What a busy night last night! The Idaho Republicans caucused for the first, and possibly last, time in history, and the CdA City Council did it again…they spent $2 Million for a NO-BID agreement for the “Team McEuen” architects to draw up construction contracts.
Mayor Sandi Bloem broke the tie and voted with Council members Mike Kennedy, Deanna Goodlander and Woody McEvers. They are becoming the “Ram it through” team! (Apparently they have forgotten the message of the last election –see photo)
I heard that, during Council Comments, Dan Gookin expressed great concern that he had to learn about the plans for the Cherry Hill baseball stadium by reading about it in the Press; that this important information was withheld from some of the council members. What was the Mayor’s response?…silence. None of the other Ram-it-Through Team said a word either. Not only are they ignoring the Public, they are also ignoring duly elected members of the council! Are you concerned about this?
And the Republican Caucuses were not a good idea, in my opinion. They left out of the process anyone who could not physically attend and stay at least 5 hours. Primaries are a much better option. Did you go? What did you think? Your thoughts on these or any other topic?
That’s Steve Gookin.
Comment by Dan — March 7, 2012 @ 10:05 am
Huh?
Comment by mary — March 7, 2012 @ 10:16 am
On Kennedy’s blog dated October 9, 2009 (yes just prior to the election) Kennedy stated:
“This morning there was a letter to the editor in the newspaper from Charlie Roan, American Legion Board Member and McEuen Field Preservation Spokesman.
Charlie talked about my commitment to McEuen Field and the legacy of Legion Baseball. I’m humbled by the support of the American Legion Baseball family and I will always fight to keep Legion baseball on McEuen Field. I respect Coeur d’Alene’s baseball legacy and I am honored by Charlie Roan’s public support.”
An article in today’s Coeur d’ALene Press edition quotes Kennedy regarding the vote that will lead to the removal of American Legion Baseball from McEuen Field as stating:
“You have to have vision and look out into the future to create great communities,” said Mike Kennedy, councilman. “I think we should move forward with the project and get it going.”
I guess the question is, When did Kennedy have his “vision” to renege on his word/promise to “always fight to keep Legion baseball on McEuen Field?
Comment by Joe Six-Pack — March 7, 2012 @ 11:01 am
But, think of the possibilities.
But, think of the possibilities.
But, think of the possibilities.
(Credit John Austion)
One man one goal one mission,
One heart one soul just one solution,
One flash of light yeah one god one vision
No wrong no right,
I’m gonna tell you there’s no black and no white,
No blood no stain,
All we need is one world wide vision
(Credit Queen… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUsOR5rWH8I)
Comment by Pariah — March 7, 2012 @ 6:16 pm
“I guess the question is, When did Kennedy have his “vision” to renege on his word/promise to “always fight to keep Legion baseball on McEuen Field?”
When his handlers told him tho vote “our way or the highway”.
Comment by concerned citizen — March 7, 2012 @ 7:44 pm
sorry
When his handlers told him to vote “our way or the highway”.
Comment by concerned citizen — March 7, 2012 @ 8:03 pm
No, didn’t go to a caucus. Total waste of time. Agree, primary very much better.
Question, why were Bloem and her merry fools allowed to not answer the query by Dan? IMO, Dan had the right to respectfully demand an answer. Dan is an extremely courteous gentleman, but he does have the right to expect and insist on an answer to his question(s). As does the public!!
Comment by rochereau — March 8, 2012 @ 12:01 pm
I wasn’t at the council meeting. rochereau has raised a question in conjunction with Mary’s post. Who did councilman Gookin ask? City council members or staff/city attorney? Council members presumably wouldn’t have to answer. Staff/city attorney, that would seem to be a very different situation. If he asked the staff/city attorney he should have demanded an answer. End of story. If he didn’t ask staff/city attorney at the hearing, he should ask, and demand, an answer now and in writing. The same, of course would go for Adams and Edinger.
Comment by Joe Six-Pack — March 8, 2012 @ 5:23 pm
Not being there or watching it on Woody TV, I can only suggest that a councilman can get an answer to any question from anyone. It is how the question is presented. In the legislature, for example, a member merely asks the presiding officer if so and so will yield to a question? If the responder agrees to yield, then…bingo, you get an answer. You may not like it or believe it or feel it needs more detail, so you ask a second time if the gentlemen or lady will yield further.
This is the essence of a deliberative assembly. It’s all in knowing how to use Roberts Rules of order or Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure…and it’s fun,especially if the assembly is not used to that kind of formality.
Comment by Gary Ingram — March 8, 2012 @ 9:47 pm
Has the council adopted Roberts Rules of Order?
Comment by Susie Snedaker — March 8, 2012 @ 10:10 pm
Susie makes a good point. I am confused by the use of “a deliberative assembly” in the context of a city council meeting. I guess Gary must be referring to the back room meeting that some of the councilpersons were not invited. Even then it is a stretch.
Comment by Joe Six-Pack — March 9, 2012 @ 6:16 am
This rule, that rule, they don’t need no stinking rules. When has this mayor select council members and or the board of the LCDC played by ANY rules?
Comment by concerned citizen — March 9, 2012 @ 6:34 am
Citizen,
The have rules. Really. Take a look:
http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm
Comment by justinian — March 9, 2012 @ 8:02 am
A “deliberative assembly” is any group of people constituted by and operating under rules of procedure, statute or ordinance who have authority to make decisions and who discuss or debate issues at hand. It could be a church convention, a legislative assembly or a road district meeting. In this instance it is a city council meeting.
Comment by Gary Ingram — March 9, 2012 @ 11:03 am
A question asked by another councilman, or indeed, the public needs to be answered. Very simple. What type of procedural rules allow any question to be ignored. Ordinance, statute, whatever, common civility states that a question be answered. And in this context, when the poser of the question is an equal member, the question demands an answer. So, I ask again, why was the question not answered? Will it be asked at the next meeting? Nothing to do with rules and everything to do with transparency.
Comment by rochereau — March 9, 2012 @ 4:20 pm
Gary, what ‘rules of procedure’ have been adopted by the Cda city council?
Comment by Joe Six-Pack — March 9, 2012 @ 4:28 pm