An article in today’s Coeur d’Alene Press reported two City Council candidates’ ideas about an advisory vote on the proposed McEuen Field project. One candidate, Dan Gookin, said he favored the vote. The other candidate, George Sayler, said he would second a Council motion for a vote so the merits of an advisory vote could be discussed.
How do you feel about an advisory vote? Should one be taken? If so, who would administer it fairly and honestly enough for you to trust the results?
I think an advisory vote could be useful if it was administered honestly and fair and if the Mayor and City Council would even consider the results.
Many people might believe the vote would be administered by the Kootenai County Clerk’s Elections Office following all Idaho’s election laws. After all, aren’t all elections now administered by the county clerks? No, only general elections, primary elections, and special elections are.
But wouldn’t the City’s advisory election qualify as a special election? I don’t think so. Click again on the “special elections” link above and note the definition. The last six words are “for any purpose provided by law” Where does the law provide for “advisory” elections in Title 34?
I suppose the City could contract with the County Clerk to administer the election just as it contracted to administer most City elections prior to January 1, 2011, but under that relationship, the County Clerk would have to administer the election following the specifications determined by the City, not by state law. In other words, the City could simply hire anyone to administer the election with no legal safeguards at all.
So for those who are screaming so loudly for an advisory vote on McEuen Field, I’d suggest attaching some qualifiers rather than automatically assuming any City-administered or -contracted election would be fair. Be careful what you ask for.
After reading Kelso’s appeal and I still have to read it again so I can really get more of it, I would not waste my time voting anytime soon in a city election. My God, at this rate, I would be surprised if any of them could run their own toilet. I am so disgusted.
All of the votes would have to be sealed and counted before a public crowd, one by one before I would even consider it an honest election.
Comment by Stebbijo — October 8, 2011 @ 2:24 pm
Ron Edinger said that the City would contract with the County to run the advisory vote.
Comment by Dan — October 8, 2011 @ 3:06 pm
Dan,
Great! When did the Council agree to an advisory vote? With only a month before the next general election, Edinger can make all kinds of hollow assurances and promises. He cannot act unilaterally to contract with the County.
Comment by Bill — October 8, 2011 @ 3:36 pm
I’m sure the advisory vote would not be before or during this November’s local elections. It would have to be later, after new people are on the council, because we all know this council will not vote for it.
George Sayler, to be clear, said he would be willing to second a motion on the council to allow discussion on the issue, but when confronted this morning in a public forum, George admitted that he would not be for a public vote. He said the city should “move forward” with the Team McEuen project.
The seconding of the motion was just for show…which tells a lot about the (lack of) character of the man.
Comment by mary — October 8, 2011 @ 9:18 pm
Mary, it’s a disease one picks up from being in the legislature. It’s called CYA syndrome. One is always prepared to vote a bill out of committee with a sanctioned ‘do not pass’ recommendation or with a ‘without recommendation’ recommendation just so it can come before the entire body. Don’t forget George was assistant minority leader and knows all the tricks of deception. But then, so does the public, I hope by now.
Comment by Gary Ingram — October 8, 2011 @ 9:43 pm
Quoting the Press article, “… [Sayler] believes council members are elected to make tough decisions.”
That is attractive campaign rhetoric which misdirects voters’ attention from the council members’ real obligation: To understand the issues and then make informed decisions. Many of the existing council members have theatrically agonized over “tough” decisions, then gone on to display their ignorance of the underlying issues on which they based their decisions. One of the telltale signs of ignorance by elected officials is total reliance on “staff” guidance. When elected officials place complete and blind trust in “staff” (e.g., city attorney, city finance director, city administrator, etc.) and fail to understand the issues at least as well as the officials’ own constituents do, hyperbolic rhetoric becomes their last bastion of defense.
Comment by Bill — October 9, 2011 @ 7:26 am
Putting trust in the finance director makes sense to me, Bill. 🙂
Actually, I don’t see it as ‘blind’ trust. Clearly, staffers should be expected to lend their expertise on matters, especially when they’ve been in their jobs a long time. Wendy has basically been in administration for 20 years and Troy for 11, and both worked with prior administrations. Indeed, Doug and Steve have been with the city since incorporation, I think. That means they’ve all been actively involved with the day-to-day operations of a fast-growing city and should be relied on by their elected officials to join as a team in their recommendations.
It’s important to note that staffers are trained to look at the long run while elected officials can be excused if they look to their next election. That continuity of staff is important and one reason CDA has come through the difficult economic times that threaten to cripple other entities.
In the end, though, it is the elected officials who are responsible to know the facts and make decisions based on those facts, which should happen without bias or leaning to outside pressure. Take it from me, few people will remember who was counting the beans when these big decisions were made, but the elected officials will be noted for their achievements while in office for many years to come.
Comment by JohnA — October 9, 2011 @ 8:34 am
The city council would NEVER use the new and improved county clerks office for a vote on McEuen. They no longer have “it’s in the bag” English in there.
Comment by concerned citizen — October 9, 2011 @ 9:00 am
So why hasn’t anyone called Baloney on Sayler’s position that he will second the motion but doesn’t know how he will vote on the issue once it reaches a vote. That means nothing. Given all of the publicity the issue has received he CERTAINLY must have a position on whether or not he would then VOTE for an advisory election. I suggest that he is clearly taking a baloney position so that people will think he is for an advisory vote. If he is elected he will merely second the motion and then vote NO to an advisory vote. His position is total Baloney.
Comment by Joe Six-Pack — October 9, 2011 @ 2:26 pm
Joe Six-Pack,
I believe Mary’s next newsletter will make the baloney very clear but no less palatable. She will probably post it here in the next day or two.
Comment by Bill — October 9, 2011 @ 3:59 pm
Sayler is kind of closed mouth along with many others when it comes to voicing a real stance re: our city elections. But, maybe absentee ballots that are voided are how they all get into the door as well as ones from Canada or other countries. I mean, seriously – he is a past representative as in LAWMAKER and taught government. I would have ‘thunk’ he would be one of the first to speak out on CDA and this last election. I did not know who he was until now and he is riding on his previous political experience as experienced. Some experience. If our last 2009 city election is any example, I don’t think any of them know how they got elected.
Comment by Stebbijo — October 9, 2011 @ 4:11 pm
Stebbijo,
I would have thought that as a former legislator and high school government teacher, Sayler would have been interested enough in Idaho’s election processes to attend at least some of the election contest lawsuit hearings and trial. He didn’t attend even one of them. In contrast, former state Senator (now Representative) Kathy Sims and former state Representative Gary Ingram attended several of them. I would have thought that the area high schools might have encouraged some of their students to attend and see first-hand the very rare interaction between the judicial system and the election process.
Comment by Bill — October 9, 2011 @ 4:39 pm
I hope that our Legislators encourage our students to attend this next hearing before the Idaho Supreme Court wherever it might be held. It is a wonderful opportunity to see the process and to observe how our Courts will protect or not our individual rights – our vote. I have seen the Idaho Supreme Court in action at one time in CDA, Idaho. It was the hearing that opened up the emails between Douglas and Kalani here in Kootenai County – they were considered ‘public’ information, since they were authored on public computers. It was quite the test of public vs. private information. The Spokesman-Review sued the local government for that information.
I would like to see this one as well.
Comment by Stebbijo — October 9, 2011 @ 5:56 pm
As a candidate for Coeur D’Alene City Council Seat #3, this is my opinion on the McEuen FIeld Project. Public vote. Period. If the public wants it, fine. If not, and it’s up to the City Council, I will vote NO. We don’t have the money, the people don’t want it. We can’t afford to blow money we don’t have (i.e. the tazpayers) on something that may not have that great a return on. The assumed numbers for the Education Corridor look a little better. We have to stop relying on gov’t to solve our problems. Vote for me and I’ll leave you alone.
Derec Aujay
biff1_@hotmail.com
208 755 7598
Comment by derec — October 10, 2011 @ 3:40 pm
Derec,
Thank you for posting here and for having the commitment and desire to run for the City Council. It’s great to see more people taking an interest in how the City is administered.
Comment by Bill — October 10, 2011 @ 3:50 pm