The discussion and open thread today refers to an article, Ghost writer in the sky?, published here yesterday. It describes the advent of a blog apparently written by 3rd district councilman Steve Price. I’ve decided to pull a comment by New Alb Annie to the marquee, with my added thoughts, in the hope of starting a conversation. This is not to be construed as a debate between New Alb Annie and myself, just a way of starting a dialogue. Enjoy.
----
In a comment, New Alb Annie wrote:
I know I am subjecting myself to a big blast here, but I have to say, in all fairness, that I have not had any problems with Steve Price. He has always been more than willing to discuss things with me, and he has been helpful and responsive.
If I had to cite a specific area that I think isn't the best it could be, I'd say that applying the same financial philosophy, reasoning and methods that a small business owner uses is not the most effective way to approach city/governmental budgeting and spending. They are two different animals.
But, small business is what his experience is in, and our city doesn't have a specific educational/background requirement to hold a Council position, nor does it provide any method to educate incoming council members, as far as I am aware.
You run for office, and if you get the majority vote, you're pretty much thrown in there with no preparation at all. I'd be floundering if I was ever on Council--it's a complicated job, and there isn't any sort of training provided.
From what I know of his personal life, he is similar to a lot of us--living here all his life, raising and educating a child, a homeowner in a modest neighborhood.
----
The New Albanian replies:
No blasts, Ann. I appreciate the comments. I recall during the decade of the 1980’s feeling that Ronald Reagan would have made a fine next door neighbor, for cookouts and a beer or two, and to listen to colorful Hollywood war stories. It’s just that he had no business being in charge of a superpower. Leaving aside differing opinions about Reagan’s legacy, I feel much the same way about CM Price. Our city needs more than what CM Price is able to offer.
It is one thing to be cautious and prudent, and to stress fiscal responsibility, although as you correctly point out, there's a big difference between these qualities as applied to one's personal world or small business, and to a city at large.
It's another thing to actively impede forward thinking of the sort that if nurtured, can march hand in hand with fiscal prudence to the enhancement of both. CM Price’s most fundamental failure, one shared with the more fanatical of his “not with my dime” devotees, is an utter inability to understand that the size of the pie is not finite and fixed. It is variable. The pie can become smaller, but it also can become larger. Perhaps owing to personal preferences or upbringing, CM Price inhabits a world that does not change, that always remains the same, where incomes are limited and roles predetermined. But that’s not the way our dynamic world works.
CM Price tells us that he "spearheaded" cleanliness by pushing for an ordinance addressing it. At the same time, he's been opposed to any semblance of funding the mandate he advanced, which makes it possible for him simultaneously to claim credit and to shift blame. In our informal group discussions, and in discussions with city officials, one thing is perfectly clear: You must spend money to make money, and if ordinance enforcement ultimate is about enhancing the prospects for a city to make money, either directly through fees and fines or indirectly through development, then any such mandate must be funded to succeed, not just subsist.
CM Price won’t take the next step. Why, I don’t know, but the accumulated evidence of obsession with nickels and dimes at the expense of the “big picture” he claims to observe is unmistakable.
How can someone with credentials like these insist that he’s progressive? Only Karl Rove knows for sure, but on the other hand, CM Price claims to be a New Age Democrat.
Readers?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
I'm tight on time today, and I'd like to discuss this further, but let me throw this out quickly, in talking about the "spend money to make money" idea: that is true, in a perfect world, but here's the rub: in a number of instances, Council allocates or budgets money for certain things, then gets the calls complaining about the jobs not getting done, over which they have no control.
Then we citizens come along, with a good idea that, unfortunately, requires more money. I think many times the Council sees yet another allocation that they cannot be sure is going to be used appropriately. There's a distrust that exists between the administration and the Council--and I can understand why--and until that is remedied, we're going to have a hard time moving forward.
It's going to take all our representatives, giving their best for the common good rather than personal enrichment, before we see things in New Albany improve.
I personally have not had any dealings with COuncilman Price, but I must admit that I like the fact that he is using this medium to put his message out there. At least that aspect regarding him is progressive.
As far as championing ordinances to get the city cleaned up, that is wonderful. But if what was said about not backing any financial resolutions to truly fund the enforcement of such ordinances in essence nullifies any benefit from the ordinance.
If it would make a difference we could simply pass an ordiance that states every home in new albany is beautiful, every business is successful, and every child in the city is an honors student with a charming cavity free dimpled smile.
But that would not change the reality of the circumstance that we find ourselves in. Laws with out enforcement are just art to be looked upon, but never touched.
I was in the process of drafting a comment concering this topic on the previous post as this one was replacing it. Since I am too lazy to retype it, I invite you to go back to read it and hopefully add it to the conversation here.
Thanks!
Disregard my previous comment! NAC told me how to rectify the problem. My original comment follows;
NAA,
I am certain that Steve's heart is in the right place when it comes to the plight of the fixed income older folks that make up his voter base.
I have seen him in action in this arena. He always listens to their complaints, reports them to the responsible official, and returns to share said officials response.
But here is where it stops. He does not follow thru to see that action is taken, and he will not go over the head of that person to the next level to insure that it is. He is satisfied with coming back and saying "Well I tried, but I can't make them do their job!"
When it comes to council meetings, he is consistently opposed to anything that comes close to an expenditure of dollars, even when it does not involve the cities money. He will not go to the responsible parties involved and ask his own questions but rather relies on pat answers and speculations of others to base his decisions on. Further he refuses to alter his position even when presented with irrefutable facts to the contrary by persons who have the education, experience, and doumentable evidence to support whatever it is they are expousing.
Nice guy or not, if I were on the operating table facing open heart surgery, I would not want to have a self taught, backyard veterenarian standing over me with a butcher knife in his hands!
We all want the rats to be gone, the trash collected, the drug houses closed, the slumlords controlled and all other city services to be cost efficient & effective.
We will never acheive any of these things with people in ether branch of New albany government who are living in the past & refuse to look outward to the future.
We either grow with the world around us or watch in stark horror our demise as a community.
I'd echo Annie and comment that the dynamic fiscal potential of local government is NOT the same challenge as balancing one's checking account. The whole point of floating bonds is to leverage the property tax base and use risk to the communities advantage as one example(Scribner Place).
My sense is council members like Price are relatively powerless - in aggregate the council should act as a check on the budget and it's the law maker, but really, it's not the hot seat as far as power.
The enforcer, by Indiana statute, is the mayor. The agenda setter is the mayor. The budget writer is the mayor.
To the extent NAC reports on the city council's activities, I would just ask that the Mayor be called out just as much if not more. I'm OK with a city counciler who listens to fixed-income old folks and helps people move, but I NEED a Mayor who stands for something and gets something done about it. For better or worse that's the way our system is chartered and we can beat up the sooo obviously regressive council all day long and it won't get the roads cleaned up
Ah, but Gina, albeit the council has no statutory power beyond their fiscal responsiblity, they can and I think should, as my representative as well as citizens of this community, be willing to stick their necks out just a little further by holding the administration accountable on a more personal basis.
If we as citizens can go downtown and meet personally with those officials and walk away with some modicum of success, why I ask can't the councilmen do the same. After all, they have, or could have if they so chose, access to information that we have to search weeks for.
I agree that the buck stops at the mayor's desk, but I reject the premise that as elected officials, the councilmen are powerless to do more than sit on their hands, proclaim, their innocence, and blame the administration for all of our woes.
Granted this administration has appeared ineffective in many areas, but this council has done nothing save point fingers to encourage, assist, or pressure it to do otherwise.
Case in point. In CM Price's latest blog post concerning cleanliness, he says quote "As a member of the city's legislative body,I have done all that is in my statutory power." end quote. That may well be true as a councilman, but as a citizen, there is no law against him speaking out when he sees a travisty in progress.
Another case in point. At a neighborhood meeting a few months back,the trash conversation came up and Steve related an experience he had witnessed wherein a city truck had picked up a pile at one address and was driving by another right next to it. He stopped them and asked if the first pickup had been a callin. They allegedly responded in the affirmative and drove away leaving the second as it was.
When I asked him why he didn't request them to pickup the second while there, he responded it wasn't his job to boss them around and he did not wnat to make anyone mad.
That is total bullsh..! We the citizens of New Albany, of which he and his partners in crime are as well, pay the wages of all city employees in one way or another.
They work for us and as such we as citizens have a right to suggest they do their job, politely of course!
Perhaps partners in crime was a bit harsh. I shall amend the statement ot partners in ineffective governing!
sloburn,
My point exactly!
Although I do not know as much as I would like about the structure and workings of our local governmental bodies (something I had asked the Tribune's editor to pursue as a story or series - I'm still waiting Steve), I am convinced that the members of the Commmon Council certainly have much more positive, action-generating power than they have ever come close to demonstrating. And, despite the fact that both they and the mayor are directly accountable to us through the ballot box each election, so long as the majority of registered voters either don't vote at all or don't use their votes to reflect the need for change and/or responsible action on the part of those elected, then we are going nowhere fast. And, until we have a mayor and a council who care enough to work together for the good of the city - not just to secure their own re-election, then we are going nowhere fast. While it would be my personal preference that these offices be non-partisan, it's mind-boggling that all these members of the same party can't and don't work together.
What we really need is a paradigm shift away from the status quo and into a city manager form of government with a strong council led by the mayor. So long as this city is led by our current form of "partners in ineffective governing" (Awesome term, Highwayman!), I think we are in for more of the blame game and turf protection rather than anything resembling progressive thought and action. Until the day-to-day manager is accountable to a group much smaller than the electorate, there is no impetus to act, move, change or respond. I'd love to be wrong, but ....
The postion of City Councilman, as
with any other private sector or public sector position , is what you make it.The thread of discussion is that the elected position is powerless. Only the Mayor's job is the the important one.
In Indiana on the state level as well as the local level, the 3 branches( Executive, legislature and Judicial) are present. The Governor,State Legislature and the Court System are found in the state level as well as the local level.
As I said earlier ,the position is what you make of it. The City Council does the following:
1) deals with financial matters
2) pass ordinances
3) set the number of employees
to be hired and their salaries.
4) Set up various types of Boards
and Commissions.
5) Pass bonds
6) Set up Sewer Boards and Sewer
rates.
The Board of Public Works and Safety,Sewer Board,are examples of Boards created by the City Council. These powers can,if the City Council so desired, be taken back.
A City Councilman can write Resolutions and propose Ordinances that chart new directions or correct problems.
In closing, the powers are there. What you make of the position is up to you.
Maury
Though to some's dismay, I support Councilman Price, also. Some of the problems I perceive is he is a very "simple man", sort of like a song I can't remember all of.
I do agree with the last posting, and have called them out on it more than once -- COUNCIL, YOU CONTROL THE PURSE STRINGS -- MAKE IT HAPPEN.. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to srike the bell evidently loud enough for Council to hear. YOU CONTROL THE PURSE STRINGS -- STAND UP........and on and on it goes.... Peace.
I want to throw one other thing out there--without the support of the Mayor and his appointees, the council gets stonewalled pretty quickly. In the past 12 years, I have worked with 4 different councilpersons on several dilapidated house issues--Letty Walter, Maury Goldberg, Mark Seabrook and Steve Price.
Despite what I felt were strong positive efforts on all their parts, the resistance came from the building commissioner's office, and the council is unable to control that.
My guess is that if any of us controlled someone else's budget, we could figure out how to influence them.
Much is made about the Mayor's potential influence on city employees who serve in other roles. The Council may not be able to fire anyone, but they get an opportunity once a year to make them volunteers.
Maury,
I agree with you that the powers are by statute, in place.
However, there seems to be no will within the group to apply them, either by consensus or individually. They are either stonewalling the administration or they are stonewalling each other!
Either way, it amounts to ineffective governing.
It reminds me of the Irish. When they aren't fighting the British, they're fighting each other.
highwayman - you hit on (no pun intended) something with your last comment. There are people here who seem to enjoy fighting for fightings sake. Too much Irish downtown?
Post a Comment