If you missed the Council meeting last night, you missed a long one. But the fireworks really blew up after the cameras were turned off. Here’s the press release from Councilman Steve Adams about what happened after the meeting. Hold onto your hats, you are not going to believe what the Mayor did and said:
“While still in the community room after last night’s city council meeting, City Attorney Mike Gridley approached me and asked if I was going to provide him with a copy of the ethics complaint I filed against him. I told him the Idaho State Bar would likely send him a copy with a request to respond. He then proceeded to get in my face and told me I was a “moron”. I asked him If he was threatening me, he said no, but that in 30 years of practicing law he had never had anyone make a complaint against him, and again he told me I was “moron”. He was still in my face at this point, just inches away, leaning in on me. I again asked if he was threatening me and he said no, but that I could “fu** off you stupid moron.” At this point I grabbed my cell phone and called 911 to ask for officer assistance as I perceived this as an assault. Mr. Gridley walked away saying he was going to his office and then home. I walked through the library and into the ante room where the Mayor, Mike Kennedy, Deanna Goodlander, Wendy Gabriel and Jon Ingalls were standing. Mike Kennedy told me I should calm down. I told him about the exchange I had with Mr. Gridley and he responded with surprise and expressed dissatisfaction. I turned to the Mayor and pointed at her exclaiming that she should take disciplinary action against Mr. Gridley. She told me not to point at her, so I apologized for pointing. She then said not only would she not be disciplining Mr. Gridley but, raising her fist at me, she said she had half a mind to “punch my nose off of my face.” For the City Attorney to verbally assault me, twice now, with inflammatory and derogatory comments, is a violation of his attorney code of ethics and, according to the city’s personnel rules, is insubordination. I call for his immediate termination.
Mayor Bloem’s actions are unprofessional, disrespectful and definitely unbecoming for the Mayor. I demand an apology.” –Steve Adams
Wasn’t there a committee formed to prevent bullying in the area schools? Then we wonder where the area children learn it from. Looks like we need one formed for the (cough cough) leaders of our community as well. Sad sad day when those in power cannot do the right thing.
Comment by concerned citizen — March 20, 2013 @ 2:43 pm
An alert reader sent me this great article on Bullying in the Workplace by Harvey Mackay. I thought it interesting, thinking of the City Council, how people in the survey rate the #1 offense (43%) to be that their comments are dismissed or not acknowledged. Not only do the Mayor & some council members dismiss the ideas and comments of other council members, but they do so to the public as well. It’s disrespectful!
Last night Steve Adams made a long, impassioned comment and the Mayor acted like he said nothing and she just went on to the next item. That seems to fit the description of workplace bullying.Here’s the article on Bullying.
Comment by mary — March 20, 2013 @ 4:54 pm
At this rate, Steve Adams cannot afford to be without a bodyguard. No matter what he does, it will be wrong. It will not be safe for Adams to put himself into a position where he is not accompanied by someone he trusts. The council meetings are obviously hostile and I am sure it is just as hostile at city hall during work hours. It’s a terrible way to feel and if he needs to call 911, it’s serious.
Comment by Stebbijo — March 20, 2013 @ 6:25 pm
At this point one has to wonder where the CdA police dept loyalty lye’s since roots run to deep in city politics.
Comment by concerned citizen — March 20, 2013 @ 6:39 pm
Steve should assert his constitutional rights and carry concealed everywhere he goes.
Comment by pu — March 20, 2013 @ 8:10 pm
When Gridley stood by his words when he called Steve Adams an “ignorant shit” or whatever, he called the citizens in CdA, the same thing. We should be personally offended because that is what he did. We deserve an apology and Steve Adams was right to demand one.
Comment by Stebbijo — March 20, 2013 @ 8:35 pm
Sounds like the time has come for Adams to start carrying a recorder–especially since Gridley stood at the podium and repeated that he doesn’t trust Adams and something to the effect that Adams is untruthful. The Mayor should be ashamed.
And not to detract from that silly episode, but I found it interesting that the bulk of the meeting revolved around how broke the City has become lately and all of the unfunded millions that the city will, one way or the other, need to scrape from somewhere (or someone). Yet, out pops Deanna making a motion directing staff to prepare themselves for conducting a “noise study” related to an alleged zoning violation.
The City does not have the expertise to perform this type of study; very few cities do. In fact, there are only a couple of firms in the inland northwest that have the tools and credentials and they are not cheap, that is if the City wants a defensible study. But more importantly, in the world of zoning enforcement the complainant first needs to file a written complaint and along with that complaint provide their own evidence. The complaint then works its way up the food chain until the “sweet reason” process exhausts all remedies.
Not last night – Now the City has essentially taken over the role as the plaintiff, but–at the same time they are the appellant body for enforcement of code violations of this type. At minimum, by allowing this complaint to be heard in front of the entire Council prior to following the adopted procedure and without the alleged violator present to defend himself the Council is now prejudiced, therefore the alleged violator has been denied due process. They should have politely cut her off, required her to follow procedure and certainly not taken on the responsibility of paying for evidence that could be used against them. Mo money, Mo money.
The other issue that really puzzled me was the Jewitt House “exception” to allow alcohol sales in a residential R-3 zone all because the house needs a roof and a heating system upgrade. The City didn’t even send legal notice to the adjoining neighbors announcing that for all practical purposes–a bar was coming the the beach. But of course (according to Kennedy) events will be limited to 200 people, and they won’t be those WSU frat party people. The “exception” to the Code was specific to a precise location, but no notice to neighbors? No hearing to consider impacts associated with noise, increased litter, public urination, parking and all of the other potential impacts of 200 people drinking? Will the City conduct head counts, monitor noise, etc? They just set precedent.
Just in an hour on one night, the City twice violated its own procedures regarding enforcement and a change of allowed uses. And during that same hour Gridley sat quietly – maybe he was too busy prepping for his Adams attack.
Mo money. Mo money.
Comment by old dog — March 20, 2013 @ 9:09 pm
I am wondering why DateLine, 60 Minutes or 20/20 has not picked up on the CdA shenanigans yet. Even the best script writer cannot come up with material like the happening in CdA.
Comment by concerned citizen — March 21, 2013 @ 6:36 am
Steve Adams has never used improper language or threats of bodily harm at any time during council discussions. It’s entirely unprofessional for Mayor Bloem and Attorney Gridley to have done so.
Now Gridley tries to squirm out of it today by labeling Steve as “unstable”. Gridley and the Mayor are the ones who couldn’t control themselves.
Comment by mary — March 21, 2013 @ 8:43 am
Mary, did anyone actually witness the confrontation between Adams, Gridley and Bloem? We would all be better served if a third party was a witness. I certainly am no defender of Bloem and Co. Quite the opposite. But when the entire council supports a vote, I am then inclined to question Adams “about face”. I believe that Dan Gookin is a voice of reason (and a good reformer) and if he supports the request for a judicial decision, it is probably the best solution. Also other cities have gone with the judicial solution. To lose a 2% interest rate is absurd. The upgrades must be done whether or not there is new growth.
I did get a chuckle out of one part of this sad situation. Bloem stated that her level of frustration was the highest in 12 years. Welcome to the club Sandi, now you know how the rest of us feel about your heavy handed behavior on McEuen.
Comment by rochereau — March 21, 2013 @ 10:00 am
Rochereau, I think the mayor is reaping what she has sown.
Comment by Ancientemplar — March 21, 2013 @ 3:42 pm
Rochereau, you may be missing the point of contention. Does the Idaho Constitution serve at the pleasure of the City Attorney? The lure of 2% interest rate notwithstanding, Art. 8 Section, 3 says sewer bonds are out of reach of judicial confirmation. They must be voted upon. That is what Councilman Adams is arguing.
If voters approve, are they denied the coveted interest rate? Again, the Idaho Constitution trumps and if we ignore it for convenience, how long before any of our laws become irrelevant?
Comment by Gary Ingram — March 21, 2013 @ 10:26 pm
Case law rules!! If you have a problem with the judicial confirmation process you should let the city follow through with it and then file suit. If you win,which it sounds like you would if it’s so cut and dry, then think about how great that is for the rest of the taxpayers!
Comment by pu — March 22, 2013 @ 8:21 am
Gary, admittedly I don’t know the ins and outs of the Idaho constitution. But, and I may be totally incorrect, is this a sewer bond? Now that may sound like a stupid question, but to me sewers and a waste water plant treatments are two different things. Sewers bring the sewage to the plants where it is treated prior to entering the river. Also, if this is unconstitutional, why did the entire council originally vote in favor? Steves wife states that he has spent hours studying the constitution. Why then, was his original vote affirmative. I admittedly am totally unschooled on this subject, effluvium not being one of my interests :-), but I do think there is a fine point here. The matter being the treatment of sewage, not how it is carried.
Comment by rochereau — March 22, 2013 @ 9:51 am
Gary, the “lure of 2% interest rate” was not limited to the judicial confirmation process, as I’m sure you know. IF the city had gone to the voters with a bond election, they still could have qualified for the 2% rate. In fact, at Tuesday’s council meeting, the Finance Director said that if the issue is passed by the voters at the May 21st election, the 2% money would indeed be available. It might still be there for the Nov. election too, he said, though that was more uncertain.
This whole issue begs two questions, in my mind:
1. Why did the city not just put this to a public vote to begin with? My guess?: They have not put any public project to a vote since 2005. Voters?…we don’t need ’em.
2. The city has seen this wasterwater issue coming for more than 10 years. Why did they wait until right now, immedidiately on the heels of the McEuen contract being finalized, to try to bypass the voters?
Comment by mary — March 22, 2013 @ 10:35 am
Mary,
There’s an old saying: “A lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part.”
But we’re in Kootenai County, Idaho, where it is possible that our district court judges may for political expediency conclude that, “A lack of planning on the City’s part creates an emergency allowing ‘necessary’ circumvention of the voters.”
Comment by Bill — March 22, 2013 @ 11:20 am
Have you read that Ysura has backed legislation intended to basically disenfranchise the voter. Speaking of constitutional, how can this type of legislation be made into law. This law won’t ban the citizenry. But it will effectively make it close to impossible to seek legislation by petition. Has everybody in this state buried their colective heads in the sand? Mind boggling!!
Comment by rochereau — March 22, 2013 @ 12:41 pm
I know, 2 l’s in collective.
Comment by rochereau — March 22, 2013 @ 12:42 pm