I am also a casualty of the Third Ward dirty politics. My trust in city government is shaken. Of course it starts with last month’s Campaign Adventure in Ward 3. As I wrote in a letter to the Daily Chronicle, published May 5th, “There is no credibility there, no trust.” Unquote.
But it goes beyond that. Other events of the past few weeks have not worked to restore confidence. It would seem, for example, that anyone could stroll into City Hall and leave with personal information about my neighbors and me. That issue should be aggressively addressed. As far I as I can tell, it has not.
And when I sought help with this disturbing perception? I found that my own alderman no longer returns my phone calls.
So now I’m paying close attention, right? And something I might have completely missed before really sticks out. Namely, the May 14th passage of Ordinance 07-49, which amends the Plan Commission Code of Ethics.
Aldermen and city staff struggled to agree on an interpretation of the intent of this amendment—and never did. Yet it passed, unanimously. With language that was deemed merely “adequate.”
Generally speaking, such ambiguity is a potential path to litigation, isn’t it? How is this watching out for our tax dollars? I cannot figure out why it is that this ordinance did not get sent back to the drawing board. It certainly should have. “Adequate” is not good enough. And yes, one word can make a difference.
What’s more, this whole situation makes me wonder who is really running the show here. And whether the buck really stops with the people we get to vote for.
But it goes beyond that. Other events of the past few weeks have not worked to restore confidence. It would seem, for example, that anyone could stroll into City Hall and leave with personal information about my neighbors and me. That issue should be aggressively addressed. As far I as I can tell, it has not.
And when I sought help with this disturbing perception? I found that my own alderman no longer returns my phone calls.
So now I’m paying close attention, right? And something I might have completely missed before really sticks out. Namely, the May 14th passage of Ordinance 07-49, which amends the Plan Commission Code of Ethics.
Aldermen and city staff struggled to agree on an interpretation of the intent of this amendment—and never did. Yet it passed, unanimously. With language that was deemed merely “adequate.”
Generally speaking, such ambiguity is a potential path to litigation, isn’t it? How is this watching out for our tax dollars? I cannot figure out why it is that this ordinance did not get sent back to the drawing board. It certainly should have. “Adequate” is not good enough. And yes, one word can make a difference.
What’s more, this whole situation makes me wonder who is really running the show here. And whether the buck really stops with the people we get to vote for.
No comments:
Post a Comment