I Have Some Good News and Some Bad News
By · CommentsRecently, the city of Puyallup considered tightening the screws on what is permissible speech at their city council meetings. They felt that harsh criticism had no place at a public forum. Well, I supposed criticism was still technically welcome but it was the way in which you presented it.
That led to a debate on the appropriateness of speech restrictions that was covered by the Tacoma News Tribune recently. The end result was that the Puyallup council narrowly voted against imposing any further restrictions to public comment at city council meetings.
This brings to my mind the 30 second spiel that the DuPont City Attorney would read prior to the public comment section of our town’s council meetings. It curiously emerged during the middle of the fire levy seasons a year or so ago. Now, it is only sporadically stated. I wonder if that has anything to do with the sign up sheet and who is on board.
I often thought it would be great if the first speaker after the announcement would ask for a clarification from the city attorney on the policy. If it were me, I would ask him to define “personal attack.” Did I personally attack the mayor for breaking a promise to close an issue as publicly stated? Was it directed at her, or her position? Is that personal? Actually, it was directed at the position of everyone seated before me. Was my comment a daisy cutter that took them all out?
It never got to that point but if it did there would have been a vigorous debate. And, if there was not definition on record of what the city considers a “personal attack” then it is left to the caprice of the city attorney, or worse, the mayor and council.
The recent Puyallup policy vote and the attention it cast on their town lead to their “wise” decision to take their lumps. The article can be read here; and, it is also republished below.
MELISSA SANTOS; Staff writer
Published: 03/11/1012:05 am
The Puyallup City Council has rejected a proposal that would have required citizens to be “courteous in their language and deportment” when speaking at council meetings.
After hearing objections from a dozen citizens at Tuesday night’s meeting, the council said no to the proposed rules for citizen conduct on a 4-3 vote.
Residents said the rules would infringe on people’s First Amendment rights to free speech and prevent them from publicly criticizing city officials’ decisions.
Besides requiring courteous language, the rules would have banned any “derogatory, impertinent, or slanderous remarks or insinuations” against council members, staff or citizens, and given the mayor the power to determine whether a citizen’s remarks were “germane and relevant.”
Most residents who spoke at the meeting thought those weren’t objective standards.
“What is rude?” asked South Hill resident Mark Stewart. “You know as well as I do that the answer to that question is completely subjective. I suggest you take your lumps.”
Council members ultimately dropped nearly all the proposed changes to their rules and procedures. The only change they made was to allow citizens to speak at meetings without having to sign up in advance.
Council members Kent Boyle, Rick Hansen, John Knutsen and Nicole Martineau voted in favor of keeping the citizen comment rules mostly the same.
“If I do something wrong, it is your duty as a citizen to tell me that,” Boyle said. “I believe that is your right.”
Martineau said that though she believes meetings should be held “in an orderly fashion,” she would prefer to do nothing rather than risk infringing citizens’ rights.
“I don’t want to censor anyone,” Martineau said. “That’s not why I’m here.”
Council members Don Malloy and Tami Brouillet and Mayor Kathy Turner favored amended language that would have banned the public from making libelous, obscene or indecent comments. Their proposal also would have banned citizens from making personal attacks on city staff.
“I think it is appropriate to make professional comments,” Malloy said. “Personal comments should be done in private.”
Other cities in the region, including Edgewood, Federal Way, Bremerton and DuPont, have policies barring citizens from making slanderous or personally abusive remarks, Puyallup City Attorney Cheryl Carlson said. The City of Tacoma adopted a policy in 2005 that contains language nearly identical to Puyallup’s failed proposal.
Tim Ford, the open government ombudsman for the state attorney general’s office, said earlier this week that city councils can ban disruptive behavior in their chambers, as well as impose time and noise limits on citizen speech. Requiring courtesy is a less neutral restriction, he said.
“I’m a little concerned about that,” Ford said. “It seems subjective.”
Ashley Brooks, a senior at Rogers High School, compared the city’s attempt to regulate citizen comments to censorship of her high school newspaper.
“Just because a few people are going to go up and be derogatory doesn’t mean everyone has to be punished because of it,” she said Tuesday night. “When someone comes up here and they feel passionately about something, words are going to slip out. They have that right.”
Making A Case Against Supporting School Levies
By · CommentsLove it or hate it, reality television is part of our culture. It has been a slow train coming, and the station from which it departed can be debated. You may remember shows like Survivor, but the origins go back further. Some contend that televised news probably holds the distinction of being first. Regardless of your age, you probably can associate the words “Oh, the humanity” and the Hindenburg burning, or Cronkite’s emotional reporting of the Kennedy assassination, replete with the black and white images, and the feelings they evoke.
Ted Turner probably recognized the value in that brand of reality when he launched CNN. All News, All the Time is about as relevant as Tastes Great, Less Filling. Both are equally hard to prove.
It wasn’t until the last decade that reality TV became the primary goal of programming, and for good reason. Reality television is cheap! The “Must See TV” sitcoms of the 1990s crumbled beneath the weight of their own success. The casts of Seinfeld or Friends easily commanded several million dollars per episode. Add that to the cost writers, sound stages, wardrobe, post production et al; suddenly giving a guy a million bucks to rough it on an exotic island seems an absolute bargain.
When George and Jerry were pitching their “sitcom” idea to the phony executives at NBC they were actually writing their own obituary. Too bad they could not recognize how prophetic the words “It’s a show about nothing!” were at the time.
In the 1990s I had a few friends that wanted a career in entertainment production. It was equally amusing and dismaying to watch the process of brainstorming ideas. Everyone needed something, a hook, to get them in the door. It was like listening to someone trying to explain to you their “system” at winning the lotto or beating the casino at roulette. Seemingly oblivious to such nuance as odds or the caprice of chance, they forged ahead with nothing more than an idea and hope. They knew someone won Powerball and someone once pitched the The Amazing Race.
Somebody had to win.
It is nearly impossible not to get sucked into their world. It was far more fascinating to be a part of than my mundane aerospace engineering job in Los Angeles. Sure, these people could barely make the rent but who wants to talk about red-lining some engineering prints or calculating a tolerance stack?
In their world, the golden ticket into the chocolate factory was scoring a meeting, usually with someone screening for someone else, who may or may not be in a position to green light a project. There are as many layers of flunkies between you and a decision maker as there are rings on a redwood. But, at least with a meeting, you had a chance. The line to the bank teller just incrementally moved you one step closer.
It was 1996 and they were talking, and getting meetings to pitch: raunchy animated sitcoms; mockumentaries; following people on their mundane jobs; and literally walking in someone else’s shoes.
I even had the bright idea of dedicating a whole network to car chases, live via satellite uplink; inspired by living in L.A.
It wasn’t that my friends were especially clever, since all of their ideas eventually made it onto TV in some fashion since then. It just wasn’t them who got the credit. It probably meant that everyone trying to make it in television at that time had the exact same banal ideas. The shear volume of wannabes suggests that it was a numbers game and my acquaintances did not have the matching numbers on their ticket, or most likely, the skills to pitch their ideas effectively.
Why bother with acting; or aspiring to direct? Reality television made everyone arriving in Hollywood want to be a producer.
Now that we have over a decade of reality shows we have seemed to lose our self consciousness. And, if we have lost our self consciousness then can any of these shows still stake a claim in reality? We know the cameras are rolling, even if they are hidden.
That brings me to the whole point of writing about this phenomenon. It is a clip from what is effectively a reality network (my idea, I swear).
TruTV broadcasts a show called Principal’s Office. It is a “day in the life” formatted show where an endless parade of kids take a seat in the principal’s office at a high school somewhere in these United States. Topics cover dress code violations, PDA, truancy, and any other assorted teenage nonsense. It is part Welcome Back Kotter, part Father Knows Best, and part COPS.
Witness the nurturing, and exasperation, of the staff. Empathize with the awkwardness of being a teen. Gasp at these kids nowadays. Or, just sit passively because nothing else is on or you cannot be bothered to change the channel.
The problem is that it hardly seems spontaneous, and it certainly isn’t in this clip. In fact, the reason this clip is so interesting is because everyone knows they are on camera.
Suddenly, reality has become like the live local news story where the goofy kid just has to jump up behind the reporter to get on TV. No respect for the gravity of the situation. And, in this case, no respect for the genre.
But, at the same time, it is an act of genius. You will get the sense that the Vern Fonk looking school administrative lackey knows the cameras are rolling. He wants you to think he has the situation under control. That he is compassionate and respected. However, the two students know otherwise. When you are seventeen, you have a pretty good idea of who is a douche. They also know that they are walking into a scripted event, so why not do a little script rewrite?
As the clip ends, I get the feeling that Logan and Brandon know that they are just biding their time until graduation, where they will move onto better things in spite of their high school experience, not because of it. They toyed with Mr. Blue Tie like a cat toys with the mouse. Just who was leading who?
Those who can, do, Brandon and Logan. And they just did what the principal could not. They made the segment entertaining.
Perhaps the school district was so desperate for those TV dollars that they agreed to film their schools’ staff looking like idiots for the money. If that is the case then I will be voting no in the future. How can I pass up an opportunity for our schools to hit prime time?
Beth Elliot of the Sequalitchew Creek Watershed Council addressed the DuPont, Washington city council at the last televised meeting. Ms. Elliot’s message is persistent; asking council, the mayor, and her staff to hear the concerns of the citizens.
The comments preceded today’s Sequalitchew Creek Feasibility Study meeting. The meeting was scheduled to kick off at 9:30AM and included time in the afternoon for public comment. Evidently, it wasn’t important enough to the city to broadcast the meeting for citizens on the front page of the city website.
The reader-board is advertising the Kidz Love Soccer event instead.
Oh well.
I have added a link to the Sequalitchew Creek Watershed Council’s website on the right hand side of this webpage. I also would like to provide a link to their online petition. It is straightforward and only takes a few minutes to complete.
Tracking Report Is Listless
By · CommentsTracking sheet. Report card. Two more tools being used by the city to make it sound as if things are getting done.
The problem with these glorified lists is not that things eventually get done, and a box gets checked or an item gets scratched off; issues should still be judged on the timeliness and completeness of their execution. As you can see from the January televised council meeting, the city has a way to go before they are successful.
I get the feeling that the mayor’s staff does not yet take this whole experiment too seriously.
I enjoyed the suspense leading to revealing the tracking report. You really were waiting for something grand. The delay and dismay; the emphasis of getting a copy visible for all to see; the reshuffling of the agenda to accommodate; and then the big reveal.
At that point the whole thing broke apart on re-entry, like Skylab.
Bill McDonald read the list as if he was reading the pictogram instructions from IKEA aloud. First you take and inventory of the parts included. Then you take part labeled “A” and bolt it to part labeled “G” with four “M” screws to four “N” bolts.
Maybe it was upside down.
I guess it only matters if you are paying attention.
Of Moving Cheese
By · CommentsA few years back there was a book that was all the rage in business circles. It contained a parable that was supposed to help people cope with inevitable change. The book, Who Moved My Cheese? (ISBN 0-399-14446-3), was given out to employees nationwide to prepare them for all the unpleasant realities of the U.S. workplace; like restructuring, downsizing, right-sizing, and lay off.
Receiving a book that is categorized as “self-help” is a nauseating gesture; receiving it from your employer could more appropriately be described as cruel. If the market warnings didn’t clue you in that you needed to start looking elsewhere, then receiving the book was the whup upside your head, indeed!
For me, it sullied an idiosyncratic tradition that was my preferred memory of moving cheese. Or, more specifically: Cheese moving at upwards of 70 m.p.h.
I am speaking of the Gloucester Cheese Rolling held every First Summer Bank Holiday in England. I am sure you have seen the footage as filler on a slow news night on your local station. The local newsreaders shaking their heads in feigned dismay at the sight of people tumbling, risking life and limb, all for an 8 lb wheel of Double Gloucester cheese.
One of the first things I learned when I lived in England is that Americans do not know how to make cheese. If you take our namesake American cheese, you will have to conclude that they are right. I enjoyed the English cheeses because they were strong and flavorful. They were also regional and many made the same way for centuries. In the name of full disclosure, I still enjoy French cheese for the semi-soft and soft varieties; but for hard and aged cheeses, the English are tough to beat.
That is what makes the wheel of double Gloucester so charming. It can survive the rigors of rolling down a steep hill.
The hill is impressive and the images we see of it annually do not do it justice. Usually, we see one or two angles of the event, but those montages of 10 or 20 seconds cast a pall over the event to make it look like some dumb, drunken fraternity hi-jinks. It actually is more akin to a rite of passage; a show of who has a bigger pair than the next guy (or, ahem, gal).
It isn’t for wimps.
That is why I was so enamored with this video. It is actually a music video for the English band The Maccabees. What distinguishes this music video from so many others is that it does not contain any images or references to the band themselves. Nor, is it really trying to tell a story. The music merely serves as a background for a documentary on the Gloucester Cheese Rolling.
That three minute or so documentary gives an interesting insight to a local traditional that is now known world wide. Moreover, it frames the event in camera angles seldom ever seen. If you just thought it was a bunch of nutters flopping down a hill you may be humbled at the grade of that hill and the daring it employs.
I especially like the shot of the people scaling the hill to reach their perch at the starting line.
Enjoy the video and remember, this tourist attracting tradition began without the aid of an events coordinator. Though I am sure it is a logistical nightmare to pull off in today’s England.
I recommend that you play the video in full screen mode by clicking the four arrows in the lower, righthand corner.
The Maccabees – Can You Give It
One last push with all the strength of us all
Under one great shadow floorshow
Take the strain for us all
Can you give it
Can you give it
Can you give it
Can you give it
Can you give it
One last pull to tight the slack of before
Slow rolling bolder, rock, stone, pebble
Grit, sand, dust, grain, speck of it all
Can you give it
Can you give it
Can you give it
Can you give it
Can you give it
Bolt hold, tape together
Concrete, to another
Bind tight, and deliver
Hold fast, hold fast, hold fast
Can you give it
Can you give it
Can you give it
Can you give it
Can you give it
We’re Going to Govern Like it’s 1999
By · CommentsPlease note! The links in this post are important reference materials in understanding the overall post. Please take the time to read them.
The February Home Town Clipper ran a brief article on the reduction of the city of DuPont’s Emergency Medical Service response. Citizens had grown accustom to the city providing medical transport via a city owned ambulance but the mayor ordered a reduction in service for 2010 citing, in part, “…response to failed tax measures and a drastic reduction in development.”
City Administrator Bill McDonald describes the new landscape and article assures the citizens “that the DuPont Fire Department is capable of responding to emergencies. All firefighters are Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) and are trained to stabilize patients, but they cannot transport patients to the hospital.”
The entire article is reprinted below.
By Kim Roedl
The DuPont Fire Department’s ambulance is parked. And City officials say with no money to cover the agreement with Lakewood Fire Department to cover the service, the ambulance is going to have to remain parked. City Administrator Bill McDonald said the City will just have to be dependent on private ambulances.
“It’s not where we would like to be, but we don’t have the money,” he said.
The City Council proposed two lid lift levies, which both were voted down for residents in November 2008 and in April 2009. Officials said the lid lift would have allowed the City to enter into a full service contract with Lakewood Fire Department, which would include staffing on a fire engine and a fire department medic unit station in DuPont. Since the levy failed, McDonald said the department is running a two man engine and the City’s agreement with Lakewood only covers basic services. This also means that the 2010 Fire Department budget would remain at $1.7 million, an amount that City officials said would lead to the diminishment of the level of service. The Fire Department takes up 20 percent of the City’s general operating expenditures— the same as the Police Department.
“In 2009 the City of DuPont found itself scrambling to reduce costs and by necessity the levels of service by the organization. Most notably the Fire Department and Community Development Departments shrank in response to failed tax measures and a drastic reduction in development,” Mayor Tamara Jenkins wrote in the 2010 Budget Message.
McDonald would like to assure citizens that the DuPont Fire Department is capable of responding to emergencies. All firefighters are Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) and are trained to stabilize
patients, but they cannot transport patients to the hospital.
Fire Chief Greg Hull was contacted and asked for comment but did not respond by press time.
What Mr. McDonald doesn’t say is that this model effectively turns back the clock to DuPont, 1999. A time when only the Historic Village shared the boundaries with the new Palisade Village; the remaining villages were nothing more than a gleam in the eye of the developers.
It was in 1999 that the plan for Emergency Medical Services started to come together. The city leaders of the time presented the growing community with an option of growth. So, in the November election a levy was offered as Proposition No.1: PROPOSITION ESTABLISHING AN EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES TAX LEVY.
Once passed, revenue raised for the next six years would be used to “obtain, operate, and maintain emergency medical aid vehicles as well as the facilities staffed by properly trained firefighter/emergency medical technicians. The city [would also need] to obtain the consumable medical supplies and medical appliances that equip the EMS vehicles and facilities.”
All that for $0.50 per $1000 assessed valuation. And so it was written and so it was done. A good thing too, because when you read the “statement for” the levy the point was made how this money would be used to improve Emergency Medical Service.
Among other things, [t]he fire department will also be able to purchase and equip and[sic] aid vehicle dedicated to EMS and provide the required medical training for professional staff and volunteers.
Back then, the fire department was mixed between professional firefighters and volunteers. During the day shift the pros (FF/EMT) would provide coverage. Off hours, weekends, and holidays would be staffed by trained volunteers.
The dual role of Firefighter and EMT, as noted above, is what we have now (all professional).
During the period between the implementation of the money from the levy in 2000 until the renewal brought before the voters in 2005, the fire department continued to experience growing pains, but hey, we had an ambulance that provided Basic Life Support.
Basic Life Support, or BLS; that is where things got tricky for the city of DuPont. That is what we have now, what we had in ‘99, and what we agreed to fund with the original EMS levy; and renewed in 2005. Somewhere along the way, the concept of Advanced Life Support (ALS) was promoted and that became the new gold standard.
The promotion of ALS began in earnest after the Fire Service Task Force and the original contract with Lakewood. Of course, Lakewood provided us with the Cadillac service and it was used as a marketing tool to promote a possible merger. At the time, we did not have the luxury to opt out of this gold plated service, but many within town did not know the differences between ALS and BLS, nor did they know we only had one (BLS) before the introduction of the other (ALS).
Even the Citygate report (paragraph two of excerpt) outlines how people perceive the advanced level of service to be the norm due to television dramas, but in reality small and rural communities often rely on the basic response. The poor communication and heavy handed management of the period post-Fire Service Task Force did not help matters. Some would argue that was intentionally so. I am not so sure.
What I find curious is the use of the money from the ‘99 and ‘05 EMS Levies. The language implies that this money would be segregated to specifically improve EMS service. Here is an excerpt from the ballot language:
“To maintain the current level of service and to better provide emergency services, the City needs to operate and maintain emergency medical aid vehicles as well as the facilities staffed by trained firefighters/emergency medical technicians.”
In this case, since it was the renewal statement, the current level of service as of 2005, when we had an ambulance. This measure was approved and remained in place though it was generally known shortly thereafter that the budget could not sustain it. A little more than two years after this measure was approved the whole fire department funding would come to a head.
The question needs to be asked that if we have a specific tax to improve emergency medical service then where is this money going today, now that our level of service has reverted back to 1999 levels?
Are we still collecting this tax even though we removed our ambulance and transport capabilities? That was rhetorical but I will answer it anyway: Damn right they are still collecting this money. In fact, here is a copy of the unanimously passed ordiance setting the tax rate from the November 24, 2009 council meeting.
Read on and you find that this collection amounts to 9.4% of the total of the general fund budget.
But what is it paying for? We know it isn’t funding an ambulance with dedicated EMT service. We also know that we have a fire rig show up to stabilize you until a private ambulance to haul you to the hospital., but aren’t those dual role firemen’s salaries paid for through the general fund? They have to be there to fight fires anyway. So, again, what is this money paying for? Is it the first aid and response kits on the rigs? Is a portion used for the maintenance on these trucks since they are used for medical calls? Is a portion of the firemen’s salaries paid from this levy while the rest is consumed from the general property tax.
Does it even matter?
I think it matters to a point since the language on the ballot states that if approved then the end result is better service. Evidently, the reality is that this money just effectively gets thrown into the general fund kitty to be used for propping the whole thing up. I suppose the City feels that this is the bubble gum and baling wire needed to maintain service….any service.
To add perspective on when we might expect the level of service that the City desires is a statement from the last televised council meeting is this video. The speaker is Craig Koeppler, a developer from Seattle that represents the tract of land formerly known as Intel West 90. Mr. Koeppler also was a member of the fire service task force. His message is clear:
The residential development is not enough of a base to support the services the City desires.
It does beg an interesting question: If we knew that 75% of our calls were for medical issues then why didn’t the City seek to increase the levy rate on EMS rather than the general fund? It seems to me that they could have made a compelling case to raise this rate to $1 per 1000 and it would have passed handily.
The problem is that would have meant we kept the department autonomous and since Lakewood had ALS, well, why not go along with them for the ride?
It is uncertain where we go with this EMS Levy and even if it will be up for renewal, though it expires soon. What we do know is there is truth to the axiom:
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Same Service Marriage: Two Alarm Merger?
By · CommentsThe playas at Lakewood fire are at it again, macking another community with that sweet, sweet talk of merger, or is it consolidation, or is it any other line they will use to get into the taxpayer’s pants (pocket, that is). They figure who can resist their big, strong fire service. This time they are using their one handed unclasping maneuver to expose the bountiful resources of their neighbor to the north, University Place. I guess they feel they had no other choice when they discovered that their neighbor to the south wouldn’t put out after a two year courtship. Of course, they were not content to remain “just” friends and soothed their ego elsewhere.
Whoa, who can resist those bountiful tax bases?
Here is the reprint of the article that appeared this past week in the Tacoma News Tribune:
BRENT CHAMPACO; Staff writer
Published: 02/04/1012:05 am | Updated: 02/04/1012:18 pm
University Place and Lakewood fire officials say merging the two districts makes financial sense. Some residents support the move, while others doubt whether their tax dollars would be spent wisely.
About 60 people attended a University Place Fire District 3 board meeting Tuesday night to discuss a proposed merger.
“I firmly believe this is a good deal for Lakewood; I do not believe this is a good deal for University Place.” said Scott Stephen, a UP resident who questioned whether his city needs the same full-time specialty services as its big-city neighbor.
Bill Bush, UP’s former fire chief, said the two districts have common interests. He said that wasn’t necessarily the case in the 1990s, when other merger attempts failed.
“As far as a ‘them-us’ mentality – please. We’ve been down that road before, and it serves no purpose,” he said.
After a yearlong study, the Lakewood Fire District 2 Board of Commissioners voted in January to pursue a merger. The two districts border each other in the west end of Pierce County.
Lakewood would dissolve its fire district and merge into University Place’s, which would be known locally as West Pierce Fire & Rescue. It would be governed by a single board, which initially would be composed of the merged boards.
The UP district’s board is now considering the merger and is scheduled to vote on it by early March. If the commissioners support it, then Lakewood residents, not UP’s, would vote as early as next year.
On Tuesday, chiefs of both districts – Mitch Sagers of UP and Ken Sharp of Lakewood – said a merger would be good for both communities.
The districts could pool their resources, including firetrucks, training facilities and experts, they said. Lakewood also would provide services that UP doesn’t have, such as a marine unit, which could be helpful when Pierce County opens two miles of beach at Chambers Creek Properties.
Sharp said the change would result in almost $1 million in savings to taxpayers. This year, Lakewood residents paid almost $3 per $1,000 assessed property value for fire and EMS protection, while UP residents paid $2.86 per $1,000.
Sagers said mergers – or “regionalization,” in firefighter talk – has been a trend throughout the South Sound; there were 32 fire districts or departments in 1990, compared with 21 last year.
The number could shrink by one more if voters approve merging the Edgewood Fire Department with East Pierce Fire & Rescue on Tuesday.
“All things considered, the merger is a sensible move,” Sagers said, quoting a consultant’s report from October 2009.
But some residents who spoke Tuesday didn’t agree.
Michael Holman was one of the people who pushed for University Place to become a city in 1995. He said locals wanted more autonomy of their government and tax dollars.
They would be giving up some of that power under a merger, he said.
“The fact of the matter is, you would shift control,” he said, pointing to the UP fire commissioners.
But Dixie Harris, who is active on the UP scene, said she trusts that the fire district knows what it needs to be successful.
“I can’t help but believe their decisions are in the best interests” of both cities, she said.
Brent Champaco: 253-597-8653
brent.champaco@thenewstribune.com
Same dance, different song. Here is the twist: Lakewood would dissolve its fire district in order to merge into the U.P. district. The hope is to form a power couple, and maybe it will work; it isn’t like these are opposites attracting, as was the case with DuPont.
It will be interesting to see if DuPont behaves like a jilted lover. After all, the DuPont Washington voters left Pierce County Fire District 2 at the altar in two elections in a span of five months just about a year ago. Lakewood has moved on and they are hoping that doing well is the best revenge. Perhaps they will now that they appear to have found a better fit.
Scat in the Hat
By · CommentsGreat minds think alike? Or, something like that, because it seems some folks in North Seattle also have dog excrement on their brains. In today’s edition of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer there is a featured blog post on dog owners who don’t pick up.
You can read the story in its entirety here, but I would like to share a featured video in the name of “public education.” Perhaps the mayor would like to add this link to the city website, since she is so keen on the concept of teaching doggie doodie scofflaws how to fish; assuming it will motivate them to address their dog’s steaming pile.
Take time to read the post since it helps you feel that you are not alone with this concern. Particularly, take note of the comments left on the North Seattle post. Besides, it is good exercise to throw your hands up in exasperation.
Alpha Dog
By · CommentsNow that it is clear that the city plans on holding yet another retreat, in the name of efficiency and generally getting along, I thought I should offer up a suggestion on potential areas they could concentrate on for the year 2010.
This year I would like to see the City Council and Mayor Jenkins work on something not inherently obvious to them (by definition). The need to understand subtext.
Subtext is defined by Merriam-Webster as the implicit or metaphorical meaning (as of a literary text). You may recognize it more readily as a device used in television and film. It is often referred to as the story within the story.
For example, you may remember the popular advertising campaign where the fastidious grocer named Mr. Whipple implored the patrons not to squeeze the Charmin. In this case, he is actually telling the shoppers not to squeeze the toilet tissue.
Squeezing toilet tissue. Who cares? What harm is there in an edifying squeeze? What seemed like the kindly merchant trying to maintain the integrity of the product was really about Mr. Whipple: control freak; and his obsessive quest to maintain order in a world of chaos.
He couldn’t stop the world from changing around him but, dammit, he sure could try to control the homemakers of yore from squeezing the always predominately displayed tissue.
Of course, that is one interpretation of Whipple’s mania. Ultimately, he would always succumb to the sins of the tissue and wantonly squeeze it himself! (the cad) To that end, Mr. Whipple may have had a simple fetish and rather than confront his own base desires he employed transference to the unwitting shoppers. Perhaps the toilet tissue represented the breasts of the women he chose to confront; and in the end, Mr. Whipple always surrendered to his desire.
The last, and perhaps most controversial interpretation of subtext in the Charmin campaign is that Mr. Whipple is actually protecting the women from themselves. There is something virginal about toilet tissue in that state. White purity that is unspoiled but with the realization that it will one day be torn, debased, and ultimately discarded unceremoniously; and once defiled, it can never be made pure again. Stand aside, ladies, your guardian angel Whipple is going to preserve in you what he so desperately wants taken from himself.
And why did they always have to sniff it while squeezing?
Face it, the guy needed therapy.
I have taken the time to painstakingly edit the following video from the January 12, 2010 televised council meeting to illustrate an example of subtext and how it eludes most of those in attendance. Watch carefully, you should find yourself mired in the same frustration as the citizen speaker.
The untrained observer might conclude that this citizen was complaining about the general rudeness of people who carelessly, or purposely, allow their pets to use his yard as a toilet. Living on a corner lot next to a public trail, I can sympathize. However, there appears to be another theme at play.
I sense a citizen who is frustrated with the city and what he perceives as a lack of acknowledgement and, ultimately, lack of action.
First he begins with a simple email but it escalates to having to take the time to travel to city hall and address the council and mayor personally. What is his treatment? He is facing scorn and inquiry in a semantic battle over what a response is. In Councilman Ehrenreich’s opinion it is a return email acknowledging the problem. To Mr. Davita, response appears to be the lack of solution.
Both sides are talking, both sides are listening, but neither side seems to get it.
What the council and mayor do not seem to understand is that “working” on an issue does not necessarily mean that a solution will be the end result. I could rehash recent history to corroborate this point but Mr. Davita did one step better. He laid down his trump card when he asked how many citations the city has written enforcing this ordinance in the past five years.
Touché.
However, most of us will agree that we would rather the police concentrate on activities that are of a greater benefit to the whole of the public.
The confusion is around why would a statute exist if there was no plan to enforce it even in the face of the fact that it is being violated? We see this all the time, cell phone usage comes to mind.
That brings us back to square one in the situation; looking for solutions. Here we hear the coin drop in the mayor’s juke box of “public education” and the proposed “pet socialization area.” Unfortunately, neither holds much hope that the situation will change on Fisher Avenue.
Who knows, maybe this is just my transference of frustration with the city that I am assigning to Mr. Davita. During the same period I was also expecting a response from the city on a matter that went unanswered over a curiously long period of time. A simple information request two months delinquent. In parallel, I watched and waited for the mayor’s response to the July fireworks related fires and deferred mitigation.
Bupkis.
Take heart, Mr. Davita. It isn’t that they can’t hear you. It is just that they can’t seem to answer you.
Life Under the Big Top
By Mike G. · Comments (30)It may surprise you that it is actually quite difficult for me to express my frustration with the city of DuPont. First, you must actually care enough to pursue an issue, any issue. Whether it is the opposing mine expansion; building a skate park; garnering additional bus service into town; pushing for a grocery store; speaking in favor, or against a fire levy; you name it. Once that is done, you can then embark on the tedious odyssey of trying to be heard.
It is important to clarify what exactly it means to be heard. It is actually quite easy to say what you mean. The council and mayor are available by email. Most are approachable while at large in town. And, of course, you could always take the time to attend a city council meeting and speak, not once, but twice, at the allotted time.
The city will listen to you but the real question is will they hear you. By hearing you, I am actually wondering whether they will listen, acknowledge, consider, and respond to you. Sadly, my own experience, and that of many of others who have contacted me through the years, indicate that the answer is no. They will not hear you.
I suppose I need to outline exactly what I am trying to accomplish with the fireworks issue. I will be forthcoming and state that I have ulterior motives beyond wanting to safeguard our bluff from unnecessary or damaging fire.
July 2009
Here is where it all began. We were in the middle of a very dry spring and summer as the Fourth of July holiday approached. According to the Home Town Clipper, there were a total of six brush fires, but Fire Chief Bob Merritt reported on the two largest. He concluded, before council, that both fires were started by illegal fireworks.
The discussion that followed lead to the council and mayor providing anecdotes of receiving calls and emails from citizens voicing their concern regarding the fireworks and the threat they posed, presumably because of the conditions and the spate of fires in town. The mayor famously pledged action by her favorite recourse of public outreach.
Part of the anxiety regarding fireworks that was stated certainly can be traced in the history of the issue. The city website has meeting minutes dating back to 2006 and 2007 addressing some of the same concerns. Bill MacDonald addressed previous failed efforts to ban fireworks when the city was half the size and houses were less densely situated. The impression you got was that the time had finally come for decisive action from City Hall.
I saw this as a perfect opportunity to follow the response, observe the process, and score the implementation. The issue resonated to me since my house is the closest house to the “surprising” fire behind Tract “I” Park. That was the fire that was difficult to assault due the steep grade. It was surprising to the fire chief because it occurred in an area under thick tree canopy and with foliage presumed to retain more moisture. If that fire got out of hand, I would be evacuating, along with my neighbors.
I was initially disappointed that the mayor would defer action on the fireworks issue in the face of the evidence of fire threat. I thought it was absurd to educate the community on the danger of incendiary amusement during the typically wet season around New Year’s Eve. (In fact, it rained hardily on that holiday). Besides, where I grew up we didn’t shoot fireworks off to usher in the New Year, we shot firearms.
November 2009
Not forgetting my example project, near the Thanksgiving holiday I started to look for the action implementation on the “intense” public education. I relied on the city website, and in particular the landing, or main page; and also the calendar. The city tends to use that landing page like most people use their desktop on the computer. If you are not quite down with the computer lingo, the city uses their landing page like a handbill uses a utility pole. It is cluttered with information, much of it out of date.
No information. The feeling of “hate to say I told you so” begins to creeps in.
December 2009
The weather changed profoundly from the summer. The record breaking (unprecedented) heat of July, heat that contributed and aggravated our dry conditions, was replaced with the seasonal rain and devastating cold.
Hooray, a distraction. A distraction on top of the other distractions that you had to reasonably know that were going to exist at the end of the year. The biggest distraction of the season isn’t finishing your Christmas shopping but finalizing the city budget. In fact, I was reminded of that at the last two city council meetings as a way of justifying the fireworks policy implementation delay.
Do you really want to use the budget as an excuse? The same budget that saw a reduction in our services yet a handsome pay raise for every exempt member of the mayor’s staff? Don’t forget this point because it will be the topic of a future post.
January 2010
OK, so the city failed on the educational piece of the solution. To be honest, I didn’t think that this part of the matter was really that important. Besides, the real threat to the forested areas was in the summer. The policy should reflect that. Now was the time that I anxiously, yet skeptically, waited for the matter to be discussed at the city council workshop to be held on the third Tuesday of the month of January.
If you have read this website with any sort of frequency then you probably can guess what happened. Not only was the agenda for this council meeting devoid of any mention of fireworks policy, there was no explanation published anywhere regarding its omission or deferral.
This required a response.
I initiated an email conversation with the mayor regarding the fireworks omission from the agenda. To provide some background, I had a parallel exchange going on for an information request around the same time. For this request, I was waiting on a response to a question I had at the November town hall meeting addressing the survey results. I was already pretty fed up with the lack of timeliness of addressing my inquiry from that meeting I attended.
Who am I kidding? The city either forgot or was completely blowing me off. That is a subject of another post sometime.
So, at this point, I am pretty torqued off. It is the second promise broken in the same nine week time span. Here is the email exchange I had with the mayor on the matter.
—–Original Message—–
From: Mike Gorski
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 3:30 PM
To: Tamara Jenkins
Subject: RE: Follow Up
On July 14, 2009, at the televised council meeting, there was a review of the two fireworks related fires on the bluff and near the golf course. At that time, you chose to defer any recommendation on the use of fireworks and the DMC. Your deferral would have two components. 1) “Intense” public education via city’s communication channels informing citizens of the DMC and who to call in the case of illegal fireworks launched at New Years celebrations (targeted date of or Dec 2009). 2). The issue of addressing fireworks in the DMC would be on the agenda for the first council workshop meeting (held yesterday).
Refer to the posts for January 14, 15, and 16, 2010 (http://realdupont.com/blogs/). I also referenced the online survey results calling for a complete ban and, if memory serves, mentioned this result at the Nov. town hall meeting.
Understanding both of these misses will help you understand my frustration.
–Mike
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 18:09:21 -0800 [01/20/2010 06:09:21 PM PST]
From: Tamara Jenkins
To: Mike Gorski
Subject: RE: Follow Up
Yes, I see. Thanks, Mike, for the clarification. I will make sure this is on our official 2010 to do list and gets on the 2nd workshop agenda. I will announce it at the next council meeting. The first council workshop of the year (last night) was very full … No excuses just a note.
Tamara
The result of the email exchange was a pledge to put the issue onto a tracking list, also known as the 2010 To Do List. Since the citizens do not have visibility to this, or any of these tracking lists, the gesture remained hollow to me.
This exchange was shortly after a citizen approached council regarding the issue of the lack of enforcement of the dog poop ordinance. Sure, it seemed over the top but I suppose I felt that I could understand the level of frustration Mr. Davita felt. And, perhaps his address to the council was a little bit theatrical, but I would also soon understand why.
What I did not understand was councilman John Ehrenreich’s response. John was permitted to angrily challenge the speaker with questions and suggestions that really had no relevance to the issue at hand. Call the ROA, John? The citizen was addressing the council about the enforcement; you guessed it, of something in the DMC. Instead, the speaker left after being told that he should build a fence.
I knew I was in for it myself. They were listening but not hearing what was being said.
February 2010
For years I have been told that I should attend the council meetings and speak before council. This posed a couple of issues for me. The first is that of schedule. I am seldom available at that time on Tuesday evenings. Besides, my real objection is the whole format and tenor of the proceedings. The council sits before you in smug delight as some authoritative body instead of a group of people elected to represent my interests. You have three minutes to state your case before a red light appears and you shuffle back to serfdom.
I needed to get over this.
I also had stated to some on council that they should be careful what they wish for regarding me sharing my opinions before the council, cameras, and city clerk recording the proceedings. I come bearing both facts and strong opinions. If they want my respect then they have to provide accountability, otherwise, they are just wasting everyone’s time.
This experience was not fulfilling either. The budget took priority, but that is a weak excuse. The whole idea of putting off something that should have been addressed in July made no sense. It gave the appearance of hoping it would just go away.
The fact of the matter is that they mayor and her staff forgot to add this to the agenda. The issue was effectively bumped by the community center use topic; something that arose after the fireworks promise and could have easily waited until the February meeting (guess what, no decision was made on that either. *sigh* Another post one day).
I, standing at the lectern, there for no other reason but to say that I know you know that I know.
Still, no commitment to a closure date.
The issue was finally discussed on Fat Tuesday, and as you would figure, I did not attend the special council session because it was held at a time at odds with my work schedule. I was given a Cliff’s Notes account of the proceedings and wanted to both scream, and cry.
They did not understand the issue and their proposed solution was borderline ridiculous.
It was later confirmed by a member of council that part of what was discussed was the difficulty in an all out ban on fireworks. I was told that the Police Chief offered an example that the city of Tacoma struggles with an all out fireworks ban to the tune of $35,000 annually spent on extra enforcement. This is a curious data point since Tacoma is twenty-five times the size of DuPont in population and ten times the size in area. Chief Goodpaster was basically saying that we do not have the manpower to enforce an all out ban.
In spite of this questionable data, I completely understand the complexity in banning anything. I never wanted a ban on fireworks, in fact, what I sought was clarity on the matter. That is what made the survey data such a red herring. The verbiage asked if citizens supported an all out ban on fireworks. The number one response (36.8%) was that they did. The survey does not distinguish between legal and illegal fireworks which is an important footnote since the illegal fireworks are the ones that seem to cause many of the problems.
Council had an interesting take on the data; the “reasoning” was later articulated by Penny Coffey where she said they concluded that even though the number one response on the survey was the citizens called for an outright ban the balance of the other responses wanted some sort of fireworks access.
Not only is this flawed logic, it is a dangerous way to “interpret” data, scientific or otherwise. The number one response was discarded in favor of the aggregate of the remaining responses. If Ms. Coffey had her way, Bill Clinton would have lost the 1992 presidential election and George H.W. Bush would be co-President with Ross Perot based on popular vote.
Imagine what will happen to a survey response that rejects a tax increase. The resultant spinning of information may fling us all off of the surface of the planet.
OK, so they don’t have money for an all out ban, but what about the actions that were approved? The council decided that they will remove on whole day from the window where legal fireworks are permitted. No longer will fireworks be allowed on July 2nd. In fact, the “solution” offered by the council was to implement the third most popular response on the survey; ahead of only “Fireworks should be permitted all year long” and “other.” Now that is leadership!
This result completely and entirely misses the point. Let me count the ways.
1. How will this new policy prevent fires and safeguard people and property? It just narrows the window while leaving all the risk intact.
2. How will council and mayor exercise their powers to impose an all out ban if weather conditions suggest increased fire risk (like in 2009)? Since they do not have the manpower to ban fireworks will this provision be stricken from the current DMC?
3. How will the city address the use of illegal fireworks since this is part of state law and the determined cause of the two largest fires last holiday? If we do not have the manpower to enforce state law should we call in the State Police? National Guard? Vigilant groups? What about the local Boy Scouts?
Can we at least form a posse?
4. And if we did enforce the prohibition on what is already illegal how would we contact the proper authorities? Should citizens call 9-1-1? Should they call another, non-emergency line? Should they observe and report?
In fact, none of the really important policy decisions were addressed and yet City Hall declared the meeting productive with a lot of good discussion.
I sincerely wish I could have attended but I decided to send a follow email instead. I wrote to Mayor Jenkins, all of the City Council, and I included the City Administrator and his lady in waiting, as well as the police chief. You can read a copy of the letter sent here.
Any wager on the response to my letter? Well, to her credit, Mayor Jenkins replied to my email. However, she was the only one who bothered with a response, and it isn’t even her policy to make. The rest of the council decided it was better invoke the privilege of the three monkeys. It is best to leave their screeching behind closed doors.
Even with their weak action that completely missed the point here is the final indignity: They still have not set a date to implement the action!
This led me back to city hall last week. I sat through two hours of pointless and inefficient government debating whether or not I should speak publicly again. My decision was set after the mayor gave her report and discussed future agendas. The next scheduled action regarding fireworks was to be held in May 2010.
May is ten months since the first discussion and five months later than promised at the July 2009 council meeting. It was unacceptable to me for two reasons: 1) No real action was taken, 2) any implementation of this weak action left one month to execute.
What was she thinking?
The second public opportunity to speak before council presented itself and I decided to act. I spoke last, without any prepared statement. I voiced my disappointment that this issue was pushed off, again, into the future. I suggested that they city was not taking the matter seriously. I inquired whether the mayor or council felt if this was a reasonable amount of time to make a policy decision; ten months. I was probably more animated in my delivery and it took every ounce to maintain restraint. In truth, I was so pissed off that I could spit nails.
When I sat back down there was no ambiguity left in my argument. You knew exactly how I felt on the matter and their performance.
An impromptu discussion began before adjournment. A reshuffling of the future agendas. The issue would move up the queue to a March “study” session (still, no promise of a date for closure). At this point, Councilman Roger Westman did the unthinkable. He apologized for the amount of time it has taken to finally address this issue. At that moment, I sensed that the blood began to boil in several of the other councilpersons.
To that, I say, it is about effing time! It is about time something or someone knocked them out of their complacency (and I give them the benefit of the doubt that they are competent enough to be complacent). This is a matter of accountability and propriety. This is the same bunch that was so concerned about fire service that they asked for two levy lid lifts between November 2008 and April 2009, presumably because they cared about people and their property.
Hey, council! How about you try to build some credibility by showing genuine concern for preventing fires in town rather than getting drunk with the power to impose a levy increase. You just blew an opportunity to be perceived as leaders and problem solvers.
After the meeting, I waited to discuss a couple points on the matter. Mayor Jenkins was gracious and I felt she better understood my point on enforcement and message to the citizens. I didn’t get the same response from the council.
John Ehrenreich summarily dismissed me with a wave of his hand and said that I was “cranky” (he was right). Oh, sweet irony that the member of the tree board and promoter of Arbor Day would not want to discuss a policy protecting trees.
Penny Coffey went on to say that I was disrespectful in the way I addressed the council; which is interesting since she did not bother to respond to my email, nor did she seem to realize that respect is earned—especially after not taking action as promised. To that end, she decided to throw Mayor Jenkins under the bus by stating that the mayor is the one who sets the agenda.
Lastly, there was the response of Larry Wilcox, who decided to impose himself into the conversation with Penny and myself. Larry declared to all that remained in the council chambers that I was a “disgrace to the city of DuPont” because all I do is focus on the negative.
OK, fair enough. But I did challenge Councilman Wilcox to provide me with a positive to put in my pipe and smoke. Just what positive was he talking about? The botched mine expansion? The gleaming new skate park? The city’s emergency medical response? The new parking restrictions three years in the making? The new bus line from Pierce Transit servicing town? The lack of a community development director? The droves of tourists adding to our coffers?
When I left to drive home I got goose bumps and thought to myself, “Wow. I am a disgrace to the city. That is pretty cool.” I mean, after all, the vast majority of people don’t give a rat’s ass about what happens in town. At least what I do has had an impact, if only to one councilman.
I will close this with the following. I find it interesting that all opinions are welcome, even when they are not.