public record; as it is a public entity. This goes back to your inability to understand the nature of the government you work for, and thus your continued going back to points that are not relevant, in a public entity.
A business is not run for the good of the people - a government entity must be. Again, you are in favor of ignoring public protocol, and perhaps the law, and maintain secrecy where none should exist. That is why the City is run so poorly, and why changes must occur.
More and more people are questioning, bringing up items of note, and are not going to be satisfied by just sitting back and letting those who do not know what they are doing, continue to run this City into the ground.
| | | |
|
| | Tempter
Posts:41
| | 01/17/2008 10:55 AM |
Alert | | Again you fail to read everything posted as I clarified that point on the previous post. There is full transparency available within the law. | | | |
|
| | gilbertglcn
Posts:228
| | 01/17/2008 11:30 AM |
Alert | | Yes, I did read your postings. Just because you claim things are done within the law does not make it so. Full transparency is just that - and does not come with disclaimers as you and others at City Hall like to add. Many of us do know how to run governmental and other entities; many of us have experience, training, etc. Can we say the same for you? Just because a person occupies the chair in an office that has a particular title on that office door, does not mean that person can actually do the job. Time and again, City Hall has shown this to be true. | | | |
|
| | CliffinAZ
Posts:451
| | 01/17/2008 12:04 PM |
Alert | | Tempter, you say that "full transparency is not possible" and if I'm reading your post correctly, state that it's unimportant for officials to disclose the nature of their relationship with business partners. How come then within other governmental bodies, I have seen officials disclose the nature of connections with potential business partners, recuse themselves from votes when they have such involvement, etc. in the interest of avoiding even a hint of improprietry? Do you really believe that Maricopa's citizens do not deserve that same high standard of integrity from their elected officials? That our public officials should adhere to such a lesser standard that our citizens should need to sift through piles of public records in order to know whether things are being done with proprietry? Unlike yourself, I believe that we deserve better, and know that the higher standard is possible. | | | |
|
| | Tempter
Posts:41
| | 01/17/2008 12:24 PM |
Alert | As demonstrated by your response there is not a answer that will sooth the beast. Apparently, you do not want truth and honesty but prefer to have someone lie and tell you what you want to hear.
The pro's and cons of complete transparency will always be an issue. There's a reason for closed/executive sessions. Those of course in your view should not be happening. | | | |
|
| | CliffinAZ
Posts:451
| | 01/17/2008 12:45 PM |
Alert | | That's not what I said, Tempter. Of course there are going to be closed/executive sessions, and it would indeed be unrealistic to expect those not to happen. That's a far cry from saying that council members should not be forthcoming about their own relationships with city business partners or engage in disclosure where appropriate to ensure proprietry. Is that really too much to ask for? Ultimately, it's simply a matter of members of the leadership being held accountable for their actions by those they were elected to serve. | | | |
|
| | gilbertglcn
Posts:228
| | 01/17/2008 12:55 PM |
Alert | | Yes it is too much to ask from them. City Hall wants us to remain in the dark, and silly us for wanting to know trivial things such as who a council member's employer is; that the econcomic development consultant has business dealings with developers that have activity in Maricopa, and silly little things like that. Too many City staff think a problem only results if a council member was voting on something that directly impacted their employer, business partner, etc. They do not see the problem with policies, regulations, zoning changes, land deals and the like, that result in a favorable environment for the council member's boss, business partner, etc. That is why City staff get mad at discussions such as this one, that continually remind We the people how much the City does not disclosing anything. | | | |
|
| | imjazzed
Posts:0
| | 01/17/2008 6:20 PM |
Alert | | One name comes to mind, Stan Griffis. | | | |
|
| |
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.6 |
|
|
|