UPDATED: As of 4 p.m. on May 20, with 200 additional votes left to be counted, the Kitsap County Auditor reports that the change in government is passing with a vote of 69.76%. The school bond is still just short of the supermajority, at 59. 57%. Over 9000 people cast votes on these measures (9205 on the form of government vote, and 9414 on the bond). On another note, our change of government vote was featured on KUOW today, with Mayor Kordonowy and change of government campaign member Bob Fortner giving their comments by phone. Click here for the audio.
The voters have spoken and they want real change in local government. Last night’s unofficial vote count from the Kitsap County Auditor gave the change of government measure an impressive lead at 71.4%, out of 7511 votes counted. The school bond measure is falling short of the required 60% supermajority, at 57.68%. Results will be updated today at 4 p.m. when ballot drop-offs and late mail-ins will be counted.
Change-of-government supporters celebrated at the Treehouse last night, noshing on pizza and salad and marveling at the wide margin of victory. Council members Debbie Vancil, Kim Brackett, Bill Knobloch and Barry Peters were in the crowd of about fifty. Shortly after the results were in, state Representative and former Bainbridge Councilor Christine Rolfes, dropped in. Rolfes sponsored a bill in Olympia that enabled the change-of-government measure to be on the ballot in May, instead of during the general election in November.
Much of the credit goes to a well-run campaign. Congratulations on a job well done to Linda Owens, Bob and Nancy Fortner, Dennis Vogt, Kirsten Hytopoulos, Elise Wright, Tom Kilbane, Jim Mooney, Ken Breiland, Jeff Braff, Fred Scheffler, Irene Smith, Kathy Blossom, and of course, many others.
Supporters Lin Kamer-Walker (l) and Kathy Blossom (r) react when campaign member Dennis Vogt learns the change of government measure passed by a wide margin.
But a good campaign is nothing if its message doesn’t reflect the mood of the voters, and this one did in a big way.
Bainbridge Island voters have now sent a clear message that they don’t like what’s been going on at City Hall. Citizens do not make a dramatic change in the very structure of their government unless they think something is seriously wrong, and we’ve had plenty to worry about: the City’s financial mess, the conflict between administration and Council (which has persisted throughout both of Mayor Kordonowy’s four-year terms, in spite of the turnover of City Council members), lack of transparency, and the City’s single-minded focus on Winslow Way improvements, to the detriment of other well-documented community priorities.
Now the work of exposing the problems is over and the task of renewing our government begins. The spotlight is on our City Council, which must quickly set aside past differences and become the leaders we need. Citizens will have little patience for the continual bickering and blaming we’ve seen for the past eight years. Council should immediately start working on its vision for a professionally run City, including the procedure by which a City Manager will be chosen, and policies for accountable and candid City government.
Current City Adminstrator Mark Dombroski will also be in the public eye. Under the terms of his employment contract, he now becomes the City Manager. The City Council has six months to decide whether to give him a new contract as City Manager, or let him go and hire someone else. From now until November, Dombroski will be on an extended job interview (though he’ll get a fat severance if he’s fired). To be successful, he’ll have to shake off that old-regime dust and grow quickly into a leader who is both administratively and politically adept. That might mean he has to clean house at City Hall too, perhaps easing out staff members who are too firmly entrenched in the old style of governing.
He’ll also have primary responsibility for mending any continuing administration-Council rifts. He must establish trust between among the branches of City government and between City Hall and the public. At the same time he has to grapple with the ongoing and urgent City financial crisis. In the next few months, he might want to open his office door a little bit wider to citizens and Council members alike and if he gets the job, he should keep it open permanently. Access and accountability will be crucial to the success of our new form of government.
A final observation: for too long, when community members questioned City Hall, whether on spending priorities, inconsistent or incomprehensible land use policies, infrastructure projects, or financial management, defenders of the status quo dismissed them as a “vocal minority.” Even though new and different people became active on each issue, they were all lumped together as if they belonged to a tiny fringe group of naysayers. The people who spearheaded the change of government were accused of being the most vocal and minor of those vocal minorities.
But the large percentage by which this measure is passing shows in hard numbers that the term “vocal minority” has no basis in reality. It’s time to retire that insult. It’s time for government to start listening to every citizen who takes the time to speak up, with gratitude that so many people care so deeply about our island.
Congratulations to that steering committee that helped steer many volunteers to a success. You all should feel really good, it was an amazing event.
But as noted above, now the real work begins. If our Mayor conintues as a member of the Council, the majority only get stronger. Many think the members will think twice before continuing on the same path, I am not that confident and more than a little worried about that. Will Mr Peters really understand that nice words but still borrowing peter to pay paul won’t work anymore, or will he fall back on the “let the healing begin” and support Snow as Mayor and Winslow way and all the other plans?
I hope we will get focused on replacing those on the Council that are up for election with strong alternative candidates who will recognize the problem goes all the way back to the staffing among other things.
Congratulations to all that gave up family time to make this happen, we applaud you all.
Sorry Debbie Vancil, you are the exception to the rule on the election this fall. You fought hard for the change and we thank you and hope you will continue.
Now comes an uncertain time when we need to start fixing things. Turn-around situations like this require that everyone understand what is going on, and a willingness to try new approaches. Our council is now like a board of directors, and they need much better information than they have been receiving.
We probably need an outside auditor to give up a true picture of the city’s finances, especially the utilities, from which the city has so borrowed to underwrite general operations. There’s going to be a lot of fear among city employees, and possibly some cover-ups, for most will be worried about their jobs.
Their are four groups we need to remember here:
1) taxpayers, ratepayers and counter customers– the people literally paying the bills.
2) firms and individuals to whom the city owes money, including not only private contractors but institutions like the Park District. Some of these people may have stiffed.
3) people suing the city. These are individuals and groups who have escalated their grievances to the courts. We need to understand the validity and extent of their claims and settle up.
4) good employees. Bad management drives out good employees, and the job becomes harder for the good people who remain. We need to make sure that our professional management addresses this problem head on, weeding out the deadwood, and bringing the salaries of those who remain back up to a fair level.
It is going to take a lot longer to rebuild trust between individual citizens. This is where the real leadership on the council will show itself, not in new policies and in procedures, or flashy “public involvement” efforts, but in actions that genuinely invite the citizenry back into City hall, that give people a chance to work alongside one another on tangible challenges, and that create small victories along the way.
You best remember that those city employees you refer to have a union and as your buddy Knobloch just recently said “can you say class action?”
libel: “a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression.”
“Not so fast”, you’re so wrong. And your threat of legal action is just silly.
I don’t know where you got your definition of libel, but it is an incorrect statement of the law. Without getting overly complicated, the basic feature of defamation is that it contains a false statement. An expression of one’s opinion–such as the one Mr. Stevens made–cannot be defamatory because an opinion is neither true nor false, but merely someone’s view of the situation. Mr. Stevens has a right to express his opinion that “deadwood” at City Hall should be weeded out.
Correction, regarding creditors: “some of these people may have been stiffed.” We know the City has issued “warrants”, another term for “I owe you”.
Rod,
You make the statement “bringing the salaries of those who remain back up to a fair level.”
One of the unpublished and unrecognized problems with city finances is that fact the city council voted in late 2007 to adjust salaries to the 65% per cent level of comparable cities … that in simple terms means Bainbridge city employees are paid an average of 15% more than the average wage of comparable cities.
Some of the individual pay raises exceeded $20,000.
Benefits were not cut.
I think you will find the average wage and benefit package for a city employee is about $110,000 for 2009, and it will increase in 2010.
The Council wanted to keep good employees, and they recognized that the cost of living was high, so they unanimously voted for the big raises. Newspapers didn’t write a peep about it.
So, I don’t understand where you believe city wages are not up to a fair level.
And with union rules, you can’t just get rid of the deadwood. You do as the schools do … just assign them a routine closet job somewhere until they retire or resign.
It is almost guarenteed that Peter’s won’t get the message and/or understand the message sent by the change in form that was first directed at the Mayor and secondly to the infamous four. Can’t you just imagine what we are going to hear from Peters. I suppose it will address the need for the Council to come together when in fact he and the other three need to listen to the people and as their representatives make the priorities the people want happen. The four need to fall in line with the other three who listen to the voters/taxpayers and work to acheive their priorities.
It is high time to replace these four, our next targets unless there is an amazing turnaround in their listening, and their actions to support what the majority wants vs. their own agendas.
The best thing we could now hope for is that those that ran the campaign for form change run campaigns to replace Kjell and Snow, while at the same time directing an effort that would get Hillary and Peters to resign.
Robert,
Perhaps I should have simply said “fair level”, and left ou the “up to”. While the average compensation level at City Hall appears to be high, I don’t know that each and every position was above market before the furlough. My own opinion is that across-the-board pay cuts made to maintain a certain head count are unfair to the better workers when that headcount level will not be sustainable anyway. Better to figure out what the right level is given fair compensation, and hold the productive workers. It does appear quite likely that overall wages for all workers, public and private is heading down. Perhaps the furlough level is the new “market” level.
Cost-benefit analysis is only fair when similar costs are compared to similar benefits inclusively and comprehensively for any activity.
Distinguishing apples from oranges is not only common sense, it is important to be certain one is talking about what one is saying.
It is lovely and sunny here in Navels. Italian weather has style! Of all the groups we need to remember, we must remember how our dear island looks to citizens of the world like Ezra Pound Foolish and me.
After all, we are not chopped liver. Ezzie says it’s high time we citizens of the world sued for recognition as a class.
“We are all ratepayers in the global economy,” Ezra says.
For my part, if I can’t be a strong mayor, I don’t want to be any kind of mayor. It wouldn’t be fair to anyone, least of all to me.
Ciao from Navels, Penny and Ezzie (Citizens of the World)
Lilly – I respect your right to express your personal opinions. But, please don’t speak for me and many other members of the public. You claim that four members of the Council don’t “listen to the people” or that they don’t “make the priorities the people want happen” or that they don’t “listen to the voters/taxpayers.” Not necessarily so. I am a member of the public. I am a voter/taxpayer. And these four have been listening to me and many, many others. And, they do represent my and many others priorities. So, when you express your opinions please understand it is just that, your own personal views, and not the views of the “public.”
Amen.
And the mess that the City is in is as a result of listening to you and others. You can’t be questioning the fact that the message sent by the 70% did not include the 4 Councilors also. If so you need more exposure to the majority!
Lilly, that is now less then 70% and only about half the residence voted. The decision to change the form of government was made by about 1/3 of the eligible voters. Not really a message if you ask me. The real message was that about 1/2 the voters did not even vote in a mail in election.
Yesterday, the NO vote lead (on the $42,000,000 bond) dropped from Election Day 42.32% to 40.43%, a drop of 1.9 points. Today the totals showed a NO vote decrease from 40.43% to 40.34, a drop of .09. We will see if the NO votes takes a swing up on the next update 5/25/09.
Hope springs eternal
JMO
Bainbridge Is School District 303 Bond
22/22 100.00%
Vote Count Percent
Approved 5,669 59.66%
Rejected 3,833 40.34%
Total 9,502 100.00%
Could the school district have made more clear where the money would go? Maybe. Does the district need the money? Absolutely! All three members of my household voted for it. I find no glee in demeaning schools. But you are entitled to your opinion.
Obviously homeless those not voting did not care. Those that voted showed beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Mayor was inept, and there was a strong message for the four followers included. Why do I include the four in this note, well it is because the Mayor was rebuked for her programs, spending, lack of leadership abilities, and lack of management skills and the four voted on all contentious Mayor supported issues yea with her. Counting those that did not vote means ZIP especially since there was NO reference to the total voting population in my earlier note you made comment about.
There is NO defense for these five. Our City is about or is broke and you can thank these people and we all should be thanking the other three for seeing the handwriting on the wall and trying as the minority to stop the foolish decisions. THANKS, Bill, Debbie, and Kim!
Is my math right? Is the bond now down to about 40 votes? Nail-biter! My kids went to Wilkes ten years ago and it was hurting then. It’s one of those buildings they slapped up in the 50’s to accommodate the Baby Boom–no thought to lasting through the ages. And it hasn’t. I hope the bond squeaks through.
Don’t bite your nails: read this analysis from someone I’ll leave anonymous. BISD is not going to prevail.
8 additional votes were counted today from Bainbridge Island on the School District bond issue. Even if all 88 had been ‘Yes’ votes, it would have failed. (To get above 60%, they needed 101 yes and 0 no.) As it is, here is the breakdown:
Vote Count
Percent
Approved
5,669
59.66%
61
0.693182
Rejected
3,833
40.34%
27
0.306818
Total
9,502
100.00%
88
1
As you can see, the additional 88 votes broke 69.3% yes, 30.7% no. There are not enough votes remaining to count (auditor website estimates 50) at this ratio, to change the outcome. (Now, to get to 60%, they would need an additional 81 ‘yes’ votes and 0 ‘no’ votes. Isn’t going to happen.
It is also very unlikely, in a recount, that they could scrape together 40 errors, that would cause a switched ‘no’ to ‘yes’, to change the outcome.”
C’est la guerre.
minor correction the “8″ was cut off. 88 votes were counted today and not the 8 in my previous post.
In Bremerton, it is said that education is more expensive than ignorance.
Amen to that! I hope that it passes, if more efforting took place in education we would be spending less in other areas down the road in life.
“Did not care”, or figured the idea so far fetched it would not pass and their vote was not needed. Another example of “My ideas and beliefs are more important than anyone elses”. The vote to change the form of government was just that. It is clear by some responses, letters to editors, and comments on blogs, that some citizens agree with the positions of both the Mayor and those four council members concerning their agenda. Remember they represent the community, all members of the community not just a vocal group that demands only they get listened to on how things should be done. And if those four are stading up for the little guy then good for them. I guess you can compare it to the electorial collage that really elects the President. Sometimes the type of government we have (Republic not a Democracy) ballances the scales and that is a good thing.
My kiddos also went to Wilkes in the 80’s, and it is a school that has reached its replacement time. But that isn’t the problem with the bond.
It’s a numbers thing … at $32 million, Wilkes would be one, if not the most expensive medium sized K-4 schools in Washington State. It’s square footage is being increased by 50% to 62,360 sq ft, although enrollment hasn’t been increasing. If the school district is going to close another school, that addition might make sense, but I understand that is just in the discussion phase. The district should have explained the substantial size increase to the people who they are asking to pay for the project.
The Robison cost analysis has assumptions that are troubling.
An undefined site prep cost of $4.7 million ($370,00/acre for 8 acres plus 53% additive soft costs) is cited on top of standard construction costs … it’s about $600K to do a new septic (there also is a question if the last bond issue had a new septic for Wilkes). A separate line item covers the tear down cost … that’s not included in the $4.7 million. It’s a flat site .. .so where is the other $4 million going? Landscaping and fencing have some costs, but nowhere near $4 million.
Other school districts get some state matching funds for new or replacement schools. The district says Wilkes would not qualify. BISD 303 is listed on OSPI cite as a qualifying school district, and surprise … they got about $1.9 million for the new high school according to state records.
“Soft costs” are calculated at 59% on top of construction costs. That’s where the bond problem is … much larger school with very high soft costs.
And try to get a comprehensive list of repairs in the rest of the district for the additional $10 million. That’s not pocket change, and the district should have more specifics for the for the public that is watching the public money expenditures.
A school bond of $42 million is a repayment of about 1.6 times the bond amount … figure the 20 year principal and interest at about $67 million. Given a modest population growth rate, the average island homeowner is pay in the neighborhood of $9,000-10,000 for this bond over the next 20 years. For those with higher than average property values, it’s proportionally more than that. And the high school bond of $45 million still has 17 more years to go until it is paid off. Add another $10,000 plus.
Wilkes is near the end of it’s economic life and should be replaced. But the bond amount has to make sense, costs have to be realistic, and the district has to be ready to answer inquiries to a tax paying public.
Good schools don’t come cheap, and we have great schools. That isn’t going to change if this bond doesn’t get to 60% … the district just has to sharpen the pencil and have answers at the ready.
Hunter ~~ there is a serious logic problem to state, as you did, “if more efforting took place in education we would be spending less in other areas down the road in life.” If by “efforting” you mean money, that is not our problem. The results in education are not proportional to the amount of money spent. True, one needs cash to replace buildings but there is a serious difference between wants and true needs. BISD No. 303, are you paying attention to the voters?
Speaking of the closed-door meeting our “new government held (See article in today’s Review):
The change-government mafia/special interest had their “private meeting” as they demanded. This is more of the same-old-same-old way of doing business. The COG group should disband and stop with the full-Nelson on our island. You got the change in government, now let the government prove you were correct that this is a more economical, fair and accountable form of government. We don’t need your help anymore in terms of insider closed meetings without the unwashed massed you sold on your change.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant — that hold for the old government and now the new.
Shame on Council for agreeing to this special-interest head-of-line non-public meeting to Vogt/Fortener/Maron et. al.
What a day on Bainbridge! We voted in the change of government, but what is truely historic is that James Olsen has finally, Finally,FINALLY!!! won one. By backing a loser. It is so appropriate! And consistent. I’ll bet he is up in his little nono sign factory cackling with glee while he dances a little grinchy jig neath the light of the of the green cheese moon (when he should be out cleaning up all of his litter).
Unwashed — try soap and cold water. Will help with your quandry.
The NO vote is a valid vote result just as the YES vote was. It isn’t as complicated as you seem to make it, Unwashed.
CITY COUNCIL – BUSINESS AS USUAL
Many of us were excited that the change of government vote would welcome in a new era of openness and transparency by our elected officials; a rejection of the past’s perceived closed-door access to the decision makers by only select special interest groups. Wasn’t that the main theme of those promoting the change – openness and transparency? Not so fast. The ink wasn’t even dry, when most of our Council members quickly agreed to and held closed-door, no-public-allowed meetings with just such a special interest group – the Political Action Committee (PAC) Vote Council-Manager ‘09 Group promoting the switch to a Manager-Council form of government. The meetings were held at the home of a Council-Manager campaign member and were broken up into several gatherings to avoid a quorum of council members. The meetings supposedly focused largely on campaign members’ advice for city staff and the Council on what this particular group learned during the campaign. A special interest group giving “advice” to our elected officials behind closed doors. Looks like we’ve just substituting one privileged special interest group with another. So much for the new age of openness and transparency. And, the argument that what they learned was “too sensitive” for public exposure just doesn’t watch. Almost everything discussed had already made it into the public arena through blogs, emails, newspaper articles and campaign literature. And even if there was “sensitive” information brought up, doesn’t the public have a right to know? If this Council is indeed committed to openness and transparency, then start acting like it. Looks like Pogo continues to be right.
What is with this behind-closed-doors-conspiracy meme? I just don’t follow. If it was as you are trying to characterize it- a special interest group trying to influence officials–they wouldn’t have invited the press to be at the meeting.
But Dennis Anstine, the Editor of the Bainbridge Review, was at one of the two meetings (there were two meetings covering the same ground, so they could avoid a quorum and eliminate the risk of holding an illegal council meeting). If you really want to know what went on, read Anstine’s editorial in today’s paper (I’d provide a link but it hasn’t been posted on the Review’s website yet). I just spoke to Nancy Fortner, who was at both meetings. She said Anstine accurately characterized what went on at the meetings.
As Anstine said, the meetings were private in order to allow people more freedom to speak to each other frankly. We all know how people get more defensive or accusatory, and less able to communicate in large, public groups. We can all have our own opinions about the wisdom of that decision, but whether or not you think it was a good idea, it’s a huge, unwarranted leap to decide that what really went on was influence peddling (and that our local editor somehow failed or refused to report that).
The campaign, which never was a PAC, has disbanded. One of the final acts they’ll do is give the library a copy of the written info they gave to each official at the meeting. According to Nancy, the packet includes info on council-manager governance, and how to make the transition. You’ll be able to see it for yourself at the library by next week.
Althea – I hope you agree that special interest groups that have privileged access to decision-makers, in a closed door setting, do have a leg up on the ordinary citizen when it comes to influencing public policy. Just look at the lobbyists and monied special interest groups at the State and National levels that continue to influence our elected officials. And, notwithstanding what you think, the Vote Council-Manager ‘09 Group has been a politically-motivated special interest group. I don’t agree with your comment that “it’s a huge, unwarranted leap to decide that what really went on was influence peddling.” I believe it is, indeed, a logical leap, setting the stage for future influence peddling. The best way to avoid both the reality and the public perception of influence peddling is to eliminate these types of non-open, non-transparent activities; to conduct the public business in the light of day.
First, I should say that “influence peddling” was an unfortunate bit of hyperbole on my part. Actual influence peddling is a violation of ethics rules and usually the law, and occurs when government favors are granted in exchange for cash or other benefits. I don’t think you really meant to suggest that true influence peddling is at issue here, now or in the future.
As to your question: of course I think it’s an injustice when some people have the ear of government officials in a way that regular citizens do not. It happens all the time in government and it’s part of human nature–if nothing else, a politician is going to listen to family, friends and trusted advisers more than some random blogger. The various ethics rules and open government policies were adopted in order to minimize the more egregious back-room deals, which characterize so much of government.
But I’ve read nothing, either in the Sun/Review, or in your comments that suggests anything of the sort went on. When I say “unwarranted leap,” I mean it’s not supported by any information or evidence so far put forth by you or anyone else. You are entitled to your opinions, speculations and “logical leaps.” But at this point, they’re all leaps and nothing more.
I, too, would rather that these meetings have been open, but I don’t see anything nefarious going on, and certainly nothing on the order of the conflicts of interest that came up in Winslow Tomorrow, where we had property owners inviting each other in to closed-membership committees to make recommendations that would directly increase the value of their property. Maybe I am not smart enough to be able to profit in this latest change-of-government business, but I don’t see the financial or personal upside in having special access to these recent meetings.
There is no plotter in the castle like a failed plotter, but it is the imaginary plotters and their real messes that are so lacking in imagination.
Let’s stop with Notebook parsing of terms. The fact is a number of citizens in diverse corners found the “private meeting” questionable. If there was a meeting between the COGers and Administration/Council and the meeting was private — that stinks. The fact Anastine was there does not mean the meeting was properly noticed and open to all to attend.
Transparency or lack thereof has been a rallying cry of the critics of Mayor K and Council. Not sure how a “private meeting” with an editor (who uses the meeting for an editorial and who, by the way supported the COG movement) makes this open to the public. Where are the notes? Where is the audio or hey, why was bitz AWOL? No record of the “frank comment.” Bah humbug.
The new boss is the same as the old boss.
“Who guards the guardians? – ( Quis custodiet ipsos custodes) – been around since Roman times.
The immediate salve of getting rid of Darlene will not replace the messy, hard work of appreciative enquiry, critical thinking and difficult but respectful, face to face discussions that have always formed the basis of good governance – whether it is a school, nonprofit board or City Council.
I think the key phrase describing these meetings is Althea’s statement that “there were two meetings covering the same ground, so they could avoid a quorum and eliminate the risk of holding an illegal council meeting”.
Appearances are important too – and this was a poor way to start down a new path.
The good news is the Mayor is OUT! But this only begins to clean up the mess. We should really now be focusing on four Councelors, who are about their own meetings and their own agendas, and find their replacements. This should and no doubt will be many Islanders agenda for the next few months. Finding the peoples representatives who (1) care about what the people have to say and their priorities, (2) don’t spend monies the Island Gov’t. doesn’t have, (3) don’t develop and support programs that the voter/taxpayers don’t want or need, etc, etc.
To watch Peters dance around the issues, say nothing, and then vote against what the majority have defined as their priorities is unbelievable. On top of all this ask us all to trust him and let he and the other three make the decisions would be dumber than dumb. To propose an excise car tax to pay for their mistakes is the dumbest!
No need to comment on the other three as they are just as inept and the majority of voters who voted appreciate the problems and sent them a strong message.
The answer is to find two really good, capable managers with experience in leading, managing, and fiscal abilities who will listen to the voice of the people. Who are they? We will deal with the other two in time and they will be reduced after the upcoming elections to backbenchers in the bleachers.
Meetings should have been public, no reason (legal or otherwise) why they couldn’t have been. It seems like many of those publically defending it are the same that a few months ago would have been up in arms & calling for the AG’s office to investigate. Very poor first impression.
The three votes out of my house went for changing the FOG. I am still hopeful that we made the right decision. If there is a “rolling quorum” issue, I hope that gets figured out & put to rest.
I didn’t like the 1st choice made following the vote, but lets try to put that behind us and move forward. I think the council has gotten the point.
Hunter-
For sure three of them are smart enough to have gotten the point and I base this on their efforts to not support dumb decisions, for example spending monies that the City does not/did not have. The other four that we will actively work to replace and/or have them resign I don’t know if capable.
You ask do I feel strongly about this, well just re-read my earlier blog comments. The answer is a resounding YES. We have put up with their bad behavior, bad decisions, and no doubt the four and the OLD MAYOR striking agreements in the background.
Lets move on I suspect as a result of all the hoopla we’ll be hearing from them as to what transpired beyond the reporters take. To me this is a non issue if attended and covered bny the news.
PICK-AN-EXCUSE FOR COBI NEW GOVERNMENT OPAQUENESS ~~~
Hunter — I guess the dog ate their homework . . . the devil made them do it . . . the Council members were unfamiliar with being Council members . . . City Attorney McMurray was on a bathroom break . . . easier to sin and ask for mercy than to do the correct thing . . . we unwashed masses couldn’t handle the frank comments . . . old habits are hard to break . . . can’t teach an old dog a new trick . . . talk is cheap . . . the check is in the mail . . . . are you going to believe your eyes or my lying lips . . . . we are special
OK Voters- It is likely I believe, that many of us voted for the change in gov’t. to rid ourselves asap from the very poor Mayor we made the mistake of electing. She had no skills in Managing, no skills in leading, and obviously had no skills in the financial arena. It would seem to me if you buy any of this premiss then you would also agree that both SNOW and Kjell need to be replaced at the next election as they voted in lock step with the Mayor on every contentious issue and it was these ill conceived programs and spending that to a large part brought about the change in the form of gov’t. I guess what I am saying is that Snow and Kjell were acting as the Mayor’s stooges for the last few years and enough is enough. We can address the other two stooges at a later date as they are just as bad in representing the people and their expressed priorities.
Now on the postive side, we should hope that Mrs. Vancil and Bill Knobloch recognize the City’s need for their calm, rational, and thought out support of the priorities supported by we voters/taxpayers. They have consistently listened, consistently expressed clearly their positions and been willing to amend and or modify their postions after a complete study of the issue and the expressed postions of all.
Lilly: Thanks for your insight. You and all other citizens are in charge now. The expression public servant has many facets when deciding on what definition you want to apply. The bottom line in all the rhetoric is that elected officials are put in place to help the community sustain it’s business with money, infrastructure and public surveys that tell us what you need and want.
I welcome the change in order to have the dynamic needed at city hall. I call it direct responsibility. No more bureaucratic excuses for why all the money is gone and not much to show for it. This includes using documentation as part of the basis for making the best decisions for carrying out the points mentioned above. Misinformation does not warrant employment by any government official whether appointed or elected. The facts will speak for themselves if allowed to be presented for public consumption. It certainly will make my job easier.
My only other comment at this point is that I noticed your early hour for the comment. I feel you are putting a lot of thought into how your government should be organized to serve us all……….thanks again, Bill
BELOW IS PREVIOUS BLOG ENTRY REGARDING MY THOUGHTS FOR NEXT STEPS REGARDING SEARCH FOR CM;
Mark Dombroski will have the same opportunity to become permanent CM as anyone else applying. He will also act as interim CM while we transition in the next six months to a fully functioning Manager/Council form of Government. His contract specifically allows him to act as CM[interim] till the council makes a decision for who will fill the position permanently. If the new confirmed CM takes office at the end of the present CM’s six month contract, there is no financial penalty for the taxpayer. Also under possible consideration is having a temporary “range rider” come in and help out with how the transition works. We have an abundance of resources to choose from and I am hoping that a more collegial council attitude will prevail.
The next step is to find out who will be running [June 1-5 filing week] for the council seats up for reelection on November 4. Once the sitting council understands who will be campaigning, then we can move to start making the changes mandated by the taxpayers. Remember that June 3 is ballot voting certification date. I am sure the Mayor will be working within that legal technicality.
Ezra Pound Foolish and I have been attending a whirlwind of cafe debriefings after we flew back from the Soup Kitchen fete! Madrona Lane has style.
We needed three meetings with Navel’s Council to avoid a quorum. Finally we are in agreement: One. Everyone cannot lead at the same time. There will always be some farther from the leaders and some closer.
Ezzie says, “We can’t all be insiders at once. Someone has to be an outsider” I told him we could take turns.
We are also in agreement on strategy. Two. I will run for City Council and apply for city manager. I see nothing prohibiting me from holding both positions.
Ezzie says, “You can change the form of government, but you can’t make it drink.” I told him I think we need to move slowly. I can give people the strong sense of insider leadership they crave. And share too! With style.
Ezzie says I should take my cue from Obama, “Extend the olive branch. Offer your manager predecessor a key job as community outreach coordinator.” Ezra has style!
Ciao from Navels, Penny and Ezzie (Citizens of the World)
Rumors circulated the Halls of Government when he threatened to resign from the Treasury.
John Maynard Keynes likely said later, “Any political leader who truly understands the meaning of public trust is sublime; but one who ignores repeated opportunity to educate themselves about the needs of the people is a disaster.”
These are the political economists who cannot tell the difference between the supply side of the demand curve and subsequently decrease the welfare of the working poor, to the benefit of the prosperous.
An unsustainable political economy, like a house with no foundation, subsequently fails.
$42,000,000 BISD BOND UPDATE:
As of this morning the estimated votes left to count was pegged at 50 for the county.
Kitsap County, Washington
Special Election Unofficial Accumulated Totals
May 19, 2009
Estimated Ballots left to count: 50
Today’s update:
46 votes counted
12: NO
34: YES
Bainbridge Is School District 303 Bond
22/22 100.00%
Vote Count Percent
Approved 5,703 59.73%
Rejected 3,845 40.27%
Total 9,548 100.00%
FINAL BISD NO. 303 RESULTS: ELECTION CERTIFIED TOMORROW.
NO vote was: Rejected 3,851 40.20%
After certification, 3 business days to request recount (mechanical or hand count).
Last Updated: June 2, 2009 2:47 PM
Registration & Turnout
99,941 Voters
Vote Count Percent
Precinct Turnout 43,199 43.22%
Electronic Vote Turnout 23 0.02%
Total 43,222 43.25%
City of Bainbridge Island
22/22 100.00%
Vote Count Percent
YES 6,527 69.70%
NO 2,838 30.30%
Total 9,365 100.00%
Bainbridge Is School District 303 Bond
22/22 100.00%
Vote Count Percent
Approved 5,728 59.80%
Rejected 3,851 40.20%
Total 9,579 100.00%