Bill 2009-087

Over the past two weeks, I have had several letters and inquiries about my stance on stimulus funds. Last night, Bill 2009-087 was a bill that concerned stimulus funds, and those funds are to go to the Springfield Police Department for gear and supplies. Being the first time I voted for stimulus money, and having voted against stimulus funds two times, I believed that during the discussion of this bill was the appropriate time to detail my stance on stimulus money acceptance.

After the meeting, a citizen asked if I planned to post my thoughts that I shared at the meeting. I had not planned on it, but am doing so in light of the request.

Here are my notes from last night:

Two weeks ago we had a bill put before us that enabled our City Manager to apply for stimulus funds in an effort to address several issues regarding homelessness. Being the only opposition vote, I should have known that it would draw attention. Then, again, tonight we had another bill that is meant to fund job assessments and training programs.

The purpose in my voting against those measures was not to simply vote against them. You see, when the stimulus was passed, the public was told by the federal government that the monies were going towards job creation, job sustainment, and infrastructure. The bill two weeks ago did none of the above, rather paid “rent, utilities, housing deposits, and case work” for those making at or below 50% of the area median income… that means that half of the community is automatically eligible to apply for these funds. Tonight, we were asked to vote on a bill that was going to fund a program that doesn’t create or sustain jobs, rather gives skills assessments and training.

There was not a way – in my mind – that I could make sense of voting yes on either of those bills.

With this bill we find ourselves in a similar situation, yet very different at the same time.

You see, with two weeks to reflect on this vote, I have drawn several conclusions:

The first is that…

• Regardless of how we feel about the stimulus monies, our children and grandchildren are going to foot this bill.
• So the first question is whether or not we allow them to foot a bill in which they had some sort of return on. Ensuring they grow up in a safe environment does this.

Another conclusion is that…

• The previous Council enabled the City Manager to apply for funds to hire several new police officers. Additionally, with the tax monies that will be generated by the wireless phone companies, even more police officers are going to be hired.
• We cannot have new personnel and expect them to operate efficiently, yet at the same time deny them the equipment that they are in very much need of in order to keep us safe.

Third… and generally speaking:

• If we must accept money from the stimulus bill, I hope that all of us keep in mind that the most responsible way to do it is to ensure that there is some sort of return on it for the community, and the expenditures are non-recurring as to not create long-term commitments that we will not be able to keep.

So, as I vote in support of this…

• I want to make it clear that I am not voting for the economic irresponsibility that the stimulus represents; I’m voting for the safety of this community.
• And I am not voting for the philosophy that taking money from the federal troth is the right thing to do; I am voting to support the men and women who protect us with their lives every time they put their uniform on, kiss their families goodbye, and walk out the door.
  
  That is what I am voting for here tonight.

Council Bill 2009-083

When I cast my first public vote, I was unaware that it was going to be one that was so "controversial". Not in that my vote was good or bad, but that I was the one opposition vote to Council Bill 2009-083.

I will always try to be open minded, logical, and objective to all viewpoints, proposals, and ideas; at the same time, there are some bills that I analyze and simply can't be supportive of. This was one of them.

The first time the interest in my vote was brought to my attention [and I'm paraphrasing] is when the News-Leader stated that I was the only opposition vote, and with no explanation. There was no explanation because I was pretty sure that I was going to be the only opposition vote, and for the fact that I didn't believe 'grandstanding' was appropriate for my first vote at my first meeting.

When asked about it by JackeHammer, I e-mailed her my statement. It is one that is not long, rather short and to the point. I don't believe that there is too much more to say than what I did.

In the end it came down to me voting in a manner in which I would have a clean conscience when I lay down at night... and the vote cast is the one that allowed me to do so.

My statement:
"As someone who is opposed to the philosophy behind the stimulus package in whole, I do understand that there is money that the City may very well need to secure. Having said that, President Barack Obama has stated that the money from the stimulus package is meant to go towards job growth, job creation, and infrastructure. When presented with a bill that does none of those things, but instead simply pays rent and utilities of one from the pockets of another, I cannot support it. It comes down to responsible spending; if we must be put in a situation where securing stimulus funds is a necessity, I would hope to secure those monies for what they are meant to be for… nothing more.” -April 23, 2009

CIP vs Pension: An Exlpanation

A question was recently posed as to why I supported the idea of allowing the 1/4% CIP sales tax to expire, and to replace it with the 1/4% sales tax to fund the police and fire pension system.

Before the primary, and the sales tax vote, I stood firm in the belief that our community did not need to have an overall increase in sales tax. As well, I also stated that I believe that we need to look at the current sales tax structure, consider what taxes are currently on the books that are not an absolute necessity, and to replace that tax with a pension tax.

I still stand firm in that position.

The reason is that I believe that the CIP tax would, at this time, be the best tax to let expire - if not permanently, temporarily. Why this tax? There are two examples and a follow up analogy.

The first is that while the CIP tax is supposed to go to capital improvements, we have seen several projects that I would not personally consider to be a pertinent capital improvement.

One of them is the wayfinding signs. As those who remember the recent controversy, I will not rehash the issue... it is still fresh in the minds of those who are aware of city issues. Had I been on council at that time, I would have voted against it.

The second is the JV Ice Park. While, during the campaign, it was stated by certain candidates that the ice park was voted on by the citizens because it was part of the CIP report, we must not forget that the park was supposed to be self-sustaining after the first year; it was not.

Lastly, the analogy. I always believe that the best examples are ones that are of the most basic nature... so here goes.

Johnny, who is ten years old, gets $10 allowance each week. Every time he gets his allowance, he puts away $1 for a video game savings project (earmark). At this point, he has $9 left over (general fund). What he does with it is up to him.

One day, while out playing catch with his brother, he accidentally throws a baseball through the neighbor's window. The neighbor, being quite understanding, gives him the option to pay the window replacement cost back in weekly installments. Johnny works out a deal to pay the neighbor back in $1 a week installments. What Johnny does at this point is he decides to put the video game earmark on hold, and take care of the priority with that same $1 (new earmark). The only other option would be to earmark $2, one for the game and one for the window; but he has been told by his parents that either way, he will not be given an allowance increase.

What Johnny does is realize that, yes, he must repay the window. And, yes, it will be upsetting to him to give up his $1 game allotment. But, yes, it is the responsible thing to do. Additionally, the $1 dollar that has been foregone for the video game to pay for the window has allowed the $1 for the window replacement to be financially offset; Johnny still has $9 left over after his weekly earmark has been removed from his allowance. He can still make the $1 video-game allotment, but it is not required. At this point, it is up to Johnny to be responsible enough to make that decision. But he does, in the end, have the ability to continue his game savings if he chooses.

I hope this analogy and explanation helps.

While I understand that the discussion of the CIP and pension issue is much more complicated and not as 'black and white', that is the basic idea that I carry with my support to allow the CIP to temporarily expire.

Oath of Office and Budget Meeting

I was pleased that I was the first to take the oath of office on Tuesday. I guess because I'm the type of person that will volunteer to be the first to speak in a classroom so that I'm done first follows the philosophy as to why I was glad to be first on Tuesday.

After the oath, I walked through the swinging door and made my way around to the seat that Mr. Whayne had occupied for eight years. It was a different experience; it was an experience I will not forget. It was when the surreal feeling left and reality hit. There is a lot of work to do, and this is a big position to fill.

None the less, I was glad to be seated, and glad to get to work.

After the brief meeting in the chambers of City Council, we made our way to the luncheon down the road. We went over the budget in a brief manner, mainly discussing the types of revenues and expenditures the city deals with.

After all was said and done, and when I was on my way home, I realized that while there are many challenges ahead of the city, I firmly believe that there is not one person on the new council that is not ready to address them. While the philosophies may vary, I believe that respect among council members will prevail. After all, with the diversity we have in our community, the community deserves a diverse city council.

As a close comes to the fist week, I am very optimistic about the next several years that I will get to share with the community in service and relationship. Beyond that, and with the dramatic increase in voter turnout in Zone 1 (40% from 2007), I am hopeful that the participation of many will continue, and even more will begin.

Post Election Initial Thoughts

As the results came in on Tuesday, the anxiety level was high. I had been working hard trying to get my message out to the citizens for over a year. Was the hard work going to pay off? Did my message and platform align with the wants, needs, and desires of the citizens I hoped to represent?

In the end it did, and I won my bid for the Zone 1 Seat of Springfield City Council. I consider this a privilege that deserves the utmost attention. While it deserves the utmost attention, the reality of my victory set in - I believe - with a phone call from the newly elected Mayor. It was a call congratulating me on the victory. He began discussing the fact that he looked forward to working with the council, and that there is a lot of work to be done.

He is absolutely right, and I look forward to offering my thoughts and opinions to the scenarios that the city is and will be facing. I also look forward to being an ear to the citizens that have something to offer to the city and its issues.

In short, with the victory on Tuesday night comes a responsibility that by no means is going to be easy, but one with the reward of knowing that I have the ability to be on a Council that is beginning with virtually a clean slate regarding its reputation, and one that I firmly believe can accomplish many tasks with dignity and integrity. That is what this city needs, and that is what the citizens deserve.