[Vision2020] Final City Council Election Prediction

Tue Nov 6 18:18:41 PST 2007

Donovan,

I understand your point and agree to a point.  I want
competent elected officials, not necessarily
self-serving ones, despite any one or two issues I may
not agree with them on.  I also think people are more
than any generic political label others may label them
as.

My concern is Kit's squashing the legitimate debate
that takes place between all the people you describe
who are on the council and who are represented by
them.

Kit voted against the ordinance last night because she
wanted the motion to consider the modification for the
second reading (hence there would be 1 more month to
talk about this before the third and final vote) to
fail.  Thankfully, the Mayor broke the tie and it
passed.

Kit wanted to vote on the motion, if the above one
failed, to consider the modification with suspension
of the rules, which means that if it passed, we would
now have this new extreme law, minus the meager 1 more
month we now have to wait and convince them that they
can solve this problem if they weren't so stubborn.

Unless it gets hung up in the Admin meeting...

To wrap up, I might not even vote for myself if I
threw out every politician I disagree with on just one
issue!), but at least I hope I would be open to
letting the debate continue, not squash it like it was
meaningless...

Take care,

gclev

--- Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
wrote:

> Garrett,
>    
>   I have found that if you throw out every
> politician you disagree with on just one issue, you
> soon will have no politicians left you like. I guess
> that is my experience anyway. But my point is this;
> Every member of the council is wrong on several
> issues, that is why we have more than just one or
> two council members. You want a well balanced
> council, with the hope that the majority will reel
> in the occasional stragglers. If we have a council
> and Mayor that is all liberal, or all conservative,
> the city gets unbalanced. 
>    
>   Best,
>    
>   Donovan
> 
> Garrett Clevenger <garrettmc at verizon.net> wrote:
>   Bill and others,
> 
> I hope MCA will not consider endorsing Kit Craine. 
> After watching her on the council the last month or
> so, I feel inclined not to vote for her again.
> 
> For one thing, I believe she is too much of a
> teetotaler. From what I interpreted from her when
> they were discussing the beer garden for the last
> farmers market, she was against it. There would have
> been no beer garden if she had her way, I suppose.
> 
> Also, last night she voted against the noise
> ordinance
> modification, not because she is against giving
> police
> the authority to issue a ticket in the range of
> $159-$359 at anytime in Moscow to anybody for any
> noise that an officer deems offensive, even if there
> is no set level or limit to what that noise may be
> or
> there may not be anybody actually bothered by the
> noise.
> 
> Apparently, she wants the police to be able to go
> give
> her neighbor a ticket for mowing his lawn at 5 am
> because she is intimidated to ask him to mow later
> in
> the day.
> 
> But my issue is not so much that she wants to
> curtail
> our Constitutional rights. It's that she wants to
> cut
> off debate on the subject altogether.
> 
> If Bill Lambert had his way, the new NO would be in
> effect after the first vote.
> 
> If Kit had her way last night, the new NO would now
> be
> law.
> 
> Why are they in such a hurry to pass this without at
> least letting the debate continue? Who's mowing
> their
> lawn now, anyways?
> 
> 
> It seems she is too stubborn to compromise on an
> issue
> that is easily rectifiable and less intrusive to
> those
> of us the law is not intended to target in the first
> place.
> 
> 
> The way I see it, as an elected official, they are
> obliged to let citizens have their time digesting
> such
> an extreme change in our law. They also should be
> looking out for the interests of all Muscovites, not
> just their self-interest. Compromise, unless you are
> an extremist, is part of the game.
> 
> 
> To try to cram this down our throat by cutting off
> the
> democratic process of giving the city council time
> to
> contemplate the issue is unacceptable to me and I
> certainly hope MCA will consider this if they decide
> to endorse candidates in the future.
> 
> I don't know Kit personally and I don't mean to
> insult
> her, but it's frustrating watching this unfold.
> 
> Perhaps all her other views I would support, and
> thus
> she should be endorsed, but I think, as it would be
> the case for anybody, let's let her record as a city
> councilwoman speak for itself.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Garrett Clevenger
> 
> 
> 
> Bill,
> 
> I would suggest to you and MCA, when you do your
> phone calls tomorrow, you have people write in Kit
> Craine for the 2 year seat since you don't have
> anyone
> endorsed for that election. It would also give her
> legitimacy, getting the next most about of votes, to
> be appointed when there is a vacancy in the future,
> and most likely there will be, as there always is
> between elections. 
> 
> Best,
> 
> Donovan
> 
> Bill London wrote:
> OK...I'll play too
> I agree with Donovan (!) on the 4 year term winners,
> but think Holmes will beat Steed
> BL
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: Donovan Arnold 
> To: vision2020 at moscow.com 
> Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 6:10 PM
> Subject: [Vision2020] Final City Council Election
> Prediction
> 
> 
>
=======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> 
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. 
> http://www.fsr.net 
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>
=======================================================
> 
> 
>  __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com 