MUSINGS by Mike Ceremello Email

July 12, 2006

City Manger Sees Handwriting

on the Wall

More interesting turns and twists within city hall this past week as the city manager, the one who really runs this city and directs it, sees the handwriting on the wall and reacts to it. A four page letter from Warren Salmons to the state water board was a vindication of all the things I have been saying. As I have continually claimed, I don’t care who takes credit for getting the job done as long as it happens and it is done correctly.

With the potential loss of all development until the wastewater salinity issue is resolved, Warren sprung into action as it became more than apparent to him that the initiative to roll back the tripled sewer rates will happen. No racetrack. No Brookfield. No Southwest. No Milk Farm. No more raises. You guess which one got the ball rolling.

I will give Salmons credit. He is a sharp guy and is looking for a solution. I have seen him do this on more than one occasion. The problem is that he has to be a self starter as the council doesn’t appear capable of either directing him based on facts that they could easily review or because he predisposes the council by giving his opinions which they lazily follow unquestioningly.

As I said during the public hearing, "you haven’t examined all the options." As I said during the hearings all the way back in 2002, "you don’t even know from where the salts in our groundwater are coming or to what extent from various sources." Now that "new" data has come to light, plus an initiative, suddenly new options have appeared and Salmons points look amazingly similar to my own.

What about financing options? The obvious one of paying for improvements out of General Fund money was not discussed. As usual the General Fund is viewed as staff’s salary pot. While they don’t have the nerve to say this, they certainly should have looked at deferring salary increases to take care of financing. Now it seems they might not have to do this at all.

The $40 million project of moving effluent 7 miles south is now considered as inappropriate. I guess if the City cuts the rate increases to a more moderate level, most of us will just accept it like the good little sheep we are. I would suggest that the General Fund still be used, if not to totally eliminate the increase this year at least with the intention of setting aside money in the next several years to do so.

I don’t like the fact that Salmons called for a private meeting with the water board. Instead of working with the community, he separates himself from what could be his biggest asset. This is just one more example of his controlling nature and his inability to either delegate or collaborate except with those with more power than he wields.

Also to be noted is the comment from your mayor Mary Ann Coureville, that this issue is being "politicized" because of the upcoming election. I would agree with her. But it isn’t the SCTA that is making this a political issue, it is Coureville herself.

Contrary to the doom and gloom of those "grow or die" advocates, these kinds of disputes strengthen the decision making process and give us better results. Of course, if the council had listened to the public in the first place, all 2,000 parcel owners which translates to 4,000 voters, I wouldn’t be writing about this right now.

Another point that needs to be considered is the obvious lie this exposes. By coming out now and saying there are options, what does that say about the city staff and city council’s adamant denial that options existed? In the words of Chris Manson, "can you trust them?"

A failed parcel tax, a four year debate over the right of church owners to use a building they owned, a car wash behind two story homes, an apartment complex guaranteed to create traffic nightmares on Stratford, the backing of Measure H. It might be easier just to oppose everything the mayor, the lesser stooges, and city staff endorse than to argue intelligently against it.

I don’t trust them and neither should you...

* * * * *

I don’t use the same approach each time I address the council. Sometimes I am calm and nice. Unfortunately there are those on the council who see this as a sign of weakness and they go on the offensive, not debating issues but criticizing the messenger. Big mistake.

Of all the councilmembers, I would never have expected Loren Ferrero to come out in opposition to critical free speech. It is true comments have become personal. Perhaps that is to be expected when you lie about listening to the public and make your decisions based on political reasons rather than common sense. According to the article about the coming election in the Reporter, Ferrero doesn’t "like being attacked all the time". Then at the council meeting he made a similar statement from the dais.

It seems that Loren doesn’t like being questioned on "mundane" minor issues that used to be passed without comment. I guess he prefers the Steve Alexander approach, that not everything is important enough to require a hard look. "I have to pick my issues" I believe is the way Steve put it to me. As I told Steve, and now I will tell Loren, all issues are your issues and you don’t get to decide what is important enough for citizens to comment on and what isn’t.

The point is the sewer rate increase, the race track, plus all the past poor decisions were neither ordinary nor decided based on facts and logic. Despite what Loren claims, there are conspiracies within the local government, within his private group of friends that continue to attempt to control politics in this town, and this includes developers whose projects are unexpected and unwanted by many.

Those of us on the outside have decided we are tired of the same old government, done in the same old way, by the same old good ol’ boys. That is why Jack Batchelor’s sudden appearance at council meetings a few months ago in his attempt to qualify as a substitute for Ferrero rang the alarm bells. Jack, putting being a nice guy aside, always backs what those in power, and their minions in city hall, want.

Being another of those who listen but don’t hear, and frankly having a history of endorsing poor decisions much as those currently on the council, Batchelor is anathema to those who want decisions made on a basis of logic and common sense. The only way we have to stop this is to attempt to convince individuals such as Loren and Jack by speaking at council meetings.

While Loren probably won’t admit it, he stopped listening to those from Dixon Citizens for Quality Growth a long time ago. Obviously he still listens to what I say or write, as I am not as nice as the members of the former group. Unfortunately, he doesn’t consider the facts but concentrates on the criticism, personal or otherwise.

In the end Loren is taking that sage old advice: if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Better yet, maybe the public is telling you that they don’t like what you have been cooking lately and we want a new chef.

Bon appetite

* * * * *

Another one of our city commissions is heading down a slippery slope. As I told the Parks and Rec commissioners, an ad-hoc committee of one less than a quorum making decisions behind closed doors should not be supported. Once again the control freaks of city hall are attempting to manipulate the decision making process.

By having this select group of commissioners meet with design consultants and having them come to an agreement before issues are put before the public, lessens the public’s impact in the process. When any issue comes back before the commission, staff will tell the entire commission that 3 of their 7 members already have their minds made up.

Instead of going against their peers and embarrassing them, they will go along with whatever is suggested. As staff will make suggestions to push the project in a certain direction, guess who will control the process and project?

This is what happened with the council’s ad-hoc committee on senior management compensation. The results are in on that. Bankruptcy isn’t pretty...

 

July 6, 2006

A Genuinely Worthless Council

You would think that an intelligent person would know when to give up. Time after time the same message comes from the dais. We can never pay our staff enough money to keep them here and to keep them happy. Such was the case at the last council meeting when this happy group of hypnotics reiterated their past stances. (I would suggest you read Ivy’s front page story for details.)

I feel sorry for our poor city treasurer David Dingman who has the misfortune to be a thinking man amongst connivers. He has attacked the council for overpaying City Manager Warren Salmons on a regular basis, so much so that Salmons told him he didn’t appreciate it.

It must be difficult being the lone person speaking in opposition. I wouldn’t know anything about that. Councilman Steve Alexander would as he does it on a regular basis until his brain goes into overload.

While Dingman, Alexander, and I all criticized the proposed and now approved budget, the rest of the council was acting as a cheering section for staff. If any of you actually listen to the drivel coming from the likes of Smith, Vega, and Ferrero, then think about what the statements imply, you would walk away shaking your head just as I do.

Vega’s statements of "no apologies" for the work of police and fire imply that Dixonites would get less service if we refused to give raises. The only reason for increased response time is higher pay. Frankly that is an insult to the competence of our chiefs for expanding their staffs and equipment in light of our expanding population.

Do they deserve a raise for planning? Isn’t that the job of administration? Sorry but Vega’s argument doesn’t hold water.

As for the crews, the officers on the street, the city staff out doing the actual work, do they work more and harder now that they get jumps in their salary? Would they quit tomorrow if those raises hadn’t come through?

I can understand that the cost of living has increased over the years. Can any of us afford to eat steak every night now that it is $10 per pound as opposed to the $3 it used to be? Well our city staff can.

Thanks to a corrupt consultant study our parks and rec director is getting a $23,000 raise. Again according to this study, various other high ranking staff will see lesser increases to bring them into parity with the average salaries of surrounding communities.

I am sorry, but I don’t believe our city manager deserves a base salary of $158,000 with another $24,000 thrown in for retirement. I don’t believe the parks director is underpaid at $90,000 per year let alone at the approved $111,000 he will be getting. The same goes for the rest of the staff right down the line. My only question is do we get what we pay for or do we simply give money away for show?

I have a hard time accepting that the city clerk needs an assistant making almost as much as her more than $90,000 a year. That is a position which is elected in many communities and staffed with part timers in other cities. An executive secretary in larger corporations would find it difficult to obtain such largesse.

Next we had Mike Smith again patting himself on the back for doing the research that no one else supposedly does. Mike said he confirmed that comparative positions in state government and private enterprise make similar salaries. While they might be close, private enterprise is different in that they are attempting to produce a product and they are liable if something goes wrong.

The reason that governmental employees used to get lower wages was they typically weren’t good enough to get jobs within private industry. Unionization has changed that to a substantial degree by guaranteeing bankruptcy to cities, counties, and state governments through ever escalating salaries and pension benefits. It must be nice to have 75% to 90% of your salary even after you no longer work.

It is a sad state of affairs when you predict exactly what was going to happen and it comes true - only to find that the verified conclusions are denied as happenstance. Such was the case with Steve Alexander whose overhead on the general fund four years ago is now reality. Furthermore, anyone with half a brain can understand where the city’s salary obligations will take the fund next year or after.

I pointed out that the $1.7 million salary expense doesn’t go away after this year. I guess Salmons and his council cohorts think that a racetrack will make up this differential. Next year, you will have the same $1.7 plus an additional million if further raises accrue from these continuing contracts. I want to know from where $3 million will come to balance the budget. Determining where the requisite funds will come from is called long range planning, folks, something your city staff refuses to do and your council is too stupid to force them to produce.

I was extremely disappointed in Steve Alexander’s performance as he gave up a cornerstone of his campaign platform, the restructuring of senior management compensation. He claims that he is making incremental change. What change? The staff asked for and got their obscene increases based on a faulty premise, much as they have since the council went to "interest based" bargaining.

Interest based bargaining was defined by Bob Kingsley, the city’s latest paid consultant stooge, as "looking outside to resolve controversy." This means manipulating salary figures to justify wage increases. It is just too difficult to base wages on work accomplished or workload.

Again Alexander looked foolish with his inadequate explanations when put on the spot by Smith and others including the mayor. If Steve would just prepare himself so he could come directly to the point he would be much more effective. Then again if you were in his position of constantly having to defend yourself on a four to one basis, you might get flustered too. However, I am not going to make excuses for his lack of preparation.

The point I want to make is that somewhere in his arguments, Steve finally got around to explaining why he changed his mind. He didn’t understand the budget impact or hadn’t bothered to put it all together. A typical bureaucrat doing a half-assed job. The difference is Steve at least understands where this is all headed. Unfortunately, he thinks that if he agrees with me he is not his own man.

If you can’t find facts to argue for a different conclusion, you have no justification for disagreeing. You are simply disagreeing out of ego. Others disagree based upon poor arguments to which they know I can’t respond as the mayor doesn’t want debate, just input. That is why I suggested that the politicians give us their viewpoints at council meetings first, then let the public speak.

My conclusion to this whole matter is that the citizens of Dixon need to find some other people to run this city. We have a staff out for its own monetary gain, some of whom are so arrogant that they deserve to be slapped. Again today a person told me that Dixon has changed for the worst and it is not the community with a capital C that it was.

I believe you will see more and more initiatives attempting to reverse the bad decisions of a combined group that refuses to think and continues to only react to their poor past decisions. It started with the California Car Wash, went through Calvary Chapel’s ordeal, to the persecution of a horse owner, and continues with the refusal to admit that our wastewater obligations could have been met with a little less spending on staff and conservatively hoarding some revenue.

On the subject of bankrupting our town, I was perturbed that the leader of our city’s Chamber of Commerce, Gordon Hammond, had no problem attacking our citizens who rejected the sewer rate increase while ignoring the obviousness of the actions of the council in like direction. Hammond called those protestors cumulatively and collectively as the Dixon Citizens Wanting to Bankrupt Dixon or something to that effect. Gordon feels that the water board will fine the city thereby depleting our reserves. Maybe someone should tell Gordon that the State needs to get in line.

I would not minimize the potential that Dixon will get fined except for the fact that the city has been under cease and desist orders as far back as the mid 80's. Of course much like with Measure H where our highways were allowed to remain un-maintained immediately prior to the vote, I wouldn’t find it beyond reason to expect either city staff or an official to actually ask the board to fine the city to sway voter sentiment. Politics is a dirty business.

I hope Terrible Ted notices my resemblance to a certain celebrity which would reflect my style as a representative of the real people of Dixon. Just call me Mr. Clean....

* * * * *

A final note and a plea of sorts. I need all of you people who care about your pocketbooks and your ability to get the other side of the story when reading the IV to do me a favor. You need to formally subscribe to this paper for $15 a year. The money will be used to "adjudicate" this publication so it can carry public notices.

Through Dave Scholl’s single minded concentration and determination to carry contrary commentary, the public has been informed and saved tremendous amounts of your own cash. The IV was the only newspaper which opposed Measure H; is the only one that supported those of you who protested sewer rate increases that will eventually cost you $360 per year; and is the only paper which will put up with my diatribes against the establishment.

Fifteen dollars a year is not much compared with $360. Somewhere along the line you all have to understand why we do what we do. If you want those in control to continue without opposition, take your $15 and go get your beer. If you are tired of what goes on and "are mad as hell and not going to take it anymore," consider paying for what you have been getting gratis.

It is time you put your money where your mouth should be...

 

 

 

Jan 20th, 2005

THE BATTLE LINES ARE BEING DRAWN

Odd things are happening down at the old council chambers.  Seems that people are starting to question the way things have been done.  Of course, none of this sits too well with those who thought they were in control.

Take the mayor for instance.  Twice on Tuesday night her best laid plans were disrupted.  Unfortunately, those on the dais still don’t follow through when they see the problem staring them in the face.

The council was to consider granting the Chamber of Commerce $30,000 for economic development.  Two problems with this were apparent to anyone listening and thinking.  One, the chamber didn’t have a plan and two, the money was garnered from AKT or Wal-Mart because of Wal-Mart’s feared impact on local businesses.

Not only was it abundantly apparent from Jack Batchelor’s 40 minute “open debate” with the council that the Chamber was looking for a blank check, it was obvious without Courville’s admission about meeting with Chamber members, that she was all for granting the funds.  This is the behind the scenes dealing which elicits my perpetual complaints.

Luckily, others on the dais have more sense than Courville.  I was impressed with Loren Ferrero’s logic on why the city should not be a chamber member.  I was impressed that Vega and Mike Smith backed him.  I was especially impressed that Smith was able to delineate other uses for these funds, such as their appropriate use in aiding Hometown Market deal with its survival in the face of the looming expansion of Wal-Mart into a “super store” selling groceries.

What bothered me was Courville again attempting to halt valid discussion, this time by a councilman.  If this wasn’t the appropriate time to discuss exactly what the purpose of these funds is to accomplish and actual ideas for their use, I don’t know when would be better.

Later in the meeting, during the discussion on adding a section on “ex parte contacts” to the council guidelines, I suggested once again that the council give their views on the issue before them before opening it up for public comment.  This would allow citizens to either agree or disagree with the logic and arguments of the council members. 

Courville took this negatively, saying “I am still somewhat confused, and I don’t want to have a discussion tonight about this idea, that you want me to give my opinion of how I am going to vote, then give you the opportunity to come up here and criticize me about how I am voting.” 

Confused is an understatement.  At the end of the meeting I offered to meet with the mayor to discuss my intentions.  All I got was a “I will think about it” with her head down.  Reflecting on this interaction it suddenly became abundantly clear what the problem is: fear.

I am not asking anyone on the council to relate how they are going to vote.  I asked them to discuss their views.  Remember, they aren’t supposed to know how they are going to vote until after they have heard public comment on the item.  To me, this is an admission that the mayor has her mind made up before this occurs.  She has confused two very different aspects, discussion and decision.

As for the fear component, when looking good is more important than making the right decision, you have no business conducting the public’s business.  If your arguments can’t hold water, you should expect to be criticized.  Despite the fact that you think you are the “Queen” or the “boss” of Dixon, you are no more immune to criticism than I am.

Input from sources who disagree with you is healthy and gives you the opportunity to think about all aspects of an issue.  This community abounds with intelligent people who refuse to waste their time speaking before you because they know you aren’t listening.  This is a waste and does Dixon a disservice.

* * * * *

One of the first complaints you hear from the goody two shoes of our town is t;hat you have done nothing for Dixon.  This might come up when you run for office.  It might occur while these same people attempt to destroy your credibility.  As I have said more than once, it is hard contributing when they won’t let you participate.

Angela Meisenheimer, the DDBA’s reigning diva, told the council the other night that she didn’t want me associating with high school students due to comments I had made at the high school during my campaign.  As this has come up more than once, I think it is time to clear the air.

First off, the position of the Libertarian party on drinking and drugs was what Lorraine Brownell, one of the Dixon High school Civics teachers, wanted explained.  As it is a rarity to find a third party individual, she wanted the alternative to the major parties’ viewpoints.  The topics were also initiated by the students who felt, as many of us in the past have felt, that it is unfair to send 18 year olds to war but not allow them to drink.

The Libertarian party’s belief is that you should be free to choose what you do without government interference.  In the case of marijuana, libertarians believe it should be legalized as with all other drugs.  It is the individual’s responsibility to know the drugs effects through their own research.

As for drinking, America is one of the few countries with age limits.  It is hypocritical to ask our youth to put their life on the line, but not allow them the right to imbibe at 18.

You take away the allure of the forbidden by making them legal.

Libertarians don’t believe in drugs or alcohol as a good thing or a bad thing.  We don’t see them as something to which very young children should have access.  We see them as choices.  Choices to be made from an educated basis and also understanding the repercussions if you harm someone while under the influence.

If I was guilty of anything it was treating young adults as adults.  I didn’t lie to them.  I didn’t try to hide from them.  And I don’t believe in the type of censorship that Meisenheimer, and many teachers at the high school, advocate.  Education is a far more valuable tool than “just saying no”.

We have done it your way, Angela and Mary Ann, and guess what?  Drug use in Dixon is still rampant, fights are occurring, kids are still drinking and smoking dope, and educational success is still minimal.  How much longer do we have to continue doing things your way when we know they don’t work?

While Angela was all aglow about the Youth Resources Officer program, which she called “invaluable” a number of times, anyone looking at this effort without their rose colored glasses blinding them would call it an abject failure.

Which gets us back to the second lost control item of Courville’s evening.  Like Angela, Courville refuses to see that the program is next to worthless.  Seven fights in two months, one involving only female students with officers present who did nothing to break it up, and with teachers running away from the encounters.  Instead of addressing whether it is valid to continue the program, Courville focused on the fact that the program has operated without the MOU for some 6 months.

I loved the comment, by the mayor, that you can’t expect the police to be at the high school on a regular basis as there are 7 campuses they have to cover.  Other than PR work to indoctrinate our smallest students, I see no reason that you need police on elementary school campuses.  Do you actually believe that children this young have gang type fights?

Instead of police these campuses need psychiatrists.  They could deal with the fact that many parents abandon their children’s discipline to teachers who aren’t allowed to do this.  There are few repercussions and they only come after prolonged episodes of anti-social behavior.

The system is broken.  Quit attempting to defend it.  It is time to look for new solutions and maybe even go back to what use to work.

For all the violence, male chauvinism, and other problems associated with public school education of my day, we had few of the horrendous problems we see in today’s schools.

As a male chauvinistic pig, all I can say is “oink”...

---

Jan. 11, 2005

 

CHALLENGED PERCEPTIONS

Have you ever felt that the reality of living in Dixon, or any other part of America, fails to meet your public school expectations given what you were taught?  While basics such as arithmetic and reading and writing skills may have adequately met your basic needs for participating in our society, logic and government classes dictate that “perception isn’t reality”.  With that said, I give you some thoughts to ponder for the next week.

In these times of declining respect for government and the politicians who serve it, it is important to look back at the intentions of those who created the backbone of the rules that define our country.  While the Declaration of Independence outlines grievances against King George III of Great Britain, it also defines the founders’ belief in freedom of the individual whose rights are given “unalienably” by a higher authority than government.

Having spoken many times in the council chamber reiterating these principles, it appears that they seem to have, for the most part, fallen on deaf ears.  Seeing a new council in place, wisdom dictates that another reminder needs to be given.

The following are excerpts from a column recently published in the Investor’s Business Daily on the editorial page.  Walter Williams is a frequent contributor and qualified as not only a professor but as an astute commentator on current social aspects of our society.

“We often hear the claim that our nation is a democracy.  That wasn’t the vision of the Founding Fathers. They saw democracy as another form of tyranny.

“If we’ve become a democracy, I guarantee you that the founders would be deeply disappointed by our betrayal of their vision.  The founders intended, and laid out the ground rules, for our nation to be a republic.

“The word democracy appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution – the two most fundamental documents of our nation.”

While Williams questions politics and policies on the Federal level, they are applicable to the State and, by deduction, to city government as our root form of governance.

“Instead of a democracy, the Constitution’s Article IV, Section 4, guarantees ‘to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.’ ”

Williams asks, “So what’s the difference between republican and democratic forms of government?”  This is an absolutely fantastic question that goes straight to the heart of what is wrong with our governments on all levels.

Williams continues:

“John Adams captured the essence of the difference when he said, ‘You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe.’

“Nothing in our Constitution suggests that government is a grantor of rights.  Instead, government is a protector of rights.

“In recognition that it is Congress that poses the greatest threat to our liberties, the framers used negative phrases against Congress such as: shall not abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, and shall not be violated, nor be denied.

“In a republican form of government, there is a rule of law.  All citizens, including government officials, are accountable to the same laws.  Government power is limited and decentralized through a system of checks and balances.  Government intervenes in civil society to protect its citizens against force and fraud, but does not intervene in the cases of peaceable, voluntary exchange.”

The heart of the problem can be paraphrased by that adage, “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  This is addressed and expounded on by Williams in the following.

“Contrast the framers’ vision of a republic with that of a democracy.  In a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives.

“As in a monarchy, the law is whatever the government determines it to be.  Laws do not represent reason.  They represent power. (Emphasis added) The restraint is upon the individual instead of government.  Unlike that envisioned under a republican form of government, rights are seen as privileges and permissions that are granted by government and can be rescinded by government.”

The following are two quotes from the people of the time.  Their applicability to the present day and circumstances locally are obvious.

“James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 10: In a pure democracy, ‘there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.’

Chief Justice John Marshall observed, ‘Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.’ ”

Finally, Williams sums up his thoughts with the following question and remark.

“Do Americans share the republican values laid out by our founders, and is it simply a matter of our being unschooled about the differences between a republic and a democracy?

“Or is it a matter of preference and we now want the kind of tyranny feared by the founders where Congress can do anything it can muster a majority vote to do?

“I fear it is the latter.”

This column was slightly altered to address the Dixon City Council’s proclivity toward the tyranny of the masses also known as democracy during the public comment portion of yesterday’s council meeting.

If you think that these conclusions don’t hold water, all one has to do is look at the ordinances that have been proposed and passed in this town to see the validity of the argument against democracy and for the rule of law.  It is not your right as the entire town’s duly elected representatives to legislate individual rights or privileges, despite the city attorney’s opinion to the contrary 

A case in point was last night’s agenda item from City Manager Warren Salmons, with tacit approval from City Attorney Michael Dean, that another constitutionally guaranteed right be regulated, that of addressing your representatives.  The city staff now wants to limit or force disclosure of input from all sources that might influence a “quasi-judicial” hearing.  One option offered was to forbid it.  What part of “shall not abridge” do they not understand?

Aside from this being impossible to enforce, as I know how reluctant the vice mayor was to admit his “boss” statement or clarify to whom he was referring, it will just create more complexity where none is needed.  There is nothing that precludes an official from stating with whom they have spoken.  Further, there are no teeth to this resolution as there are no penalties for not conforming to it.

Rather, it gives the false sense of security that has become the trademark of the Courville regime. Just trust us as we lie to you again and again, then we deny that they are lies when you catch us.

Randomly enforced ordinances, ordinances created to address specific individuals, rules put in place to stifle individual participation in the local government process all fly in the face of what we, as citizens of Dixon and the United States, should expect.  The Council’s job is not to create more rules to force us to do what we would not choose, but, contrarily, to repeal onerous provisions of public code and make it easier to conduct our private and business lives.

Dixon would be a far better place to live and do business without big brother watching over us.  We have a new council.  Want to bet that they will do things the same way they have always been done?  Not a fair bet as I already have three aces up my sleeve: Ferrero, Vega, and Courville.

Let’s hope that Alexander and Smith turn out to be the wild cards for change...

Dancing With The Council

Another council meeting and another glimmer of hope that the same ol’ same ol’ will soon be a thing of the past. Perhaps it will happen when we have some new leadership from the Mayor’s chair. It might even occur from leadership that will arise from other chairs along the dais. But I do see some cracking in the façade of intransigence towards taking a progressive approach rather than one of defense and denial.

The response to the Grand Jury report for this year has elicited these musings. What started off as a tirade against the "shoot from the hip" style of the Grand Jury and their irresponsibility by Councilman Vega, oscillated between this and a more reconciliatory approach by Councilmen Hughes and Manson. Councilwoman Courville had elements of both in her comments but predominantly made the assertion that its defensive tone and failure to resolve the issues flawed this response. Mayor Erickson was silent during this phase of the discussion.

There were three individuals that spoke to the issue from the community, one being myself. Heber Holbrook stated that he had some familiarity with military law and if you don’t have proof, you throw the complaint out. Larry Simmons again congratulated the Council on the good work they have done. He went on to say that a lesson should be learned from the accusations and contradictory defense within the response. Then it was my turn.

My points are the same ones I have made all along. The response to the Grand Jury was a waste of time as facts were ignored to justify the denial of all accusations, which would cast the City government in anything other than a good light. The response was defensive and non-factual. The response was non-cooperative and confrontational.

Three key areas were highlighted in my speech. The issues of statements made by the City Manager, the lack of promptness in responding to the Grand Jury requests, and other false statements and assumptions by staff involving the travel policy, were brought to the Council’s attention.

As I have personally stated to the City Manager, I really don’t care if he made the statements he was accused of making. To me they appear to be at most poor judgment on his part. Instead of denying them, or being silent, it would be more productive to acknowledge this as a wayward comment that has been a learning experience and will not be repeated. End of discussion.

The issue of stalling tactics while viewed from the perspective of the length of time it took to satisfy the Grand Jury, 9 months, is demonstrative of a conflict in viewpoints concluded from the same facts. While some would say there is a reasonable explanation, I preferred to place the professional responsibility back in the laps of the high salaried individuals that represent our City. Several council members had made the point earlier that communication with the Grand Jury could have alleviated this allegation.

Both the Council and the City Attorney were unaware that last year’s report also complained of stalling on Staff’s part. Councilwoman Courville went as far as to say she had reviewed last year’s report and hadn’t found the verification for the complaint. I pointed out it was on page 30 of that report.

A minor point of factuality concerning the currentness of other cities’ travel policies was shown. The final point was that staff had no business assuming what form the policy would take, either as an ordinance or resolution. This should have been for the Council to decide if they hadn’t already behind closed doors.

I made some final suggestions of the appropriate manner to respond and improvements that should be made to this document. The removal of defensive language and cooperation instead of confrontation were two of them.

After deliberating some twenty minutes as to the truth to my remarks and the poor fit this document had with the facts, the concern shifted to getting this document out on time. Does this sound typical of our local politics? Is it more important to be timely or correct?

In my opinion, the whole document should have been rewritten to eliminate the defensive rhetoric and the non-truths. The leadership of the Mayor came out at this point as he continuously pointed to the necessity of being timely with this response. Why wasn’t he concerned a month ago about having time enough to change this document if it didn’t meet with majority approval? Could it be that this is just the type of response he and his supporters find conducive to their political ends? The Mayor is a sharp cookie.

Manson and Hughes would have none of this argument but Courville was finally convinced and the letter with minor modifications was approved.

My observations and musings on this are as follows. There is little accountability within our City government, either because of personal pride and ego, or because we wouldn’t look good if we admit there is a problem. I was pleasantly surprised by Courville who seemingly surmounted her initial reaction where she looked at the report as a personal attack, to address the tone and quality of the document. She now needs to make the next leap to standing up for her beliefs instead of supporting the exigency of the minute.

The City is still at a major crossroads in how business will be conducted. There is still a shrouded confrontation going on between the power brokers representative of the status quo faction of politics and those in this town with progressive, proactive, and constructive ideas.

It is much harder to accomplish new projects when you spend the majority of your time defending yourself. It might just be better to agree with your critics, resolve the issues, and move on. Think about it…

May 24, 2000

New Ideas

I feel like putting on my rose colored glasses. Yes, I actually have a pair now, as I believe I related in an earlier article. It seems that some in town don’t believe I am positive enough. This is going to be a positive column, so watch out.

First off I would like to say that there hasn’t been much talk about who will be running for the Council this year. Rather than write something detractive about the only candidate, who has announced her intentions to run for mayor, I have decided that I will tell you what my platform will be. I know that doing this might allow others to steal my ideas, but I don’t really care who gets credit as long as it gets done.

When I am elected, the first thing I would do is demand a review of all the ordinances on the City’s books. Not with the objective of those currently in power, who are trying to make life more onerous by adding to the law, but rather with the objective of ridding our citizens of nonessential and controlling legislation.

Next, I would ask my colleagues to join me in rescinding the business license tax. If we want our city and citizens to prosper we should be making it easier, not more difficult, to start new or small businesses. I also think we need to reexamine our laws relating to home businesses to make it easier and legal to operate them.

I would request that the Police Department enforce "all" of the laws on the books. If after consulting with the police to find which laws they don’t feel are necessary, those laws can be removed as well. I would like to see "beat cops" in the downtown area during certain hours.

I want to see SID and the City lower water rates to where they should be by finally resolving the question of repayment of the initial capitalization of the Dixon-Solano Municipal Water Service. As we already know that most of this was never intended to be repaid, we need the joint boards to finalize this and move to reduce rates another 10 to 15%. I would also keep a close eye on revenues coming in so that any future reductions could be achieved much more quickly than they have been in the past.

I would fast track the development of recreational facilities for our youth, and for all of the citizens who still have some youth. I think we need a multi-use center where anyone can go to play in an indoor pickup game of basketball. I think we have moved extremely slowly in providing additional areas for soccer, in providing a skateboard and/or skating park, or new opportunities for recreation for all ages.

Would you like to see a golf course or driving range in Dixon? Would you like to see a lake where you could take your children fishing or have a picnic on its banks? How about a bowling alley or billiard parlor?

I would also like to give some insightful direction to our Economic Development Director. I want to see some biotech research firms locating in our city as well as other high technology low pollution business. I want to promote the idea of a technological business park or maybe three or four of them throughout town. I want to see the old downtown blossom with businesses that will create a night life in our City.

A review of our General Plan would be appropriate at this time. We need to reexamine what it is we want our City to become, and modify or reaffirm the ideas that were offered by the last group of reviewers. This time, we should adhere more firmly to these plans and not be swayed by emotionalism or the pocketbooks of the landowners affected.

I would like to see our Council stay out of the politics of land use outside of our city limits. The establishment of greenbelts may be beneficial to the citizens of Dixon and the freeway bound but it is contrary to my principles of defending property rights for all property owners. As I have said in the past, the Council can eliminate the need to defend agriculture in this manner by simply not annexing any more land into the City.

As for City government, a push for still more openness and aggressive accountability is my goal. We need to improve our financial checks and controls. We need to act on good suggestions no matter what the source. We need to provide information to citizens on a totally cost free basis. City staff needs to embrace the concept of being servants of the public and the engenderment of this idea will result in more respect for staff and the individuals who comprise it.

Within Dixon’s sphere of influence, two actions need to be taken. One is for support of the new Milk Farm complex in that it will create a new gateway into the City. The second is to resolve the sixteen-year-old problem of air quality at the rendering plant south of Dixon.

It is time for a change in the way things are done in Dixon. We started to make that change in 1996 but "the Dark Side" usurped some of those catalysts. As Ted Hickman told me while we stood observing the May Fair parade, it takes several elections to make a difference. Hopefully, the upcoming one will be one of these.

For those of you planning on running for office, feel free to borrow or take any of these ideas as your own. Don’t interpret this column as a declaration of my candidacy, for it is not. It is my way of once again trying to get you to think.

But … Can You Trust Them?

May 10, 2000

A long time ago, it seems, people looked up to individuals of authority. The masses respected police, politicians, and philanthropic organizations. We all believed that the American system was better and less corrupt than those others from which we were able to choose. What has changed so drastically to affect our attitudes?

Perhaps it is the obviousness of the self-serving bureaucracies that we encounter every day. Perhaps it is the problem that some of us have with justice only being meted out to those less fortunate individuals that have no ties to the political or judicial hierarchy. Then again, perhaps it is only a few of us that believe these problems exist.

I know from reading letters to the editor, personal conversations, and local gossip that there are many of you who believe nothing is wrong and never has been, even in the light of the facts that prove otherwise. It must be far easier to "go along to get along" than it is to confront problematic situations.

I read that the Solano County District Attorney, Dave Paulson, is asking the court to dismiss the action filed against Solano County Assessor Robert Blechschmidt. Is it apparent to anyone but me that the professional relationship these two enjoy at the County level, cripples the ability for an impartial investigation of the Grand Jury charges?

Paulson told the media representatives at his press conference the only reason he was filing charges was because he was being forced to by the Grand Jury and law. It was quite apparent that he had no intention of pursuing this investigation. Could it be that this is due to additional social relationships these two enjoy beyond the professional ones?

When you serve two masters, one will always end up with the short end of the stick. In this case I believe the public is getting the short shaft. Does the DA serve the public or his public servant peers? As the scriptural reference goes, which master does he "despise"?

The Grand Jury has been receiving a lot of flack from the cities that they have investigated. All, it appears, other than Vacaville whose officials have taken a cooperative and accountable stance to the Grand Jury findings and other legal issues. Dixon and Fairfield could learn from this responsive and responsible style of management.

Fairfield’s officials have said that they have paid back the monies owed the City, a.k.a. the public who entrusted funds to these individuals. Was all of it paid back or part? When was it paid back, the day after the report came out?

I find it hard to believe that these were inadvertent errors. If the Grand Jury hadn’t found these problems, do you think the money would have been repaid? Where were their finance department and their checks on this kind of impropriety?

These same kinds of questions could be directed to the City of Dixon. Why are you wasting taxpayer dollars trying to find ways around the Grand Jury’s appropriate recommendations? Why are you wasting funds trying to refute them or to cast a bad light on the Grand Jury? Is it personal?

One reporter pointed to this in a column attacking two individuals "with axes to grind". The woman to whom he referred was appointed by the Vice-Mayor. I haven’t seen any castigation of her for this appointment. Seeing that the Vice-Mayor supported the incumbent mayor instead of her supposed friend who ran in opposition, this political flip to the status quo side may have earned her this forgiveness. What "axe" does she have to grind, you might ask?

The Vice-Mayor in announcing her mayoral candidacy has stated that she will not let a "certain element" destroy the "spirit and generosity of Dixon." I guess she would rather spend "your" money defending herself and political career than looking at the issues presented by the Grand Jury on the basis of their validity.

Specifically, her support of the City Manager without researching the evidence points to more of this Countywide back scratching philosophy. Thanks to the League of California Cities meetings which we so graciously paid for as citizens, she has truly learned to be a "better politician." My question is better for whom?

One last item for consideration is the debatable impact of another financially dubious "touchy feely" organization known as Sober Grad Night. On its surface this appears to be a valid program to address a community need which is to preserve our youth who are prone to partying a little too hardy on graduation night. There are some questions that remain unanswered or whose answers are a little hard to believe.

First, why are you charging for an event whose residual moneys are more than double the ticket receipts? Second, why was a supposedly incorrect financial document released and later redacted but only after members of the public pointed out the inconsistencies? Third, why is it that the financial documents still state incorrectly that a "grant" was received in the amount of $2000 from the City of Dixon? Fourth, why does this program exist in light of the fact that no graduating student has been a death statistic in the last ten years?

Personally, I could care less whether this program continues or whether you as individuals support it. I would think that there are considerably better uses to put money to rather than to give exiting seniors "one last night with their friends."

Money was donated by Dixon Family Services, which at times has complained about the need for financial contributions by the community. The school system complains about the needs within our schools for various improvements but has found it reasonable to contribute $4000 of Site Council money to this program.

Perhaps the biggest questions are what do the kids get from this program and which kids get to attend? The bad joke of saying there are scholarships for those that can’t afford to pay is demonstrative of the discriminatory nature of this program. Do you really think that those who can’t afford to attend want to demean themselves by letting this be known to their fellow students?

There will be a meeting of the Sober Grad Night Committee on Wednesday, May 16. Maybe you should attend and ask what the majority of the attendees received last year? Better yet, those of you with children who graduated and attended the event last year should be asking them whether they thought the program was worthwhile. After all, they just might be better judges than those of us on the outside or the program’s administrators.

I, for one, at least like to know to what I am giving my hard-earned dollars before I donate. However, you are not obligated to understand or support my philosophy. After all, it is "your" money you are giving away. Unfortunately, that can’t be said of all of the moneys donated to this cause. Think ...

Confusion Reigns

March 22, 2000

Have you ever watched "60 Minutes", the investigative news show on the tube? I never could figure out why, when these people get caught red-handed, that they wouldn’t just admit their guilt but instead continue to deny the claims in light of the facts presented. I guess "accountability" isn’t something to be valued anymore.

After listening to Don Harness say farewell to his public at the last council meeting and then go on to "negatively" complain about the small group of "negative" people who he can’t figure out, it is becoming "clear" as a "country morning." It relates to something I learned in an organizational behavior class. Justification and vindication are the terms. You have to justify your position, no matter with what you have had to endure, to vindicate the position you have taken. Anyway, have fun, Don, in your new endeavor.

Confusion about accountability was demonstrated by P.J. Davis in her letter to the editor in last Friday’s Tribune. As usual, the status quo attempts to confuse you by ridiculing your attempts to understand their lies. They bring in accusations of undermining a "worthwhile" private party to keep the graduating seniors off the street for one night. The validity of the party is one that I will not address at this time, just as P.J. shouldn’t have.

I don’t need an explanation of the funding process or the budgeting process of the City of Dixon. I have been to the budgeting meetings to the point of being bored to tears. What I did need, and did not receive from Ms. Davis, was a "truthful" accounting of the flow of funds through DFS into the coffers of Sober Grad night.

The explanation in the Tribune was just the latest version. Seeing that this doesn’t match what I was told at the DFS board meeting when Ron Wilson questioned the "invisible check," I assume this is the latest in the "we make up the rules and explanations as we go" routine that is becoming more and more apparent whenever questions are asked of agencies within our town.

My questions to P. J. are, "If these amounts and donations you listed are correct, why did you not produce them at the last Board meeting?" "Why did you provide the Board and the public with a financial document that only listed a single donation from DFS to Sober Grad night in the amount of $1000?" The fact, that we have not been given the correct(?) information that we have been trying to verify for over 3 months, speaks volumes.

The financial document listed the $1000 and the $4100 remainder that would have come from Mary Ann Courville’s stipend donation. It did not list an anonymous donation or check of any kind. It also did not delineate a supposed $1000 gift to the Kevin Klein foundation nor the $525 to a suicide prevention program.

The $1000 gift to Sober Grad night out of the $5100 now appears to have been increased to $2000 to match the amount suggested in the paper. A new donation from an anonymous source has appeared in the amount of $1000. Well, which version is it?

Now here is the point that P.J. seemed to miss. There was no check written by the City in the amount of $2000. So, plain and simple, (and I will repeat this one last time for you, P.J.), the Tribune lied, those partaking in the photo opportunity lied, and now you are attempting to hide this with more lies.

The lies don’t stop with the "invisible check" but continue with who directed the money. "No one from the City Council or the City Staff at any time told DFS what to do with the money." I have witnesses who can state that you told them Mary Ann Courville did just that. I have a board room full of witnesses who can also confirm this. Semantics aside, if someone tells you they would like to see the funds used in a certain way, it amounts to directing their disbursement.

Whether the individuals who encouraged this published lie were parents or politicians has little bearing on the subterfuge. What message does it give to the students, (two of them were in the photo), who were involved in it? That lying is acceptable if it is for a good cause? It seems that is the premise that our city government has gone by in the past, and that our County government is wrestling with at this moment.

The case against Robert Blechschmidt, Solano County Assessor-Recorder, is another good example of the corrupt political structure nationwide that we are experiencing. After attending the District Attorney’s press conference, the one thing that struck me was the reticence that the D.A., David Paulson, has in going after one of "his own". It was not important to Paulson whether the accusations brought by the Grand Jury were true or not, it was the stature of the office being attacked that was his prime concern.

My feeling is that the problems go much deeper in the County than Paulson wishes to uncover. When posed the question of why the Assessor would find it necessary to use funds from restricted revenue (trust) accounts in light of the fact that the Supervisors would have budgeted for Blechschmidt’s and his secretary’s salary, Paulson could not give an answer.

Why is it that Paulson would state that he hasn’t been working with the Grand Jury on this, when the Grand Jury foreman, Clif Poole, stated that the GJ had been in contact with his office for the two months of their investigation of the matter? Why is it that the politicos of the County attack the Grand Jury as "out of control" and try to insinuate that there is something wrong with office holders being investigated? If you aren’t guilty, why would you be worried?

The fact is the Grand Jury should be out of the control of the politicians. This is what they are worried about and it all comes back to accountability and status quo politics. Instead of attempting to defend our leaders who "screw up," we should be doing exactly what the Grand Jury is attempting to do: make them accountable.

Our leaders should not be attacking the messenger but, instead, should find it in their conscience to admit that they are capable of acting inappropriately. After all, we are all human and capable of making mistakes. It makes it difficult to forgive and forget, when the splinter of inadmission is digging at your skin.

Time To Vote And Be Heard

March 1, 2000

As most of us refuse to express ourselves anywhere other than at the polls, and, I assume, since you are reading this you would probably like to know what my views are, I will give you my logic and picks for the March 7 balloting day on issues of local concern.

Having attended the candidates’ night for the Solano County judges, I can make some personal assessments of the candidates and their qualifications. There are two separate races, one for Judge Villarreal’s seat and the other for retiring Judge Dwight Ely’s seat.

Running for Villarreal’s position as Superior Court Judge of Solano County is the incumbent and John Kealy, the assistant District Attorney. Based on demeanor and attitudes during the question and answer period, this was a tough one to decide. The clincher to me was Kealy’s association with what I consider is a poorly run and inefficient District Attorney’s office. Although Villarreal is not a strong candidate in my eyes, I would still prefer him to Kealy.

For the other slot, we have three candidates, Ray Wieser, Cynda Unger, and Osby Davis. These three represent a great variety from which to choose. Wieser currently adjudicates as a Commissioner presiding in traffic court. I have had a matter come before him so I am personally aware (biased?) of his abilities. I found him to be nothing more than a tax collector for the County, with his own biases toward officers of the law.

Cynda Unger handled herself professionally and eruditely during the debates, but fell in my eyes when she played the feminist card at the end of the session. I don’t vote for candidates because there are no representatives from their ethnic or gender group. However, she is still leagues ahead of Wieser as far as I am concerned.

Osby Davis not only answered questions thoughtfully, but in a manner that showed that there are options to the normal line of thinking in judiciary work. He did not appear to be arrogant and the fairness, which he stated is his goal, should be easier for him to attain than Wieser and probably could be matched by Unger. My vote will be going to him, however.

As for the local Measure L which is for the mayor’s term of two or four years, I have not changed my position. Succinctly, it makes no sense to give up the ability to recompose the council every two years by changing the mayor’s term to four years. This has worked for years in Dixon, and as past Councilman Loren Ferrero was so fond of saying, "If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it."

The ballot questions on this Measure might be confusing so let me explain it. You can vote yes or no to both a two year and a four year term. If you oppose the four year term, vote no on it and vote yes for two year term. If you support a four year term, vote the opposite.

If both questions pass, that is if both receive more yes than no votes, the one that receives the largest amount of yes votes wins. Therefore, it would be better to vote no on the term you don’t support rather than to vote yes on both. Voting no on both isn’t going to accomplish anything as, unfortunately perhaps, we will still have a mayor.

As for the State Propositions, the only one of local concern is Proposition 26 relating to School Bonds. As support for this measure has waned, due in large part to the majority of voters having more than a modicum of common and good sense, it will be moot what Dixon on a whole does at the polls. This is not a "help our kids" proposition or "fix our schools" amendment. It is a "we can’t get enough of the taxpayer’s money and we want to make it easier to do" amendment.

Dixon will be voting on a bond soon enough to help revitalize our decaying school infrastructure. If the schools are as bad as the supporters of this bond say they are, then they shouldn’t have a difficult time in convincing us to resoundingly support it. Normally I would vote down any item that increases my tax contributions, but even I would support this.

It has to be viewed as a No to greed and a Yes to need. Besides, the State has a huge budget surplus and an "education priority" governor in Gray Davis. Let the State put this money to work before they ask us to give more. So Vote No on Proposition 26 and wait for the real local proposition to arrive.

Plowing Onward

February 26, 2000

Do you find it interesting that the City Council has joined with the School Board to give the okay to proceeding with the grant to put an officer on the Dixon High School campus? Have they given enough proof to you for the need of the officer with fuzzy statistics? Are you part of the “vocal minority” who hasn’t gained a following concerning this issue? Or are you one of us who doesn’t have the time to provide our input at City Hall or the newspaper?

Does it surprise you that when proponents of this action hear from the minority that we would like to see a “need” substantiated in numbers, that the proponents find some numbers to fit the bill? Well, at least they are listening. Does it surprise you that all of the supposed groups supporting this are near unanimous in the agreement for the need of an officer? Could it be that these groups are selected in a manner so that the outcome is predetermined?

Where is the public forum on this issue? Other than open debate at City Council meetings, all other meetings on this subject have been amongst select groups. Site council meetings, school board meetings, and sub committee meetings are among those that I have attended or that have been held. All of these groups are “incestuously entangled” as they are composed of individuals who are members of more than one of these groups.

When a school board member comes back to the Board and states that this was the decision that was made, very few members will contest it. In this regard, I respect Carlos Gutierrez for expressing a dissenting view. The same applies to the city council. When you have the City Manager come to the council with his recommendation after he has spent many long hours attempting to achieve consensus, will those on the council seek to oppose him? After all, he has the input of the police chief who works for him and some on the council who wish to have this pushed through. Where is the effort to have an open debate on the issue?

I would be more than willing to debate the City Manager, the Police Chief, the School Board, City Council members, and/or any private citizens on this issue at a time when more members of the community can or would attend a forum. Obviously, I have been debating them on this issue all along. Perhaps the citizens of this community fail to have their voices heard because they are smarter than I am. They have realized all along that this is and was a “done deal”.

Getting back to the issue of statistics, it would behoove us to look at just what was provided. These statistics seem to verify that youths cause more problems than adults. The next leap in logic is to assume that since students are youths, they create problems that can be solved by an officer on campus. The question that should be asked is, “How many of these calls were from the schools and how many were made from the public at large concerning youths.”

The statistics that we have seen (heard of) from the police are that there were over 300 calls placed to the police department from the schools. I say “heard of” because although I was asked if I would like to sort through the records to make up a coherent tabulation of actual reasons for the calls and the resultant actions taken, I never received a follow up from the Chief of Police giving me “permission” to see these public records.

When the powers that be don’t have the actual figures we need to make a logical decision based on need, refuse to take the time to compile them, and don’t allow others to do this for them, I ask you, “What conclusion are you supposed to come to from this inaction?” I don’t hear any one else complaining, maybe I should just “let it go”, too.

As I am feeling “handicapped” by the less than vociferous reaction from the general public, I will change the subject to a “sportier” topic. I attended a Citizens Acting For the Rights of the Disabled (CARD) meeting this last Sunday. To say the least, they were less than happy about the recent action (inaction) of the City in implementing another faulty resolution directly concerning them, namely the one addressing the placement of portable basketball hoops.

Considering that it has been over a year since the initial complaints were made and the fact that there already are ordinances addressing hazards and nuisances, the new resolution was viewed as a way for the City to say that it is doing something when it really isn’t. CARD’s biggest concern was the City placing the responsibility of follow up on the complaining citizen. “Why are we paying large salaries for City employees who should be handling this?”

Another large concern to this group was that their opinion and input was never sought out by City Staff. There was also no contact from the City stating that this would be an agenda item. My questions to you, John Q. Public, are as follows. Does any of this, this subject or the prior one, sound like “open” government to you? Are we, as a City, really trying as hard as we can to get input from all sides to resolve problems? Is this just another version of the type of government we have had in the past, where a small minority in this town runs it the way they see fit?

My opinion is that while we have made some strides in the right direction, there is still that pervasive bureaucratic thought process that those in the position of power know better than the rest of us on the outside. I would remind you, and them, that they were all on the outside at one time, and can be again. Think about that while you are rolling down the sidewalk ...

Warning, Warning

February 16, 2000

As in that famous line from Lost in Space, it would appear that our City Council is ignoring the path toward the precipitous drop of insolvency as they continue to give the nod to budget amendments. As I have said in the past, from where is this money coming?

The City is running a deficit budget and the deficit is continuing to enlarge as more consultants and items such as last week’s computer purchases for the Public Works Department continue to occur. We had a surplus. How much is left? Will the City be coming to us for a bailout sometime in the next two years? Or are they counting on the coming strip mall and southwest area developments for a cash infusion? Is there a long term budget plan?

I think you know my answers to these questions. Someone should be asking the City Staff through the Council if Staff knows the answers. Considering the recalcitrance evident in some of their actions, I doubt that they can give us any more than a “song and dance”.

A demonstration of that point was the resolution about the use of portable basketball hoops passed by the Council on Tuesday. I guess you need a local resolution these days any time you want to blow your nose. Understand this: the sidewalks and their accessibility are not the sole jurisdiction of the City unless they undertake to have even more stringent requirements than the Federal government.

As there is a Federal law that covers accessibility for the disabled, as there are local ordinances covering nuisances, as the offending individuals have already been notified once, why are we passing additional resolutions? You have the laws, enforce them. If you don’t like them, rescind them. But that is only at the local level. You will have a much rougher time repealing Federal mandates.

It was over a year ago that the complaints were made about portable hoops in the street and on the sidewalk. Of 58 sidewalk violations, there are roughly half still offending. Why is it that the City hasn’t taken care of this problem? Didn’t we just recently approve hiring a code enforcement officer? This resolution is another feeble attempt by our local bureaucrats saying they are doing something when they aren’t.

According to this resolution, if there is a complaint the City will tag the residence. Unless there is another complaint, they will not follow up. Why is that? Are we, the citizens of Dixon who are paying for these alleged services, supposed to do the work that staff is getting paid for? How many times must we follow up and how many years will it take? This is just nonsense.

The Sanitation company understood the implications of blocking pedestrian right of way. They changed where the dumpsters are to be placed. There is also a time limit on how long they can be in the street. Considering that there is also a time limit on vehicles being on the street, why is it that there is none for these other encumbrances?

The Council is still spouting that nonsense about “heavy-handedness." I believe it is more that they are protecting their own political backsides instead of telling our citizens to have a little more responsibility when it comes to inconveniencing the rest of us. Yes, that is right, I still think those who are shirking this duty are just plain lazy. If you have the energy to play the game, then you have the energy to clean up after yourself.

Changing the subject, the debate over Proposition 26 was lively, if highly unfocused or should I say misfocused. This Proposition will allow the passing percentage to issue bonds to decline from 66.7% to 50%. Instead of debating this point, most of the comments were addressed to the need for a new high school and lack of facilities in general for our burgeoning population. While I do not argue this fact, I do disagree with the arguments that it is undemocratic and harmful to the children to have bonds voted for in this manner. First, this is not a democracy, it is a democratic Republic. Second, it has been said that democracy can be defined as a “tyranny of the masses”. Third, the reason for the two-thirds vote has always been for the protection of those encumbered and to err on the side of financial conservatism.

Some proponents in town argue that it isn’t “fair” to have a two thirds requirement. I wonder if they think it is “fair” to require those of us with no children to pay the bill or if it is “fair” that those of us with larger homes or more expensive homes must pay more when our children no longer use the schools. Is it “fair” to not tax those more who are using the system? Bring a “use fee” to the table. That is something that is “fair.”

A good point was brought out to me during the break by Bill Huyett, our Superintendent of Schools. For those that think that bond after bond can be passed, they are wrong as there is a bonding limit in place. So that makes passing this measure a little more palatable, right? Wrong if you look at it from the perspective of whether you trust our legislators to leave things as they are. It is fine for now but what if the bonding limit is raised? This is no more impossible than bonds passing with a 67% majority.

It always amazes me when the proponents of an issue are also the direct beneficiaries with minimal financial contribution. The business community would like to see better education to staff their companies. I have read extensively about how they have to retrain even college educated employees to make them suitable for their positions. If it is their desire to enhance lower facilities of learning, why don’t they make some direct contributions as a large charitable foundation to this cause. Why?? ... because they can get you to do it for them at no cost.

As for those on the council who believe this is such a great investment, but have their children enrolled in private schools, and those on the council who laud the past school system, to what are you comparing the returns of your investment. Certainly the results show that our own school system delivers less than the average for the rest of the State based on test scores. I would hate to see where our State stands compared to the rest of the States.

Further, there is no comparison with historic scores from the past. It might be an embarrassment. The point is that yes, this is an investment in the future of our country. No, this is not a good investment for varying reasons. As most will not take the time to really examine what we are getting for our money, I refuse to think it is wise to make it easier to continue a failing, or failed, system.

And believe it or not, there are other options. But that is another story ...

The Done Deal

February 9, 2000

To quote Shakespeare from MacBeth, “Methinks thou doth protest too much”, it appears that I have hit the target one more time. When I said that once the city or school district secured the funds, we would see a police officer heading for our schools whether or not it could be justified on the basis of need, this prognostication has come to pass.

After attending the high school site council meeting last Tuesday, where a city official insisted that this was not “a done deal”, it was very apparent through the lack of opposing views that this is very much a done deal for at least this group of concerned parents, teachers, and students. If this was supposed to be a close examination of the need for an officer on campus, it failed for non-examination of the facts.

Lieutenant Lou Kalish of the Dixon Police department had statistics for the group that consisted of numbers of calls with no breakdown of the categories for reasons for the requests. When queried by parent and community activist, Steve Alexander, as to the specifics relating to the over 300 calls placed to the police, Kalish stated that the number one reason was violence, followed by loitering around the school facilities, and, lastly, vandalism. There were no solid figures available for any of these and no figures for results relating to the outcome of these calls. Pressing further, Alexander made the point that vandalism calls were placed after the fact, which brings me to my points. It was amazing how accepting or receptive this group was to the premise of placing an officer on campus without having a clear cut need demonstrated through actual calls and responses from the police department.

Let’s start with the last category first, which was vandalism calls. What is the point of having an officer on campus to stop vandalism when the vandalism is occurring after hours or the perpetrators are not observed doing the damage? If they were seen during the commission of the crime, the officer still would not need to be present to result in prosecution.

The issue of loitering is next. We enacted another in a long list of ridiculous ordinances recently to place a 600 foot border around our schools where citizens can be confronted for loitering in the presence of school children. If a large portion of the calls from the school are being placed for this reason, why hasn’t the police department responded to this demand with beefed up patrols during school hours? That is the purpose of the police department, isn’t it, to protect the citizenry when needed? Sounds like administrative bungling to me.

The largest amount of calls were made for violence, or the threat of violence, and I can only assume this as there was again no statistical analysis on the details of the calls. Now, when I went to school, and it seems I can’t stay away, there were the same things going on. I would be willing to bet that it would be a rare individual in this community or elsewhere that never encountered a bully or two on campus. I don’t mean to downplay the seriousness of this issue, but the fact remains that it will only be lessened and not eliminated through the addition of a “campus cop”.

Instead of occurring on campus where it can be observed and stopped quickly, it will occur off premises with potentially more tragic results. But before we get into discussions of hysteria, let’s look at a couple of other reasons for placing an officer in our schools.

The logic is to have someone on campus that the kids can see as a role model, have as a mentor, or talk to about their problems. I don’t see any discussion of having a doctor on campus, a stockbroker, a lawyer, or any of a number of other representatives from varying professions. If you are really serious about this reason, I would suggest having a career day. An officer could provide mentoring but it would be from a limited perspective of law and order with no questioning of the same. The prime responsibility in this area should be placed on parents, and, secondly, on teachers. Seeing that both have abrogated the duty to give a “true” education, I guess the police are viewed as the educators of last resort.

As for the purpose of discussing issues in their lives, I believe it would be far more appropriate to have someone trained in psychology or social skills to handle this aspect. If the average police person has qualifications in this area, either through certification or additional study, it would come as a large surprise to me. By the way, what is it that the school conselors are supposed to be doing with their time?

If you need social workers on campus, then hire them. Don’t attempt to use an officer as a “catch-all” just because you have the funding for him or her. Finally, don’t attempt to place an officer until you can prove through unbiased statistics the necessity.

Speaking of necessity and hysteria, an episode that demonstrates both occurred at C.A. Jacobs a week ago, Friday. Oddly, the situation was handled without having an officer present. It seems that a group of students got together to accuse one other student of plotting a Columbine type scenario. The reasons for doing this are open to examination and question.

Some have said that the students knew this would allow them to be out of school. Others say they were legitimately scared. As I was refused the right to interview the student accused, but was allowed to speak with one of his accusers, I don’t feel comfortable making any pronouncements. On the other hand, coming as close as this has to site council meetings and public debate on the need for an officer, some would say that this has all the appearance of a staged performance. I would hope that the power structure isn’t stooping that low.

Once again, this isn’t free money that we are getting to hire officers. Perhaps we will need them in the future for the entire community. Maybe our children are completely out of control and this is the only way to handle them. I have my doubts. Do you?

Respond to this article in our public forum!