No Post this Morning
Spent my morning composing a letter to my city council, offering a little direction before they make it illegal for a volunteer to speak up.
posted by Dan at 8/20/2008 07:57:00 AM
Gone Mild
Aging gracefully and dispensing wisdom from Kansas City.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Previous Posts
- Everything's Fine
- Kneejerk Nine Attack Volunteers - Tony Rules Their...
- The Rude Pundit Explains the "Hot Chicks Dig Obama...
- The Non-Scary Guide to Getting Involved in Politics
- Vincent Gauthier Can Kiss My Fine White . . .
- Ballroom Dancing (DanceSport!), Synchronized Divin...
- Cokie Roberts, John McCain, and the Foreign Land o...
- Should Brookside Secede from the Union?
- More Paris Hilton/John McCain Fun
- Should Donnelly Seek a Recount?
Links!
Me on my Good Days - Favorite Posts
99 Bottles of Beer On the Blog (Ranked)
Sunday Poetry
37 Comments:
they make it illegal for a volunteer to speak up.
Are you saying the proposed ordinance makes it illegal? Or are you saying you are afraid they will pass another law that would make it illegal?
The proposed ordinance prohibits volunteers from offering direction to the city council or staff. Depending on how badly they botch the definition of "volunteer", they might sweep up people like me into their ordinance. Right now, remember, they are playing a game of dodging responsibility for their irresponsible ordinance by claiming it's just a draft . . .
Drafts don't always improve - they often get worse.
I guess you are talking about:
Sec. 2-1962. Volunteer Cannot Direct and/or Supervise.
A volunteer does not have the authority to give direction to any City employee or City elected or appointed official or other City volunteers.
Probably "direction" should be replace with "authority" or something like that.
I would say the spirit of the ordinance is to say that volunteers can not be in charge of or have authority over city employees and that volunteers must follow the same ethics rules as city employees.
Do you think volunteers should have authority of city employees?
Do you think full time volunteers should be held to the same standards as city employees when it comes to harassment/discrimination?
Wow, what a misguided one-man disinformation campaign. -- Illegal for a volunteer to "speak up"?
Drafts "often get worse"?
This is what you're really saying: "anybody can make stuff up to create fear, uncertainty and doubt".
And as always, your tactics backfire on you and ultimately harm the person you are trying to defend. Almost always.
Your specific criticism above, will at most result in some additional wordsmithing on 2-1962 to more accurately reflect the intent of the section.
At most! And most probably it will have no effect.
2-1962 addresses authority over city employees only, which is different that providing opinions and direction on public policy.
Get that Dan? there's a difference between authority over daily work duties and the formulation of public policy.
Keep on trying, though, you're bound to stumble on an idea that will make the ordinance that much better!
Keep up the good work.
Try2 -
I suspect that Dan would be happy to improve the ordinance. Right now, it needs a lot of help.
Now, I'm curious about how you read 2-1962 to apply to city employees only, when it actually claims to apply to "any City employee or City elected or appointed official . . .", which would definitely include the City Council.
See, it really is as bad as Dan claimed!
You must be horribly embarrassed and apologetic about accusing my friend Dan of a disinformation campaign, when you were simply lying about the language!
I hope Dan accepts your apology.
I misread the section, and, yes, I am sorry to have accused Dan of disinformation when it was me who got it wrong.
When I'm wrong, I admit it, and I was wrong. Sorry, Dan.
I still think the language can be changed to make it better, though.
Couldn't Gloria do all this volunteer work in a home office? Her and Funk could IM each other all day long. I would hazard to assume that most people don't have a problem with a mayor relying on a spouse for advice and counsel, but they don't want to see it so visibly. Transparency is great, but sometimes moderation is good, too.
That was not try2 who posted immediately above.
Nice try anon at 9:39, and I was not lying about the language. My point was right on.
But again, you, like "your friend Dan" are free to make stuff up.
But please continue to stay focused on improving the ordinance - every little bit helps!
When I claimed that the ordinance did not encompass directing the city council, I was wrong. It clearly does.
The way I read the law, it would prevent Gloria from "giving direction" to Funky (a "City elected or appointed official") by email or IM or pillow talk.
I wonder if it would apply to people who tell Circo how to vote.
To the idiot that posted under my name at 10:37 am - individual volunteers, citizens, residents, companies, you name it - do not have the authority to direct city council representatives today.
My previous comments addressed authority over employees only in the context of their daily duties, and did not exclude appointees/elected - the full text of the ordinance is stated right above that comment.
But that point is irrelevant - you don't get the difference between and individual volunteer having authority over - and registered voters voting for something. The only way individuals have authority over elected officials is through voting in groups - get it? As for appointees - the authority over them, if there is one, would be the person who appoints them and can replace them - but in any case we know, definitely, that individuals at have zero formal authority over elected officials not individual volunteers or citizens.
To say it another way, volunteers can certainly give guidance like any other citizen but the elected official is not obligated to do what the volunteer says.
The compenent of the ordinance your focusing is the least impacting, because it simply restates how things actually work.
But go ahead and keep making stuff up.
Keep making stuff up, and playing silly games by posting under my name - if those are the only things you can do to defend Gloria, have at it.
So, when I said "2-1962 addresses authority over city employees only . . .", it's your fault for reading what I wrote instead of something different that might have been true.
Get it? I said "city employees only", and accused Dan of lying, and I still think he was lying, even though, umm, he wasn't.
Understand now?
And I also assume that Dan is trying to protect someone even though I'm the only one who is talking about her.
And the part about volunteers not having authority to give direction to the city council isn't really in the ordinance, even though that's what the ordinance says, because they already can't give direction to the city council, even though Dan is trying to give direction to the city council by writing a letter.
Am I making myself clear?
haha, try2 anon imposter at 11:34.
You're trying your best to derail the issue, but you have not been successful.
Your hero Dan says that per Sec 2-1962 volunteers and ordinary people will be restricted in their ability to "speak up". Whatever that means - I think he's getting at a volunteer's ability to influence and improve government.
In fact, however, the ordinance bars volunteers from having authority over employees, appointees and elected officials.
A CONDITION THAT EXISTS TODAY.
with the exception of Gloria.
A city employee (and appointee, and elected official) is not obligated to do what an individual volunteer tells them to.
That exists today, and it makes sense to most people. That section simply states how things work today, except for the screwed up Gloria situation.
Dan, and you, are just plain wrong.
Dead wrong.
Incredibly wrong.
So wrong, in fact, that you guys look, once again, like idiots defending Gloria.
That section is staying in, and this ordinance has a veto-proof margin of victory.
But keep making things up. You can't speak to the actual claim that Dan made, so why don't you change the subject again?
And Dan, I encourage you to post your letter.
In fact, however, the ordinance bars volunteers from having authority over employees, appointees and elected officials.
hey try2. How about we all agree the word "direction" should be replaced by "authority", then we should all be happy?
Direction is a very broad word.
Hm, but if we change it to authority, would that mean volunteers can't vote in an election? Because voting is the ultimate authority in our democracy?
My head hurts.
Sometimes volunteers ought to have authority AND direction over city staff. If I'm the volunteer head of the Ethnic Enrichment Festival, and I want the picnic tables moved over there, I hope that I will have the authority to tell the parks employee to move them over there (nicely, of course).
Amd when I said that doesn't happen today - well, I was wrong again. I'm having a bad day.
try2 at 12:49 is posing.
Anon, at 12:19, I get your point.
We can substitute authority but then it would appear twice - "A volunteer does not have the authority to give authority..."
I agree with you that there is some ambiguity that can be raised by certain critics - what I don't know is whether the current text and wording represents terms of art that represent a common legal meaning that eliminates the ambiguity.
To the imposter at 12:49 - good example! Authority means that if a city employee refuses to move the table at the request of the volunteer, they would be committing insubordination. There's the rub - and that doesn't happen today, correct? I would challenge anybody to contend that a volunteer at an event can subject city employees to disciplinary action for insubordination.
Really? You don't think a parks employee would get discliplined for defying the direction of the volunteer?
I know that the authority to boss employees around gets delegated by all kinds of supervisors, in a bunch of departments. I've seen it happen. Nobody I've seen got fired, but they sure got written up and chewed out.
We're talking authority here, chain of command, reporting structure, stuff you would see on an org chart, as it relates city employees.
My point still stands.
As for appointees and elected officials, give me one example of where, if a single volunteer were to ask them to do something, they should be obligated to do exactly what the volunteer requests. And if they do not, they would be subject to disciplinary action amd/or forfeiture of their position.
Name one appropriate example. Just one. (and don't come up with a voluntteer asking them to fix a saefty problem at city hall - the authoirty there derives from city ordinanaces and codes, state laws, etc.)
That example doesn't exist, because it is not allowed today.
These objections to the ordinance don't make sense, and the concept of sec 2-1962 still stands.
NEXT!!!
Anybody aware of how the hearing this morning went?
I am.
Funk, Bill Drummond (Crossroads wingnut), and an African American gentleman testified in Gloria's defense. The African-American gentleman repeatedly referred to Gloria as "Miss Gloria".
The Parks Board favors the ordinance, and John Fierro (president of the Parks Board) and Meg Conger testified in favor.
A ton of very credible people testified in favor of the ordinance, we should publish a list.
It was, on balance, an excellent hearing on the ordinance. What is surprising is the incredible lack of opposition to this ordinance.
Ugh, how could anyone speak up for Gloria. Get her the hell out of that office even if it means the Mayor I voted for goes with her.
I have met her and have zero desire to every be represented by her. She is a crass, egotistical man hater.
Anon at 2:38 - I can understand why you feel that way.
I think it's interesting that one of Funk's primary tacticsto prevent the ordinance from being advanced is that the KC Star is conspiring against him.
He said that in the hearing today.
The Star's historic, enthusiastic endorsemnet of Funkhouser was the #1 main reason he was elected. I do not think they would be conspiring against the guy.
Coming to a conclusion like that strikes me as a little "zany".
Explain to us Dan - considering that other than Gloria no volunteers have been at city hall, and, in fact, volunteers have been specifically barred from city hall - how a volunteer policy, that now can allow volunteers into city hall, hurts volunteers?
This ordinance allows significantly more volunteerism. And it won't affect Parks & Rec.
So, again, why don't you publish your letter so we can better understand your argument. It's not making any sense at this point. What is preventing you from "speaking up"?
I am the real try2. Quit posing on me, previous try2 idiots. The Ordinance is crafted in such a manner as to potentially increase divisiveness in our beloved community. And I like the smell of Gloria's feet.
Hey! That's going a little tooo far with the foot smelling.
You try2 wannabees are something else.
I neglected to mention the testimony of Gloria's lawyer. A volunteer getting a lawyer in order to keep volunteering. Man this is strange.
She needs a better lawyer, though, if the best he can do is generally say this ordinance can lead to litigation. I hate to break it to him but just about everything in this world could lead to litigation.
There must be something I'm missing.
"“Gloria and I have been a target of a vendetta by The Star,” he said"
A vendetta?
Do they not realize that without The Star, he wouldn't even be Mayor....
try2s - I have no idea who any of you are, but the only one who got it right was the one that correctly pointed out that the first try2 lied about the ordinance language. It does, in fact, apply to attempting to provide direction to the city council.
I appreciate the fact that you want to read my letter - it was pretty darned well written, if I do say so myself. But it wasn't intended to be a blog post, so I'm not going to publish it here. Sorry. Maybe the councilwoman who sent her voicemail message to Tony will send it to you.
As for there not being volunteers in City Hall, that is a bald-faced lie, and I know that for a fact. I have spent time volunteering in City Hall on education issues, and there are dozens and dozens of others who have volunteered in various offices. And, yes, indeed, they did offer direction to city employees.
The City Council knows that.
When the council starts wondering why nobody wants to help them on their task forces and other projects, they will have themselves to blame for this. Once again, they have shot themselves in the foot, just as they privately acknowledge they did when they gave Wayne Cauthen the undeserved raise and extension. Now that he got caught lying on his resume, we're going to be stuck with him for the full term, and they regret it.
The ones that ultimately make decisions are the mayor and the Council. The best everyone else can hope is to be an advisor. The charter specifies duties and responsibilities for all formal volunteers. Anybody who attempts to go beyond their duties is OVERSTEPPING THEIR BOUNDS and should resign.
Dan - you forget that the only reason any of this is necessary is because Funk-ee's failure to control his wife. One rotten apple certainly spoils not just the bunch but the orchard.
I congratulate the council for having the courage to do what they are doing.
What a bunch of bullshit you put out, Dan. Quit talking in code and say something that is clear and to the point.
You haven't so far, the only thing you have provided is bullshit.
You're not providing your letter online because you have not sent it, and/or you know you're wrong, and you're embarrassed to publish it.
The depth of your stupidty and arrogance is amazing. You are not even clear on your charges - is that your intent? I think so.
You say of the ordinance, it applies to volunteers
"attempting to provide direction to the city council."
What does your statement mean?
I'll frame the conversation and situation in clear, unequivocal terms:
The ordinance says that a volunteer does not have the "authority to give direction to elected officials".
That means that a volunteer cannot tell the city council or and individual council rep what to do.
That exists today!!!
Why on God's name would we want a single volunteer with no credentials or basis, to have the authority to direct city council?
Answer the question and speak clearly, Dan, or shut up. You're not making sense.
But public opinion also in on the side of the ordinanace - how many people answered Funk's call to defend Gloria? YOU didn't even testify.
And the source of try2 statements on current city volunteers? The HR director's testimony in today's hearing.
Time for some straight talk.
Not that it's needed - the ordinance is going to pass with a veto-proof majority, regardless of the bullshit you spew.
The perfect example of your bullshit is when, just this evening, you maintain the ordinance applies to appointees, when it clearly does not.
You haven't even read the ordinance yet.
You're stumbling Dan, and looking like quite the moron.
Can't we just incarcerate Gloria in a Mental Health Facility? It really would be a more direct and effective solution than changing the rules for everyone else.
The Funk has shown contempt for a state nepotism statute as is, so why would anyone expect him to comply with a city ordinance?
Enforce current law before passing new law! Council should file a criminal complaint based on the nepotism statute with the County Prosecutor's Office.
Glad to see you are still sipping the Front Porch Kool Aid and playing with the serpents Dan.
Dan, here's a topic: the dirty dealing going on in municipal court.
Ask, for example, a legal secretary and see what reaction you get.
Curious fellow.
Is that my old buddy try2Bob?! That's one of my favorite self-defeating handles on the internet.
Dan, here's a topic: the dirty dealing going on in municipal court.
Ask, for example, a legal secretary and see what reaction you get.
Curious fellow.
Dude, as long as you're anonymous, why not make sense? Do they even have legal secretaries in muni? What the hell would they do down there?
Ahhhh, Sophia, you made the correct connection. I have returned, and was waiting for someone to make the connection.
Writing try2Bobjective is just too much trouble these days for my tired fingers.
I left the blogosphere after the election quite deflated. Lately, matters appear to be looking up.
Off topic as usual...
You are the only freaking blogger I have read that can make a one sentence post and get 33 freaking comments. lol
The ever Anon AF
Who was the former CCP executive committee member who allegedly engaged in a tirade against you?
Meanwhile, I'm confused by http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/13889
I thought she didn't like him.
So after yet another knee-jerk item, do you still believe Beth Gottstein is doing a "great" job?
Post a Comment
<< Home