More and more people in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, and the surrounding communities are taking an interest in a citizens group’s efforts to recall Coeur d’Alene Mayor Sandi Bloem, City Council President Mike Kennedy, Councilman Woody McEvers, and Councilman Deanna Goodlander. As expected, those unable or unwilling to address community concerns have begun attacking the citizens who raise those concerns.
One of the concerns raised is that the officials subject to recall have failed to listen, really listen, to the citizens’ concerns.
That failure to listen was demonstrated by the Mayor herself at the Coeur d’Alene city council meeting on April 17, 2012. Here is a five-minute YouTube video of the public comment delivered by Recall CdA participant Frank Orzell. In about five minutes, Frank Orzell succinctly described what is at the heart of Recall CdA. The video includes the Mayor’s response to his comment.
At approximately 1:08 into the video segement, Mr. Orzell states:
Fear of intimidation and retribution is another indication of the dysfunction. Small business owners and city staff have expressed their desire to sign our petition, but very often also talk about fear of reprisal, even loss of employment, and that is difficult for us to ignore.
After Frank Orzell’s comment and at approximately 5:12 in the video, the Mayor responded :
I – I will make one comment. You said something about people coming in, uh, and are fearing us with, uh, personal attacks including maybe even firing. If you ever have information that is factual, please bring it to us, because I believe there is not one person sitting on this dais that would do anything of the kind. So I would appreciate it if you would bring the facts to us.
“You said something about …” is not how a mayor who was carefully listening begins a response to what Mr. Orzell said. Her continued response, “If you ever have information that is factual …,” suggests his information was not factual. It was. Perhaps a mayor who was carefully listening to a constituent might have asked, “Can you provide specific information and specific instances to support your statement?” She didn’t ask.
This brief segment of video succinctly describes the Recall CdA effort. Sadly, it also provides evidence supporting one of the recall effort’s concerns: The Mayor and the three other councilmen subjected to the recall effort may listen to those guaranteed to nod their heads in unquestioning agreement, but they are unwilling to listen and hear information from “those people” who don’t instantly nod their heads and who ask uncomfortable questions deserving of thoughtful answers.
John Austin, clean up you language please. I just edited your comment #38 and expect you to respect the rules of this blog. This is not some gossip blog where you can use that kind of uncouth terminology.
Thanks, Justin, for calling it out. I have not been watching this thread much.
Comment by mary — April 19, 2012 @ 10:38 pm
Speaking of questions, I’m still waiting for John A to tell me the 11 something million is available between the two districts, and is not in the form of an interest bearing loan. When I asked him on HBO he just shook it off trying to make me look the part of the imbecile. Yet, I still remember from his mouth that ALL the money wasn’t technically available until the two URDs were mature. This would imply the money there is in the form of a loan, until such money is fully available.
I’m not trying to be obstinate John, I really want to know the truth. I’ve read everything from the LCDC website, the county website, and am just wanting the straight answer on whether the money currently exists or not.
Comment by dinosaurman — April 19, 2012 @ 10:40 pm
Murphyk, I did not say you are against the people of CdA. Please quote specifically where you think I said that.
The statements from the leadership (not membership) of the various groups you mentioned are not important. The opinions of the citizens of CdA are. We, at Recall CdA, have heard from many realtors, builders, chamber people and others who are part of the membership of these organizations but are not against the Recall, in fact they support it. Many have signed the petitions and some are helping to gather signatures.
Make all the big noise & headlines you want, we are focusing on getting more than enough signatures to put this Recall on the ballot, so ALL the voters in CdA will have a voice.
Oh, and Adam?…you didn’t answer my question. Providing a link to someone elses work is not your answer. The people of CdA elected these officials and the Idaho State Constitution gives the citizens the right to un-elect them. It’s the law.
Goodnight, I’m tired and I have a lot of signatures to get tomorrow!
Comment by mary — April 19, 2012 @ 10:50 pm
Murphyk,
RE your comment 50: We don’t know. If each of those organizations would like to send an email or letter to answering your very reasonable question, we would add it either as a separate post or as a comment.
Comment by Bill — April 20, 2012 @ 6:40 am
Do not let the spin masters in.
All the RECALL does is put the mayor and three council members names back on the ballot sooner than later.
It does NOT remove them from office.
If in fact they get the majority of votes they will return to office.
If NOT then the people have spoken.
Then and ONLY then will new be appointed contrary to any column, letter or opinion.
It is VERY American for all of the people to have their vote.
So, if you would like to keep status quo, conflict of interest, tyranny, taxation without representation, feel free to vote back in the same elite crowd.
It is your right to do so.
As it IS my right to want them out
Comment by concerned citizen — April 20, 2012 @ 6:52 am
I think I’m correct with this assumption and if I’m not please tell me. If the recall is successful and the new appointees are seated, won’t their term expire and the end of the term of the councilperson they replaced? If so, the “appointed” councilpersons will only be in office for the balance of the term, correct?
Comment by Ancientemplar — April 20, 2012 @ 7:42 am
John, I asked who and what Adam Graves is. I appreciated the prompt answer. Adam himself has told me what he is.
Comment by rochereau — April 20, 2012 @ 9:12 am
You are correct, Ancient. They will all have to stand for election in 2013.
Comment by mary — April 20, 2012 @ 11:38 am
John Austin,
I asked you a question, ” Did I disrespect Mr. Graves by my comments?”
Comment by LTR — April 20, 2012 @ 2:39 pm
LTR, you are asking John Austin to be the arbiter of good manners?…he’s the one I just had to edit for unbecoming language here!
Comment by mary — April 20, 2012 @ 3:24 pm
The latest “TRIPE” from the press “Recall: ‘They have done nothing illegal'” again is NOT factual but simply opinion. Didn’t the editor announce that he would only allow facts?
Comment by concerned citizen — April 20, 2012 @ 3:31 pm
Mary,
LOL. NO. He makes many attempts to belittle people. His type is over at the other blog.
Comment by LTR — April 20, 2012 @ 4:33 pm
Sorry Bill, I am usually much better behaved than that.
Can someone tell me if there are disclosure requirements for the recall process and if so, where in the code does it specify?
“Speaking of questions, I’m still waiting for John A to tell me the 11 something million is available between the two districts, and is not in the form of an interest bearing loan. When I asked him on HBO he just shook it off trying to make me look the part of the imbecile. Yet, I still remember from his mouth that ALL the money wasn’t technically available until the two URDs were mature. This would imply the money there is in the form of a loan, until such money is fully available.
I’m not trying to be obstinate John, I really want to know the truth. I’ve read everything from the LCDC website, the county website, and am just wanting the straight answer on whether the money currently exists or not.”
Dinosaurman, you would be correct, the LCDC board essentially established a line of credit with, I think, Washington Trust….I might be wrong?
Comment by lexacon — April 20, 2012 @ 5:56 pm
That is a GREAT question lexacon.
Are the funds actually in the bank at this moment?
Comment by concerned citizen — April 20, 2012 @ 6:12 pm
lexacon,
I don’t exactly understand what you mean by “disclosure requirements for the recall process…”
Once the petitions have been processed by the County Clerk, they are public record and anyone may see them. They would be disclosable (?) under the Idaho Public Records Law.
Or were you referring to the disclosure of financial support? An amendment to the state’s campaign finance law passed just this year by the Legislature brings recall actions under the campaign finance disclosure laws effective on July 1, 2012. On July 1, everyone must report donations and expenditures as if they were received and spent in a conventional campaign. This law, of course, does not apply to former lieutenant governors and resort owners and their board members and family members who get special rulings and dispensations from the governor, secretary of state, and attorney general to disregard the amendment and law.
Comment by Bill — April 20, 2012 @ 6:52 pm
I was referring to the latter Bill. Thank you! Could you explain the latter of the last paragraph or is this sarcasm?
Comment by lexacon — April 20, 2012 @ 7:11 pm
/sarcasm
/cynicism
Comment by Bill — April 20, 2012 @ 7:16 pm
Mary, the Urban Dictionary refers to the word you deleted as ‘to be brave’. That was my reference to Adam that he is brave to post here. No offense was intended nor should have been inferred.
Dinosaur: Here is my post on HBO detailing plainly what is involved with the McEuen financing:
“Here are the ‘no-spin’ the facts: Property owners in the Lake District of LCDC (less than 10% of all city taxpayers) pay about $3 million a year to the agency. Part of that money is currently dedicated to projects already funded in the district, like the Kroc Center, library and ed corridor. However, since McEuen has been in LCDC’s plan since 1997, the taxes needed for it have been dedicated for that purpose (and NO other purpose) and are currently being received. So, there are enough taxes currently being received by LCDC to pay for McEuen. But since the taxes are paid annually it is necessary to finance the costs over time so the project can be built now rather than in eight increments (it’s like building your house now rather than in eight parts.) The money is financed at less than 4%, which makes it better than building one-eighth of the McEuen project each year. The annual construction bid costs alone (plus inflation costs of the construction) would easily exceed 4% per year so it is smart to finance the costs now”.
I could have mentioned that the McEuen financing is from just the Lake District of LCDC, not both districts. The Lake District ends in about eight years so that’s why the financing is for eight years.
Comment by John Austin — April 21, 2012 @ 9:19 am
Okay John Austin. I took the bait. Very vuglar.
Comment by LTR — April 21, 2012 @ 9:39 am
John Austin, Your urban site is vuglar.
Comment by LTR — April 21, 2012 @ 9:40 am
LTR, I’m sorry you think the word was vulgar. It is in the vernacular of many people these days and is not intended to be vulgar. In any event I certainly won’t be using it on this site again.
Comment by John Austin — April 21, 2012 @ 10:12 am
” So, there are enough taxes currently being received by LCDC to pay for McEuen.” Thanks John A. Its all tax money.
I might add, ALL public money is tax money, no two ways about it.
Comment by Ancientemplar — April 21, 2012 @ 10:33 am
John Austin. I said the Urban Dictionary site was vulgar and would not recommend the site to any of my family members.
Comment by LTR — April 21, 2012 @ 10:36 am
Right. You make a nearly direct reference to male genitalia and then claim it isn’t vulgar. Clueless is your best argument but classless is the reality. Vulgar, classless and arrogant. You make yourself out to be these things Johnny. If that is your intent, congrats it worked.
Comment by Pariah — April 21, 2012 @ 2:36 pm
Pariah, I’d tell you where to stick your last comment but I’m afraid it would be deleted. I truly hope we meet one day face to face, either in CDA or your Spokane Valley so we can settle our differences.
Comment by John Austin — April 21, 2012 @ 3:08 pm
Still classless Johnny, still classless. As for your threat, oooohhhh, I am scared. Not. You are a windbag.
Comment by Pariah — April 21, 2012 @ 3:30 pm
Where do you want to meet, Pariah? Or, are you just a windbag with no more courage to meet face to face than you are a poster who hides behind the cowardice of his (assumed) anonymity?
Comment by John Austin — April 21, 2012 @ 3:48 pm
ROTFLMAO! You are a hoot Johnny. A chest beating, vulgar hoot.
Comment by Pariah — April 21, 2012 @ 3:52 pm
Just as I thought, Pariah. A coward of the highest definition of the word. I hope you some day venture out from that cowardice and embrace something larger than yourself, although I expect that should have happened long ago if it was to happen at all.
Comment by John Austin — April 21, 2012 @ 7:50 pm
Guys, please stop playing “mine’s bigger than yours.”
Comment by Bill — April 21, 2012 @ 7:57 pm
Bill,
Don’t make them stop…..that’s all they got!
Sorry, Pariah!
Comment by lexacon — April 21, 2012 @ 9:10 pm
Yes Bill, please don’t make them stop. John is showing he is scared. The house of cards will probably fall. The SCAM is OVER. We are on to you John and the handout to your, your words, “wealthy developer” friends.
Comment by concerned citizen — April 21, 2012 @ 10:23 pm
Both Pariah and John Austin are capable of doing far better that adds far more to the topic of the post.
Comment by Bill — April 22, 2012 @ 6:35 am
Bill – thanks. I can’t speak for Johnny but I appreciate the sentiment. Here is the reality, Johnny has no emotional control. He emotes. He “cares” enough to use vulgarity and threats of violence. That makes him a “caring” person in the progressive lexicon. He is an object of scornful pity, at best.
Comment by Pariah — April 22, 2012 @ 6:38 pm