[Vision2020] Jack Hill's comments
bill london
london@moscow.com
Fri, 17 Oct 2003 20:06:24 -0700
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------090607060702090509080206
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Jon Kimberling accuses me of having "anti-city" opinions when I
express what I believed was a real and honest political disagreement
with a policy or action of the Council and the city staff directly under
their control. I am not "anti-city" (whatever that means). I am,
however, against a paternalistic and anti-democratic view of the role of
the citizen in this city. I still believe in the quaint notion that I
can express my opinion and try to affect public policy if I disagree
with it.
In this specific case, the Council had decided to give the city
staff administrators a big fat pay hike, and include in that pay raise a
delightful bonus of extra money for vacation time unused. (They also
did not pass out much in the way of money to the workers who could have
actually used the money, but that is a different part of the story).
When it came time to report to the public how much the administrators
were actually making for the year, the city (specifically City Attorney
Randy Fife--who as an administrator had also received some of that
vacation buy-back money) suggested that the Council not report that
vacation money.
Idaho law notes that the public has a right to know the "gross
salary" paid to public officials. To me, gross salary means total
salary, as in total amount of money, as in including the buy-back
vacation pay deal.
Incidently, there are plenty of public interest attorneys in Idaho
(one was quoted in the Daily News article on the subject) who agree with
that point that gross salary means gross salary and should be public
information.
I still think Fife was wrong on that point. But, we will never
really know since City Supervisor Reidner got all the administrators to
agree to reveal their gross salaries (including the vacation buy-back).
So, the issue which would have required a court case to decide, ended at
that point.
Jon asks why I did not comment more at that point. Why? what would
I have to say? The public interest was served. The full salary of the
administrators was revealed.
Obviously, Jon was upset and his feelings were hurt by this
process. I really do not understand why. This was a political issue,
and was resolved through a political process.
Perhaps the difference between Jon and I on this issue is really a
question of the role of the citizen in the political process. If the
Council and city staff know best (as he seems to indicate), then the
role of the citizen is to pay the taxes with a smile. I just can't
quite follow along with that program.
BL
Jon Kimberling wrote:
> I attended the Chamber Candidates Forum and had the opportunity to
> hear Jack and all the other candidates speak. My interpretation of
> Jack's comments were an attempt to reach out to the community. Yes- he
> was direct and it seems that his comments hit a nerve with certain
> members of the community. Having the perspective of a fellow
> councilman, I can tell you that I share his opinion that some v2020
> contributors are quick to put the most negative spin they can on city
> council decisions. These anti-city opinions are often formed without
> ever contacting a city council or staff member, without reading
> reports and materials available from the city and with sole reliance
> on what is written in the paper.
>
> I could site numerous examples but will limit myself to one. Bill
> London, using someone else's words, recently created "a tempest in a
> teapot" about the city decision not to disclose certain information
> about employee vacations. The criticism was leveled at the council
> when it wasn't even a council decision. City Supervisor Gary Riedner,
> in response to this, promptly got permission from the affected staff
> to disclose the information. An editorial response appeared in the
> paper. Anyone, including Bill, who would have asked a few questions
> would have learned that in the years Randy Fife has been the City
> Attorney he has honored about 99% of the requests that he receives for
> information, that he was misquoted in the paper about "trade secrets",
> that both the City of Lewiston and Latah County gave the Daily News
> the same response, that is that the Idaho Public Records Law protects
> certain information and they would not disclose it. Bill's response to
> this on v2020 after the City set the record straight- not one
> word. Where is the balance?
> If I have a concern, I like to go directly to the person involved and
> ask them the basis for their opinion. I have contacted several v2020
> subscribers and made this personal request of them. I appreciate the
> people who have taken the time to contact me and ask questions and
> just as important- let me know their opinion. I believe this method of
> communiciation is a more effective way to have a healthy dialogue then
> immediately blasting the person you have already concluded is
> incapable of making a decision you can agree with.
>
> I share Jack's frustration because our critics(whether they are on
> v2020, local editorial writers or from any other source) often don't
> offer any suggestion as to what decision they would have had us make.
> If you have the will to help, you have the right to criticize- was
> that quote from Lincoln?
>
> I respect Jack Hill for a number of reasons. One is his willingness to
> speak up as he did Wednesday. However, that is no basis for concluding
> that Jack is not open to hearing your opinion. He and I have had
> countless discussions about various City issues and he always looks at
> both sides, even when community opinion and his differ.
>
> My hope is that we will all support the newly elected council, that we
> will agree to disagree agreeably and that community members who have
> issues will hold themselves to the same standard they hold their City
> Council.
>
> When it comes to the City of Moscow, I don't ever want to agree with
> one of Yogi Berra's quotes- the future ain't what it used to be.
>
> Jon Kimberling
> Current Moscow City Councilman
--------------090607060702090509080206
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<br>
Jon Kimberling accuses me of having "anti-city" opinions when I
express what I believed was a real and honest political disagreement
with a policy or action of the Council and the city staff directly
under their control. I am not "anti-city" (whatever that means). I
am, however, against a paternalistic and anti-democratic view of the
role of the citizen in this city. I still believe in the quaint notion
that I can express my opinion and try to affect public policy if I
disagree with it.<br>
In this specific case, the Council had decided to give the city
staff administrators a big fat pay hike, and include in that pay raise
a delightful bonus of extra money for vacation time unused. (They also
did not pass out much in the way of money to the workers who could have
actually used the money, but that is a different part of the story).
When it came time to report to the public how much the administrators
were actually making for the year, the city (specifically City Attorney
Randy Fife--who as an administrator had also received some of that
vacation buy-back money) suggested that the Council not report that
vacation money. <br>
Idaho law notes that the public has a right to know the "gross
salary" paid to public officials. To me, gross salary means total
salary, as in total amount of money, as in including the buy-back
vacation pay deal.<br>
Incidently, there are plenty of public interest attorneys in Idaho
(one was quoted in the Daily News article on the subject) who agree
with that point that gross salary means gross salary and should be
public information.<br>
I still think Fife was wrong on that point. But, we will never
really know since City Supervisor Reidner got all the administrators to
agree to reveal their gross salaries (including the vacation
buy-back). So, the issue which would have required a court case to
decide, ended at that point.<br>
Jon asks why I did not comment more at that point. Why? what would
I have to say? The public interest was served. The full salary of the
administrators was revealed. <br>
Obviously, Jon was upset and his feelings were hurt by this
process. I really do not understand why. This was a political issue,
and was resolved through a political process. <br>
Perhaps the difference between Jon and I on this issue is really a
question of the role of the citizen in the political process. If the
Council and city staff know best (as he seems to indicate), then the
role of the citizen is to pay the taxes with a smile. I just can't
quite follow along with that program.<br>
BL<br>
<br>
<br>
Jon Kimberling wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid02f501c39509$bb537900$0da8a8c0@JON">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; ">
<meta content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1226" name="GENERATOR">
<style></style>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">I attended the Chamber Candidates
Forum and had the opportunity to hear Jack and all the other candidates
speak. My interpretation of Jack's comments were an attempt to reach
out to the community. Yes- he was direct and it seems that his comments
hit a nerve with certain members of the community. Having the
perspective of a fellow councilman, I can tell you that I share his
opinion that some v2020 contributors are quick to put the most negative
spin they can on city council decisions. These anti-city opinions are
often formed without ever contacting a city council or staff member,
without reading reports and materials available from the city and with
sole reliance on what is written in the paper. </font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">I could site numerous examples but
will limit myself to one. Bill London, using someone else's words,
recently created "a tempest in a teapot" about the city decision not to
disclose certain information about employee vacations. The criticism
was leveled at the council when it wasn't even a council decision. City
Supervisor Gary Riedner, in response to this, promptly got permission
from the affected staff to disclose the information. An editorial
response appeared in the paper. Anyone, including Bill, who would have
asked a few questions would have learned that in the years Randy Fife
has been the City Attorney he has honored about 99% of the requests
that he receives for information, that he was misquoted in the paper
about "trade secrets", that both the City of Lewiston and Latah County
gave the Daily News the same response, that is that the Idaho Public
Records Law protects certain information and they would not disclose
it. Bill's response to this on v2020 after the City set the record
straight- not one word. Where is the balance?<br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">If I have a concern, I like to go
directly to the person involved and ask them the basis for their
opinion. I have contacted several v2020 subscribers and made this
personal request of them. I appreciate the people who have taken the
time to contact me and ask questions and just as important- let me know
their opinion. I believe this method of communiciation is a more
effective way to have a healthy dialogue then immediately blasting the
person you have already concluded is incapable of making a decision you
can agree with. </font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">I share Jack's frustration because
our critics(whether they are on v2020, local editorial writers or from
any other source) often don't offer any suggestion as to what decision
they would have had us make. If you have the will to help, you have the
right to criticize- was that quote from Lincoln?</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial"><font size="2"><font>I respect Jack Hill for
a number of reasons. One is his willingness to speak up as he did
Wednesday. However, that is no basis for concluding that Jack is not
open to hearing your opinion. He and I have had countless discussions
about various City issues and he always looks at both sides, even when
community opinion and his differ.</font></font></font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">My hope is that we will all support
the newly elected council, that we will agree to disagree agreeably and
that community members who have issues will hold themselves to the same
standard they hold their City Council. </font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">When it comes to the City of Moscow,
I don't ever want to agree with one of Yogi Berra's quotes- the future
ain't what it used to be.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Jon Kimberling</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Current Moscow City Councilman</font></div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>
--------------090607060702090509080206--