Contrast in Leadership?

by Ron West

        A recent article by the spokesman for the incumbents made me think about the real differences or contrasts the citizens of NRH might see if the challengers to the council were elected versus the record of the incumbents.  The following list is my own partial conclusion of that thought process:

    1)    Open government versus Closed Government:  As I understand it, all of the challengers has stated support for open responsive government and real public input and hearings.  That would mean that the voices of the citizens would be heard before decisions were finalized as opposed to the current practice of holding hearings only to fulfill the law.  It would also mean that information on new ordinances or changes to existing ordinances would be published in advance of approval.  In my mind, that would be a nice change. 

    2)    Respect for Citizens versus Disrespect - Maybe if the Mayor didn't have a "pocket majority" or a "rubber stamp majority" on the council he would be courteous to the citizens who choose to speak before the council for two minutes only to be berated by the Mayor and his majority for unlimited periods of time.

    3)   Possibly citizens who are "activists" would be considered good citizens that were interested in the well being of our entire city rather than being called "political terrorists".

    4)   Maybe we would see real questions asked on the runaway spending by our city.  We might even benefit from new business, new citizens and new revenues in the form of property tax relief.  We know for sure that there will be no relief for property taxes under the current incumbents according to their stated intent.

    5)   According to statements by the challengers they are all against the use of eminent domain for the benefit of private interests while at least one of the incumbents has stated support for taking private property for other private enterprises if it will yield more revenue to the city.

    6)    Legal ordinances would be a requirement for the city rather than the current practice of enforcing illegal ordinances such as the current sign ordinance which is in violation of state law.  City employees would be directed to obey laws I believe.

    7)    Challengers have no conflicts of interest if they are elected unlike some members of the council.  That would mean that all could vote on all issues. 

    8)     I personally think that the challengers would make sure that the city staff and city publications were not utilized for electioneering.  They all seem to study the issues and the information and I know they all want real facts - not fiction - for the citizens.

    9)    We would see elected officials that envision themselves as public servants rather than a council that thinks of itself as monarchs or dictators.  The challengers want to serve, the incumbents want to tell you what is best for you.

   10)    There would be a significant difference in the attitude towards private property.  The challengers think that you own your property and the incumbents think they own all the rights to your property.

   11)    Another contrast would be in the borrowing of money using citizen credit.  The challengers have stated that they will use Certificates of Obligation only in cases of real emergency.  The incumbents have a record of borrowing money without voter approval seemingly just because they can. 

   12)    Another facet of open government would be that city employees could openly talk to the challengers if elected without fear of losing their jobs.  Under the current administration, city employees are discouraged from talking to council people.  The current incumbents endorse this limitation of contact.  If city administration has nothing to hide, then such conversations could be very good for opening local government to the citizens.

   13)    Challengers have stated their opposition to personal gain from city position so we might see a much better arrangement with the current city attorney.  Maybe if he didn't have a personal incentive to encourage lawsuits, he could better advise the city how to "comply" with the law.

        Yes, there certainly are contrasts between the challengers and our current elected officials.  The challengers are all just plain citizens and none are part of the "Good Ol Boy" network that has been ruling our city for too long.  As their campaign literature suggests, it is truly time to "Sweep Out the Monarchy".  (I tried to get them to say "Sweep Out the Rubber Stamp Monarchy" but they were too kind.)   The opposition suggests that I and others are always negative but maybe they haven't thought about the above contrasts.  There is a lot riding on the upcoming election and if the challengers are successful, I think you will see very positive and beneficial changes in local government.  I know that if the challengers are elected, the council will become a council for all citizens rather than a monarchy that seeks to enrich only the privileged few and their own egos.