I love living in this country. We have the freedom to write what we want, post it on the internet, and call it the truth. (Is this an implication like that of the Mayor that my article contains false information or lies?  If so, what or where are they?)
 
Case in point: Ron's most recent posting. Finally, he has publicly turned on me. Notice the things he didn't say: (For the record, commenting on the actions of the City Council of NRH including all members is not turning on anyone.  My column did express my own personal disappointment that the two council members that I had the privilege of running with two years ago had chosen to basically ignore the controlling spending campaign issues we raised. This year should have provided adequate time for them to at least offer their own suggestions for controlling costs.  Perhaps they should have looked at the size of City Reserve Funds as a start.  For the public record, neither of them asked me for specific suggestions as to changes, additions, deletions or cuts in the proposed budget.  I think that virtually all of our Council Members are aware of the volume of writing I have done suggesting control of the vast bureaucracy that we call city government.  I have and will continue to strongly object to the hiding of information necessary to question the budget and to the current time table that leaves the total preparation of the budget to city staff in complete secrecy.  Councilwoman Bielik and Councilwoman Cox have a very difficult job due wholly to the nature of our closed local government.  While I might wish they were more aggressive or would question more, I fully respect both of them for enduring the abuse they have suffered from the Mayor and his cohorts.)

 
1. I offered him the use of my budget books before the City's Budget Workshop. He refused to look at them, and said he had to have it on disk in .pdf format to review it. With that not available, he said he was not able to review the budget before the workshop.  (The NRH budget is approximately 600 pages long and is prepared on computer by the city.  The pages printed are from a computer and could easily be transferred to electronic media. In electronic form, analysis is fairly quick due to search capabilities.  On paper, paging through the 600 pages at someone's house or the library, is not the way to analyze anything.  If the city wanted scrutiny of the budget, it would be on the website prior to the budget hearings.)
 
2. I offered him the opportunity to hand me notes during the Budget Workshop so that ANY questions, suggestions, etc. that he had could be addressed during the meeting. He took advantage only a couple of times during the time he was present. For giving him that access to the Council process, I have been publicly, and severely, criticized by the Mayor during a Council meeting.  (My questions were never raised and criticism from the Mayor is quite common for anyone he sees as opposition.  In fact there were no questions raised at all regarding possible cuts in the budget.  As far as I can determine, even the massive Non-departmental budgets escaped scrutiny - again.)
 
3. Ron was made aware, as were all of our citizens, of the dates of all the Public Hearings available to speak at before the budget was approved. He was at none of them. To the best of my knowledge, he called no council members, wrote no suggestions, nothing. Yet, he says we were "closed" to public input. As a matter of fact, few people spoke at the Public Hearings.  (Unfortunately, I believe that the hearings are truly a sham and that subjecting one's self to the abuse of the Mayor and Council is not a worthwhile endeavor.  When I last appeared before the council with written suggestions I was told that I was not able to understand their actions.  The hearings are only to fulfill the letter of the law and have no bearing or impact on the real budget that has already been decided on by the City Council as directed by the City Staff.)
 
4. The tax rate has been the same for 13 years now. Perhaps the public outcry should have started 13 years ago when we became one of the highest taxed cities in the area. Instead, there was silence. During the past 13 years, other cities have caught up to our rate, and some have exceeded us.
 
I know that we "raised taxes" on homes in NRH at the most recent meeting. I know that we "held the rate" on the taxes. Unlike some of our Council members, the taxes on my home increase every year because the value of my home increases every year, at least according to TAD. Most years, in fact, my value increases at the maximum rate allowed by the state. I feel the pinch just like everyone else who pays higher taxes.
 
What should the City cut? I put that question to the citizens months ago. So far, only one person has made suggestions, but not Ron. In fact, the Council looked at one suggestion made by this other citizen. Although I offered to make the budget books available to anyone who wanted to look at them, no one has asked. Are there things we could cut? Sure. Are there things we could increase? Sure. (Wonder what happened to all my campaign against the large "slush fund" that was once again approved by the Council.  Didn't the suggestion that the non-departmental budgets be cut 10% count?   It must not have because it wasn't considered at all.  That one suggestion could have lowered the property tax rate by almost 10%!)
 
I voted for the budget this year. Why? Well, although there are items in it that I don't like, there are many more items that I do approve of. Last year I voted against the budget because, as I stated at the time, I could not vote for a budget that cut any staff in our Public Safety Departments. Last year's budget reduced two positions from the police department. This year we were not faced with any staff cuts.
 
It is easy to gripe about the number of police cars sitting at City Hall. Fortunately, it is also easy to ask why they are there. I invite Ron, or any other citizen, to accompany me and walk among the cars and find out the status of each one. (This column contained my first comments on the idle police cars since I had been requested to ignore this political "hot potato".  On any given day there may be 20 to 30 or more police cars idle at City Hall.  The new budget calls for the purchase of 6 more new police cars. Are we retiring 6?  Isn't it strange that bringing up any cost item in this city is "griping" and thereby to be ignored?)
 
Living in a democracy gives Ron West the right to publish whatever he wants. It gives him the right to complain about whatever he wants. It also, though, gives him the right to make suggestions to fix the wrongs he sees. Perhaps it is time for him to do the latter. (Taking the line from Ken Sapp to end this response really is a dig!  If the city would like, I can write an article on how to easily fix all the problems that I have identified.  Wonder if they would take the suggestions?)
 
Nancy Bielik
NRH City Council
(All comments in red are additions by Ron West to Councilwoman Bielik's response.)