[
There’s an old admonition that says, “Be careful what you ask for … you may get it.” That needs to be very seriously considered by the people demanding a “public advisory vote” on the McEuen Field project proposed for Coeur d’Alene, Idaho.
The people who want the public advisory vote are absolutely right in principle. The handpicked McEuen Team who recommended this project so enthusiastically are many of the same people who will benefit financially from the public money spent on it. When several million dollars of public money is going to be spent on a non-emergency public project, a public vote ought to be considered, even if it is only advisory.
But what sounds perfectly reasonable in principle has a drawback in practice and reality: Who will administer the election? This is not one of the elections provided for in Idaho Code titles 34 and 50, so it is almost certain the election would be administered by the highly biased and self-interested City of Coeur d’Alene, not by the impartial Kootenai County Clerk pursuant to state law. The City would make up the rules, print the ballots, determine who could and could not vote, and count the ballots. Better yet, the City could pay tens of thousands of dollars to Team McEuen to perform all election-related duties.
Yeah, that should work out real well.
Bill, the effort to get a public vote or a public advisory vote, was aimed at including the measure on this November 8th’s ballot. That vote would have been administered by the County. The wording was what many deemed a problem area, but I honestly think it need not have been, especially if it was an advisory only vote. The city had a couple of choices in the way they handled the wording on the ballot:
1. They could have simply said, “Do you support the project known as the McEuen Park Master Plan as presented to the public on XXXX date, 2011 and published on the web site http://www.mceuenpark.com? Yes or No
2. Or, as another option they could offer this: Please choose one from the following menu:
–I support the entire McEuen Park Master Plan as presented to the public on XXXX date, 2011 and published on the web site http://www.mceuenpark.com
–I support the McEuen Park Master Plan, as described above, without removal of the 3rd street boat launch
–I support the McEuen Park Master Plan, as described above, without removal of the American Legion ball field
–I support the McEuen Park Master Plan, as described above, without removal of the 3rd street boat launch or the American Legion ball field
–I don’t support any of the proposed changes to McEuen Field at this time.
********
What do you think?
Comment by mary — September 15, 2011 @ 11:48 am
Mary,
I think for any advisory vote to have any validity at all, the City should not have any control over the process at all. That is why the City would likely be vehemently opposed to including it on the November general election ballot. General and special elections as defined in Titles 34 and 50 are (hopefully) beyond the manipulative reach of the cities since those elections are now administered by the County Clerk’s office.
I’m not exactly sure if an advisory vote could be put on the general election ballot in November. I suppose it could if the City paid the tab. The County Clerk would be the one to ask.
Comment by Bill — September 15, 2011 @ 2:06 pm
OK, well here is a seemingly easy solution. Print up say 10 thousand of what Mary suggested as questions, which are pretty straight forward, and set up stations at polling places for those interested in taking the McEuen survey.
Not sure if it’s legal or not to do so but I would make it only available after a resident has gone through the polling for the normal general election.
Problem I see is who would man these “survey” stations and could they simply keep their mouths shut and let the questionnaire speak for its self. Have lock boxes for the surveys to go into and then take them after to a public location and tally them up in plain sight.
Again I’m not sure it’s legal to do such a thing and expect it isn’t but, a resourceful human being might just find a way. Keep in mind it wouldn’t be anything more than a survey and the results would be debated especially by the looser but, it might be worth a shot. Kind of a way to get a real flavor of opinion for this project.
I get the thought of the council that they are elected to make these decisions and in most cases they are but, every once in a while it’s best to get a feel, a proper feel just to make sure as leaders, that the best interest of the masses they are elected to protect are mostly on the same page.
I don’t know, it sounds easy even logical but it also could be scammed somehow by none residents or people could vote more than once or any other scheme or fraud. Maybe I’m just thinking out loud ideas that should stay in my head.
Comment by Eric — September 17, 2011 @ 9:42 am
Eric,
Not bad suggestions at all.
I think that a more formalized, structured vote administered by a disinterested party generally following Idaho laws would be given more credibility, though. Logically, the Kootenai County Clerk’s Elections Office would the one already equipped and staffed to administer it efficiently and impartially. If it were even possible, that would be the costliest alternative.
Letting any interested party (meaning proponents or opponents with a stake in the outcome) be involved in the administration of the advisory vote would be a fatal defect.
Comment by Bill — September 17, 2011 @ 9:57 am
Bill your correct but in light of that never happening my thought was an alternative way of letting people have a say on this thing.
My take on this is get rid of the launch, move the parking, keep the baseball. But that’s just me. If there was a proper survey/poll/vote that proved to out weigh my perspective well, then I would relent and support what was determined whether to my liking or not and we could move on.
Do I trust the council? yeah for the most part as I’ve met them all one way or another and they are caring people.
However, being a caring person doesn’t always translate into a good leader at least in this capacity.
Comment by Eric — September 17, 2011 @ 10:25 am
Eric,
You raised a very good point when you said, “If there was a proper survey/poll…”
Who could administer it so that the public could and would trust the results enough to abide by it?
Comment by Bill — September 17, 2011 @ 11:29 am
So who would you think should get to participate in this survey? Just the citizens of CdA or all citizens of Kootenai county since the LCDC would be involved increasing county taxes and the launch was funded with fed dollars?
Comment by concerned citizen — September 18, 2011 @ 8:37 am
concerned citizen,
Also a very fair question.
Comment by Bill — September 18, 2011 @ 8:45 am
While CC makes a good point I’m of the notion that only the citizens of CDA should be surveyed/polled or whatever, in this case at least.
I understand the LCDC legal extortion thing and all that but, to muddle up an effort to get a true barometer from the city that will eventually hold and manage the park when it’s completed with surveying the entire united states or at least surrounding area again, would simply drag things out thus dragging out LCDC’s cry for it’s very existence.
Let the residents of the city make the voice clear and lets move on. I truly wish I could go door to door with this but obviously can’t.
I’ve been on a number of committees and councils and can honestly say that things don’t have to go my way. If after given a genuine chance to express my points and debate followed by consensus still going opposite to my concerns, I’m then more than willing to let go and allow the topic to move on. Even work to implement the decision because it would be the right thing to do.
Comment by Eric — September 19, 2011 @ 7:53 am
Eric,
I was only trying to make a point. I agree with you. I too am one that would help either way once the populace has its say. These people were elected to represent ALL of the citizens. Not a select few.
Comment by concerned citizen — September 19, 2011 @ 12:33 pm