[Vision2020] Water and Sewer Agreements: second reply from Walter Steed

[Garrett Clevenger]

Kit writes:

Flame me if you want, but as far as I'm concerned
posting private  
emails on any public list is no different than
secretly recording a  
private conversation then broadcasting it on the
radio. It may be  
legal, but it is not right. Ethics is proper behavior
without  
government interference.


Garrett replies:

As the person who posted a "private" email to me from
an elected official about a very public topic, I
should reply.

As Kit knows, since she was a city councilor
supporting the not-right noise ordinance, I speak my
mind when it comes to actions that the city is
controversially engaging in.  Whether trying to
restrict our First Amendment right of free speech, or
cutting a deal with developers without letting the
public debate this with adequate information of what
the "agreement" actually says, I will do what I can to
hold those who represent the city accountable.

I'm sorry if you don't like this, but the fact is, if
you work for the city, I am helping pay your salary,
and I have no regrets in bringing to the public light
what our representatives are saying.

People who have emailed me requesting anonymity know
that I respect that, even if it is a public official.

What isn't right, Kit, to spread this a little
further, was to vote to table the Noise Ordinance
indefinitely at your last city council meeting in
December.  Particularly when Randy Fife gave you all a
wrong version.  No one requested Version B, yet you
wouldn't let Tom get his way as he was the one who
requested a change in the proposal to not allow police
to initiate citations.  Unfortunately, Randy also put
back in the 48 hour warning period, which no body
wanted.  Yet you wouldn't vote with Tom to remove it
at the admin meeting.  And then when it came before
the council at the next meeting, you moved to table it
because it was too complicated to solve (after 3
months of you working on it!)

You had an opportunity to solve the NO, yet you
wouldn't allow the last council to conclude their
business.  You wanted the new council to vote on it
instead, so you would get the NO you wanted.  That is
not right.

This isn't a flame on Kit, this is someone who spent a
lot of time trying to get the city to come to a
reasonable conclusion on the noise ordinance now
seeing our new council being hypocrites and not right
in agreeing to the Hawkins deal.

Perhaps Kit would like to share her perspective on the
noise ordinance so the rest of us can have her views,
too, before believing what I am saying is true.

I have no reason to lie.  You all can read Walter
Steed's reply I sent previously.

Sincerely,

Garrett Clevenger