Are you satisfied with your council? Are the meetings productive or is the council moving too slow? Is the slow movement a good thing representing a more deliberative pace or just stagnant government? Is the slow movement part of a divided council? Is the council too divided or just representative of a divided city? By my count we had three 4-3 votes at the last meeting. That may be a problem for some and not for others. A careful examination will show that the make-up of the yeahs and nays was different each time. Is the council addressing the important issues or skirting these issues? What positives do you see in city government? What changes would you like to see?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Councilman for Cascade Locks
- Lance Masters
- This blog is intended as a way for people interested in Cascade Locks to share ideas and opinions. Posts that are interpreted as hindering the free flow of ideas and opinions may be removed. Please be encouraged to discuss ideas and opinions rather than individuals and names.
22 comments:
What's it matter? You ignored any suggestions we've made on this blog. And even ignored the blog itself for the last month
First, I am constantly amazed and amused at the City Council meetings. I have to agree with that anonymous poster in August who states that you took over the meeting last night. It just seems to me that you are unable to realize that people on the Council, in the audience, in town are adults and don't really need that teacher mode that you switch into when you begin to take over. To be fair, Brad should not have let you and Bernard also treats everyone like they are unable to comprehend anything he deems complicated.
Number two: We really, really behave badly in front of guests. Why did we first make Ms. Mason wait the extra three weeks to be on the agenda, and then make her wait until after 9:00 to talk? Why don't we think about the employees who come to present to us? I felt for Chuck, to wait so long just for a vote for a joint meeting.
Number three: Why do you as a Council allow Bernard to take so much time for his reports? 20+ minutes last night for 3 items and a calendar that runs on channel 23 anyway.
I have developed an interesting theory. Take the agenda for the Council meeting, fold it in half, not including the title, and voila! that's how far you will get. Try it, it's worked for the last several meetings.
Take half of the items off of the agenda. You never get to them anyway. Allow the guests and public to speak first, it is only polite. Move the workshops to a time at night when your audience can listen. Half of town is probably asleep by 9:30 pm. Save our greatest tussles for last, and let's not make someone from another agency sit there and watch how badly we behave. And thank them for coming when they are done. Stop acting like royalty who summons an audience. A little respect goes a long, long way.
Your 4-3 vote tally is specious. Try running that count on all meetings since this Council took their seats.
And lastly, I am curious why you did not choose to post Ms. Mason's proposal for discussion. I thought it was a reasonable solution to a long-standing and expensive to her agency and us situation that has divided town for so long. What better way to figure out if senior housing is desirable for Cascade Locks?
A we discussed at the council meeting, it is not appropriate for me to comment on the specifics of Ms. Mason's proposal. You, of course are more than welcome to comment.
With respect to your opinions, I make no apologies for being assertive at council meetings. Someone has to do it and it led to a more productive meeting. Count how many times the Contract of the Fire Chief was on the unfinished business agenda. Count how many hours the council has spent discussing this or tangential issues. Monday night we did move forward.
I have run the count on all meetings since this council was seated. The 4-3 vote hasn't happened as much as you insinuate.
I did not ask you to comment, I asked why you did not choose it as an issue for others to comment upon. You say "up to three issues."
You moved forward at a cost to civility, and again, you are not the Mayor, you only hold a post equal to the other Councillors. The problem occurred when the Council began discussing level of service when the conversation should be about hours of service. The Fire Chief is a Public Safety officer and should be working when needed. He uses up the hours in the morning (I guess, among other things, supervising himself cleaning the bays) and the majority of the calls are during a swing and night shift on the weekends. Of course anyone wants to work M-F, 9 to 5, but it is not feasible in a PS position, and has led to problems. And the Council should be able to tell the FC and the CA that THAT is how the position will be changed. As in make it so.
The CA is manipulates data before he presents to Council and then massages it during the process. That is one reason the petition is going around town. That is also why other Councillors are questioning where that data comes from and how it obtained.
And I respectfully disagree with your choice of the word insinuate. I stood in front of the Council one meeting and emphatically pointed out that you, as a whole, were obviously stuck in a vague, unnecessary partisanship and needed to get together and work towards a consensus. I did not insinuate.
Sign the petition. Do you really want to watch the City Council cannibalize itself further? Let's fix what is really wrong.
The city councils have been divided long before this one was seated, at least for 10 years or more. Currently it seems to break down on a 4 to 3 basis, this is possibly a reflection of the town's sentiments. The supporters of the 3 of course would like to have their ideas and thoughts prevail just as anybody else in a minority position would. Seems natural to me. As to the Queen of No's petition, she's been behind the hatred shown to nearly everyone in a position of authority in Cascade Locks, it started with Keith Layden, who she beefed about and got John Morgan hired, then she didn't like John when he disagreed with her, it went on To Bob Willoughby, he left and we hired Bernard Seeger who is well qualified for the job both in temperament and training, if we lose him, it will cost the city severance pay, there will be no continuity for the next person, and who would want to come here after what's gone on with the hatred displayed toward the last two C/As?
The pool the League of Cities will have to work with will shrink, as it was there were only 3 people who came to the town hall interview, and only one really qualified. Not liking Bernard's style is hardly a reason to seek his firing.
Robb
Robb,you have got to be kidding. You say BS is well qualified in temperment? It is reasonable to accept that anyone in a position of managing a program will need to make unpopular decissions. The trouble with Bernard is that, in my opinion, he lacks the ability to be an effective public servant because he can not hold a conversation without making it into a conflict. He can not accept comprimise, he has to feel like he wins. He also can not seem to grasp the idea that He Works For Us, not the other way around.
Your statement about the pool of candidates available is incorrect as well. You make it sound like nobody in the country is available to be our administrator. Have you read a newspaper? We are close to being in a depression. There may be hundreds of applicants available. If it was just a question of as you say, not liking his style, we would not be having these conversations about ending his employment.
Robb,
All I get from your post is "maintain the status quo", plus an insult to someone not here at this time and able to defend herself. Disliking Sandra because she speaks the truth, even at great cost to herself is petty and immature. You can disagree with her methods, but you cannot deny her effectiveness.
Many of us are not as impressed as you are with a "West Point" education, why we even know others who have graduated from that institution and know that he is a typical product, particularly with his win-at-all-costs attitude. If he had once attempted to win someone over rather than mow them down, I might not have signed the petition. My breaking point, as with many others, was the personal bonus request for "landing Nestle."
That's not "style", that's greed.
Hello Hyde and Anon, As to Sandra, she's not above taking personal shots at people just look at her opinion pieces in the H/R News, not to mention looking down her nose at the world. Given her actions taking shots at her is just returning what she dishes out. As for Bernard, I haven't seen the win at all costs attitude you've referred to. I've visited with him and talked to him, I'm just not seeing what you see. I also don't understand wanting to get rid of some one for their style. If they do something immoral, unethical, or illegal there are remedies, there is the district attorneys office, and the Secretary of State, has anyone contacted either or is this just about style.
I still think that much of what we all see is just people being passionate about their beliefs, maybe more so here than many other places. When Bob Willoughby came here he left this sort of environment in Lafayette, he did so because he couldn't get anything done. That's basically why he left Cascade Locks, it's impossible to accomplish much when we're all going different directions.
Robb
Robb,
You need to know that there is an ethics complaint working it's way through the system against Bernard, and that Sandra is not even in this fight right now.
Two, since when does two wrongs make a right? You're sounding like she hit the nail on the head about your failed campaigns, and all I see right now is you making nasty cracks about her in a venue in which she does not participate.
Maybe you need to stop pointing out our past mistakes and our present enmities and why we can't do things, and start helping regain a consensus of opinion.
Since when does two Robb's make a right?
I have never learned anything from his posts, other than what he thinks other people want to hear......what a waste of time.
Being on City Council is a big responsibility, not something to be taken lightly. Each councilperson is an elected official, elected to represent the community on serious matters, who attends official meetings that are supposed to be run by Roberts Rules of Order. My question to you, Lance, is when roll call is taken, why do you flippantly answer "Oh yeah"?
I agree with you about the importance of being on council. However, I do not consider the answer to be flippant. Rather, it means that I am here and ready to tackle the important challenges facing the council. It is an emphatic yes. I have noticed that frequently people respond with a smile. I think smiling is a good thing - even at council meetings.
Gag
You assume they are they smiling with you; it could be they're smiling at you?
Lance,
What are your thoughts on this?
Hey Lance, I hear you actually responded to the roll call like a mature human being.
Congratulations for being able to take a hint.
Its the little things that can make a difference.....thanks Lance.
Can you hear meeeeeee?
hear me.......hear me......hear me
Try saying something if you want to be heard.
Okay, try this. You have become an uninterested party on your own blog. With all the issues and discussions that have been going on, you have been absent. You have acted like a bad sport about some pretty valid criticisms. Perhaps if you dealt with some of the comments that arise during the course of the month, maybe you would garner more respect.
Post a Comment