 |
Business Directory |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Coupons |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Classifieds |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| | Author | Messages | |
gilbertglcn
Posts:228


 | | 02/27/2008 2:13 PM |
Alert | I have several questions related to how you as Mayor will handle public meetings. Here are my inquiries;
After responding to a question from a Council Member, Finance Director Kolman specifically stated that the Fire Department would NOT be impacted by the budget constraints. Why then was the Fire Chief "laid off", as the City cannot state it was due to the budget situation. All other Arizona communities hold public meetings during a council session to go over the specifics of any staffing changes. How will you guarantee this occurs during your tenure as Mayor?
If you do not feel it is in the public's best interest to have this information in the public forum, why is that, since again, all other communities operate above board? If you disagree with how the City handled this situation, what steps will you take as Mayor to correct this situation?
If it is determined that city staff members were not truthful during public meetings, what policies will you ensure are in place to protect the welfare of the community?
Do you support the elimination of the Fire Chief and Planning Director's positions? If so, why were these positions elminiated prior to other positions, as most communities eliminate staff positions first, as you still need someone to run the departments that are both still intact. Do you support how these decisions were made, taking into account that all other Arizona communities hold public hearings prior to budget restructuring measures - behind closed doors? If not, how will you as Mayor deal with this type of situation when it occurs under your tenure? | | | |
|
| | CliffinAZ
Posts:451

 | | 02/27/2008 2:23 PM |
Alert | Great question! I know that this is something that has been troubling a LOT of people (and perhaps a sign that nothing has really changed)... | | | |
|
| | celltech
Posts:0

 | | | celltech
Posts:0

 | | 02/27/2008 7:23 PM |
Alert | Posted By Sinbad on 02/19/2008 2:47 PM Posted By drummer72 on 02/19/2008 2:40 PM
If it didn't matter, there would be only one party.
The way I see it, No it doesn't matter. I think that people looking down political lines to place their vote are no better then sheep going where ever the shepard leads.
What matters most is that the JOB gets done. Republican or Dem matters not... I want the City to benifit from the person that is going to do the "RIGHT" thing for the people...not the political party! Right on Sinbad. Couldn't agree more. | | | |
|
| | DesertDweller
Posts:2569


 | | 02/27/2008 10:06 PM |
Alert | I agree as well. In a local election, it's possible to be elected without being affiliated with any party. Campaign costs are minimal, so there's no need for the big party bankroll. There are no electoral colleges or delegates. Issues are more specific and can be discussed on a soap box in the town square. This is grassroots democracy.
Unfortunately, the national elections have been removed from the people. Popular vote doesn't matter, delegates do. Without a bankroll in the hundreds of millions and an organization to carry out a campaign, one simply doesn't stand a chance regardless of how popular their ideas. H. Ross Perot financed a big part of his campaign and despite pouring millions into it, couldn't beat the big parties.
This is why I prefer being involved in local politics. It truly does give one a chance to make a difference.
| | Stupid should hurt!
Desert Dweller - Senior Member - Posts: 2982 - Joined: Feb 2006 | |
|
| | smithtos
Posts:28

 | | 02/29/2008 1:25 PM |
Alert | Posted By gilbertglcn on 02/27/2008 2:13 PM
I have several questions related to how you as Mayor will handle public meetings. Here are my inquiries;
After responding to a question from a Council Member, Finance Director Kolman specifically stated that the Fire Department would NOT be impacted by the budget constraints. Why then was the Fire Chief "laid off", as the City cannot state it was due to the budget situation. All other Arizona communities hold public meetings during a council session to go over the specifics of any staffing changes. How will you guarantee this occurs during your tenure as Mayor?
If you do not feel it is in the public's best interest to have this information in the public forum, why is that, since again, all other communities operate above board? If you disagree with how the City handled this situation, what steps will you take as Mayor to correct this situation?
If it is determined that city staff members were not truthful during public meetings, what policies will you ensure are in place to protect the welfare of the community?
Do you support the elimination of the Fire Chief and Planning Director's positions? If so, why were these positions elminiated prior to other positions, as most communities eliminate staff positions first, as you still need someone to run the departments that are both still intact. Do you support how these decisions were made, taking into account that all other Arizona communities hold public hearings prior to budget restructuring measures - behind closed doors? If not, how will you as Mayor deal with this type of situation when it occurs under your tenure? My Response: In June 2006, an ordinance was passed amending section 3-1-1 of the City code regarding the responsibility and actions that can taken on certain personnel issues. Currently, City Council only makes personnel decisions regarding the City Manager, the City Attorney and City Magistrate. The City Manager has the responsibility for making all other staffing decisions. The City Manager is involved in the day-to-day operations of the City and is best at making decisions regarding their effectiveness. He is not required to hold public hearings on staffing changes. I’m not going to speculate on what Mr. Kolman knew or didn’t know prior to the City Manager’s recent actions. I don’t have access to that information. Mr. Evans was hired to run city government to the best of his abilities. If he determines the organization needs to be trimmed or re-structured, I support his decisions and actions. To do any less will significantly reduce his effectiveness. | | | |
|
| | KSUwildcat
Posts:33


 | | 03/02/2008 6:43 PM |
Alert | Thank you Mr. Smith for starting this thread and continuing to monitor and answer questions. I have read the entire list of postings and felt I have learned a great deal about you, the town of Maricopa, and even some of our other residents!
I have some other questions, not seen posted here yet. Simple stuff, but important to me.
Regarding 347 . . . I understand the cause of the traffic problems and that there is no short term fix, but it seems that lately the timing of the Riggs light has had a major impact on those of us commuting into Phoenix for work. It has been adjusted so that the crossing Riggs traffic has no wait, while the thousands of us heading north in the morning are slogged in a 3+ mile back-up. Also, the trash situation along that route is awful and an embarrassment to both our community and the state of Arizona. I've noticed some effort going on to pick up trash, but huge amounts of trash are clearly being dumped intentionally and very large items such as mattresses, shipping pallets, and even appliances will remain for months, sometimes more than 6 months before they are cleaned up. I cringe with embarrassment every time I think of a friend or relative driving down that road knowing they will see the evidence of the complete disrespect some have for our community and the unwillingness of our community to do anything about it. For both these issues, inquiries to ADOT if responded to, take the form of a too bad, so sad, we don't care. Is there anything you can do as Mayor, or is there anything the city can do to add pressure, gain visibility, get something moving on this? Seems like hefty fines for dumping trash should also apply. | | | |
|
| | gilbertglcn
Posts:228


 | | 03/02/2008 8:49 PM |
Alert | Mr. Smith, I just want to make sure I understand your response. Your are in favor of secretive government, as you should be aware that every other city and town government in both Pinal and Maricopa county holds public hearings on budgetary cuts, especially ones that pertain to staffing changes. Since you are supportive of the Manager having the only say in what the budget priorities are, do you realize you are continuing the secrecy that Maricopa is being so well known and so not respected for?
You state that you will also not stand in the manager's way when making any personnel decision, even when it is not due to budgetary reasons, nor performance reasons. As we have public statements in the case of the fire department, eliminating the Chief's position was not due to the budget, and if the City is negotiating a severance package, and there was a performance issue, that is an inexcusable use of public funds. If there is not a performance related reason to eliminate these positions, then you are stating that as a Mayor you will do nothing to protect the community from unprofessionalism that abounds at city hall and starts with the current Mayor, continues with the Council and is achieved by the City staff leadership. You are supportive of this environment?
Just wanted to make sure you and the voters understand the implications of your responses to my inquiries. | | | |
|
| | Jim_Green
Posts:30

 | | 03/03/2008 12:05 PM |
Alert | Posted By smithtos on 02/29/2008 1:25 PM My Response: In June 2006, an ordinance was passed amending section 3-1-1 of the City code regarding the responsibility and actions that can taken on certain personnel issues. Currently, City Council only makes personnel decisions regarding the City Manager, the City Attorney and City Magistrate. The City Manager has the responsibility for making all other staffing decisions. The City Manager is involved in the day-to-day operations of the City and is best at making decisions regarding their effectiveness. He is not required to hold public hearings on staffing changes. I’m not going to speculate on what Mr. Kolman knew or didn’t know prior to the City Manager’s recent actions. I don’t have access to that information. Mr. Evans was hired to run city government to the best of his abilities. If he determines the organization needs to be trimmed or re-structured, I support his decisions and actions. To do any less will significantly reduce his effectiveness. Mr. Smith, Unlike gilbertglcn, who seems to have a very personal reason to ask his questions (can you say Amy and Rick Buss), I believe I understood your answer, but would like to ask a clarifiying question.
In your first paragraph, you are basically stating that all the comments posted on this forum about the requirement of a public hearing on these personnel changes is incorrect per the policy you stated. I think that is important to know because, gilbertglcn, would have everyone believe that it is required, yet it is not.
Also, gilbertglcn, would have you believe that the council was responsible, and yet in the policy it is clearly stated that the city manager can act on his own and in the Maricopa Tribune, Evans clearly indicates that it was his choice. Now, I for one don't plan on voting for incumbents, but I also don't think it gives anyone credibility to post here that these changes were anything but Evan's decision. Only Evans really knows. You seemed to answer the question from your current perspective instead of the from the perspective when you become mayor. So my question to you, is do you have intentions, as Mayor, to have discussions with the city manager to understand these types of changes before they happen? I would expect you to be highly involved in those types of decisions. | | | |
|
| | Jim_Green
Posts:30

 | | 03/03/2008 12:13 PM |
Alert | Mr. Smith,
I have no idea how I got all of those quotes in there, but the only quote are your words at the top and the rest is my new post. | | | |
|
| | alanf
Posts:1601


 | | 03/03/2008 12:45 PM |
Alert | Try using the edit button Jim_Green | | | |
|
| | gilbertglcn
Posts:228


 | | 03/03/2008 2:59 PM |
Alert | Mr. Green - if you would read my questions more clearly you would see that I state that if there are changes due to budgetary reasons, all other communities do that in a public forum. Since we have been told by various city officials, as reported by 85239.com, that the changes were due to budget concerns, and top heavy administtation, then, why were these not discussed at the Tuesday meeting where the budget was on the Council's agenda. The council budget meeting took place on a Tuesday, and it was three days later that the positions were eliminated. You should read more carefully before commenting, and become more familiar with how goverments who do not operate in the dark like to work. As to what Mr. Kolman knew or did not know, he made a very public statement as to what was reality. Again, if within a trhee day time frame that reality has changed, with Mr. Kolman does not understand the state of the city's fiscal situation very well, or the Fire Department change was not due to the budget. If there is a legitimate personnel reason for the changes, then the City should not be wasting tax payer revenue by making settlement agreements with these staff members. To do so means that the City did not have any cause for these changes, which is why the questions were asked. It is obvious that Mr. Smith does not want to deal with how the City runs at all. Those who sit back and do nothing while all around them is chaos, only contribute to the problem.
| | | |
|
| | godsey
Posts:27

 | | 03/03/2008 3:23 PM |
Alert | Mr Smith is quoted as saying,"In June 2006, an ordinance was passed amending section 3-1-1 of the City code regarding the responsibility and actions that can taken on certain personnel issues. Currently, City Council only makes personnel decisions regarding the City Manager, the City Attorney and City Magistrate. The City Manager has the responsibility for making all other staffing decisions."
Sorry Mr Smith, that was not the intention of this amendment if you read it carefully and the presentation that was given with it. In fact, section 3-1-1 doesnt even apply to these 2 positions and even if it did, it doesnt give the City Manager the power to hire or fire these individuals, but would give him the right to recommend the council appoint/fire them.
Here is what the amendment says and the way it was presented...
"An Ordinance of the Mayor and City Council of the City of Maricopa, Arizona, amending section 3-1-1 of “The Code of the City of Maricopa, Arizona” to change the authority to appoint the City Clerk, Director of Finance, Chief of Police and the City Engineer from the City Council to the City Manager and to provide that such officers shall report to the City Manager.
City Manager Buss presented the agenda item. He stated that Council would still appoint for these positions but that they would be reporting to the City Manager. He added that these employees would be protected under the merit system."
And here is what the city code says under section 3-2-1, H-2, under "Duties of the City Manager"...
"All department heads shall be appointed (by the city manager) subject to radification by the council". Therefore to fire these individuals would also require radification by the council and should be a public process. These 2 positions fall under this category not the category illustrated under 3-1-1.
Point being, all department heads can answer to our City Manager, but hiring or firing of them or senior staff positions should be a public process controlled by the council and based on recommendations made by the City Manager.
| | | |
|
| | JoeMan
Posts:65

 | | 03/03/2008 4:03 PM |
Alert | It is so obvious that both Godsey and gilbertglcn have motives in these posts. gilbertglcn does seem to have a personal connection and if you read all his posts, they are all very knowledgable in our city's policies. It makes sense that he is either connected with Rick Buss or is Rick Buss. His writings are motivated to serve a personal purpose, not do educate the public. I read the comments below and don't believe any of Mr. Smith's answers indicate anything about wanting to hide the truth from the public. In fact, I find the fact Mr. Smith even has the kahunas to post a Q&A to be more forthright with his position and ideas far more valuable then Mr. Godsey's method, who makes every attempt to get a political edge by bashing his opponent's comments yet coming up with nothing unique himself.
Mr. Godsey's motive is obvious. I have an idea for you Mr. Godsey. Why don't you go research the policies, make sure they are the most recently approved policies, then come back and tell us which policy determines who is responsible for restructuring and approval. Also, come back and tell us which policy demands a public hearing on restructuring. Come back with those details please. Because without facts, you are hopeless. | | | |
|
| | DesertDweller
Posts:2569


 | | 03/03/2008 6:02 PM |
Alert | | I hope that the city code requires that they be subjected to ratification rather than radification. Otherwise, they would probably glow in the dark. | | Stupid should hurt!
Desert Dweller - Senior Member - Posts: 2982 - Joined: Feb 2006 | |
|
| | TheSmokingGun
Posts:0

 | | 03/03/2008 8:19 PM |
Alert | | joeman, he can't. that requires some ounce of intelligent research and him forming his own opinion without an event occurring so he can review it, judge it, see what others did and then do the opposite in an attempt to make himself look good. I'd hate to be solider in a unit led by Mike. We'd be in deep trouble. | | | |
|
| | TheSmokingGun
Posts:0

 | | 03/03/2008 8:20 PM |
Alert | | why does gilbertglcn have it hard for Roger Kolman? jilted lover? jilted former boss? | | | |
|
| | azcarcarrier
Posts:310

 | | 03/03/2008 8:37 PM |
Alert | It is amazing how short memories are with some city residents, Mr. Kelleher was part of the Rick Busse fiasco and never spoke openly until the Dan Ashton and the weak sissies fighting at Ramsey's. You need to take a moment and look back at the whole picture. I was shocked to see Rick Busse at the council meeting, I asked why he was here, and the response was I am mad. So take it from there boys. | | | |
|
| | smithtos
Posts:28

 | | 03/03/2008 9:39 PM |
Alert | Posted By KSUwildcat on 03/02/2008 6:43 PM Thank you Mr. Smith for starting this thread and continuing to monitor and answer questions. I have read the entire list of postings and felt I have learned a great deal about you, the town of Maricopa, and even some of our other residents!
I have some other questions, not seen posted here yet. Simple stuff, but important to me.
Regarding 347 . . . I understand the cause of the traffic problems and that there is no short term fix, but it seems that lately the timing of the Riggs light has had a major impact on those of us commuting into Phoenix for work. It has been adjusted so that the crossing Riggs traffic has no wait, while the thousands of us heading north in the morning are slogged in a 3+ mile back-up. Also, the trash situation along that route is awful and an embarrassment to both our community and the state of Arizona. I've noticed some effort going on to pick up trash, but huge amounts of trash are clearly being dumped intentionally and very large items such as mattresses, shipping pallets, and even appliances will remain for months, sometimes more than 6 months before they are cleaned up. I cringe with embarrassment every time I think of a friend or relative driving down that road knowing they will see the evidence of the complete disrespect some have for our community and the unwillingness of our community to do anything about it. For both these issues, inquiries to ADOT if responded to, take the form of a too bad, so sad, we don't care. Is there anything you can do as Mayor, or is there anything the city can do to add pressure, gain visibility, get something moving on this? Seems like hefty fines for dumping trash should also apply. KSUWildcat: I spoke with the Maricopa Transportation Director about the timing of the light at Riggs Road. He isn’t aware of any recent timing changes to the Riggs Signal, but would forward your concern to the ADOT representative to clarify. ADOT has a “Adopt a Highway” program for trash pickup. Groups can commit to go out and pick up trash four times a year for their assigned sections of highway. “Volunteers” in the program donate their time to pick up the trash, while “Sponsors” pay a contractor to go out and pick it up. ADOT is trying to get away from the “Volunteer” model along SR-347 because they are having a very difficult time getting the volunteers to actually come out and collect the trash. Larger items (mattresses, etc.) are not picked up by the Adopt-a-Highway people. This is the responsibility of ADOT’s Casa Grande maintenance yard. If someone sees a large item that has been discarded, they can call the Casa Grande maintenance yard at 520-836-2240, and speak with Jessie Garza or Dennis Lilli. I’m very concerned with the entire commuting route Maricopans travel each day. This is why I’ve made transportation my top priority. Whether it is the traffic light at Riggs, the intersection onto 347 near Firebird, trash on the highway, or just dealing with excessive speeds, I will be a voice and a catalyst for action. | | | |
|
| | gilbertglcn
Posts:228


 | | 03/03/2008 9:44 PM |
Alert | Godsey, it is apparant that Jim Green and Joe Man have forgotten that the City Council, not the City Manager had the final vote on the Police Chief for Maricopa. The person the Council selected was Patrick Melvin. If it were true they were only responsible for the selection of the City Manager, City Attorney and City Magistrate, then they violated their own policies by selected Chief Melvin. Godsey, thank you for posting the specific reference here for the forum users to see. Regardless of whether or not the Council and one of the Mayorial candidates wants to continue to operate in the dark does not mean that is acceptable to the rest of the Maricopa community. Clean the Slate in 08! DD - Not only won't your picture post, but my pocture of the Gilbert Crater won't post either. Oh well! | | | |
|
| |
| | Topic is locked |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.6 |
|
|
|