No trash talk, please

I had a brief and eye-opening conversation with a Filsinger supporter earlier today.

She told me that I was wrong to sully the reputation of someone who had "done so much for the community." She said all the volunteer hours the councilman had put in, not only for the city, but while serving the fair board, should count for something.

She told me that she had called the city manager and let him know how angry she felt, and that the radio station was wrong in making a big deal about the situation.

I told her that I thought everyone should be treated equally, and that while I appreciated Mr. Filsinger contributions, it didn't excuse him from having to follow city ordinances.

She said the only reason he was being singled out is because he is a councilman.

I said that perhaps if a high-profile person such as a councilman was forced to comply with the ordinances, other people might feel more obligated to comply as well.

Then she ended the conversation because she said she was too angry to argue with me, giving me the "talk-to-the-hand" treatment as she walked away.

Interestingly, she couldn't deny the violations had occurred, only argue that no one should be talking about it and making Mr. Filsinger look bad.

I say if Mr. Filsinger hadn't ignored the letters asking him to bring the properties into compliance, or better yet, had not violated any city ordinances in the first place, there wouldn't be anything to talk about.

I beg your pardon?

It is really difficult to believe that someone actually wrote the following asinine argument regarding Mr. Marvin Filsinger's situation.

"Our anger regarding citations should be directed at the board who issued the citations for not following up, and the city attorney for not doing anything about it, and for the city manager for not hiring an attorney to do anything about it."

The PRT board identified properties that were in violation of city ordinances. They sent letters asking the property owner to bring the properties into compliance. We should be angry at them?

The attorney was required by law to recuse himself. Had he not disclosed the conflict of interest and stayed on the case, he would have been guilty of a criminal act. We should be angry at him?

The city manager went to the Mayor and asked for his help. If the city manager had hired a special prosecutor, we would hear from Mr. Filsinger's camp that Mr. Person was on a witch hunt, and that he was trying to undermine the council. He attempted to handle the situation without taking legal action and saving the cost of hiring outside counsel. We should be angry at him?

Let me see if I can make this clear.

The PRT board would not have had to send any letters about the ordinance violations if there had not been any ordinance violations. The city attorney would not have had to recuse himself because of a conflict of interest if there had not been any ordinance violations. The city manager would not have had to ask for the mayor's help if there had not been any ordinance violations.

I think we know who we should be angry with and why.

A picture is worth a thousand words

Here are a few pictures I took today of Councilman Marvin Filsinger’s property south of the fairground. I just want to emphasize that the property violations are not something as simple as a couple of cars or some knee-high weeds. Ask yourself if you think this problem should be ignored.

Please, when you go to the fairgrounds Tuesday to vote, take time to drive by the southern edge of the fairgrounds and judge for yourself. Please do it before you vote.

Here are some excerpts from the City of Sidney Code of Conduct for Elected Officials.

“They shall support the...the City of Sidney Municipal Code...laws pertaining to the city ordinances...”

“Members must work for the common good of the people of Sidney and not for any private or personal interest. The members will assure fair and equal treatment of all persons, claims and transactions..”

“Alleged violations or misconduct by Council members should be reported to the Mayor for investigation.”

Here are a few excerpts from city ordinance 1343

Garbage and Refuse Collection and Disposal

“No person shall dump, deposit or otherwise dispose of any solid waste, hazardous waste, building rubbish, demolition debris, commercial or industrial waste, infectious waste or offensive or obnoxious substances within the corporate limits of the City upon any ground, premises or place other than a landfill or disposal facility licensed by the State of Nebraska or other State regulatory authority for the disposal of specific waste.

“SOLID WASTE: The term "solid waste" shall mean all putrescible and nonputrescible wastes, whether in solid or liquid form, and includes garbage, building rubbish, ashes, refuse, fill dirt, sewage sludge, acceptable commercial and industrial wastes, demolition debris and all used construction materials, discarded automobile and other types of vehicle body parts or portions thereof, machinery or parts thereof, discarded home or industrial appliances, iron, steel and other old or metal scrap material, manure, human excrement, vegetable or animal solid and semi-solid waste, infectious waste, yard waste, dead animals or parts thereof, and other discarded solid materials.

“BUILDING RUBBISH: The term "building rubbish" shall mean all discarded or unwanted material or waste material from the construction, remodeling and repair operations on houses, commercial buildings and other structures including, but not limited to, excavated earth, stones, brick, plaster, lumber, concrete and waste parts occasioned by installations and repairs.”

PENALTY

Whoever violates or fails to comply with any of the provisions of this chapter shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000) for each offense. A separate offense shall be deemed committed each day during or on which a violation or noncompliance occurs or continues.

Quid Pro Quo?

Friendships aside, why would the mayor deny having a meeting with the city manager regarding Marvin Filsinger’s property violations? (I should mention that when I spoke to Mayor Dave Weiderspon yesterday he did not deny knowing about the violations themselves, as he said council members are routinely given property violation reports.)

It is only the meeting with the city manager that he denies.

Okay, there are two schools of thought, and neither leaves the mayor in very good light.

First, let’s say he did have the meeting (as it was documented at city hall) but he actually forgot about it. Do you want someone who would forget about such a meeting serving as your mayor?

Second, let’s say he figures that if he says he doesn’t remember the meeting, people will not hold him accountable for the violations. And won’t hold him accountable for not upholding the city council code of conduct. And won’t ask why he would put his friendship with Mr. Filsinger above his duty to the rest of the citizens of Sidney.

Maybe it’s because Mr. Filsinger was instrumental in blocking a land annexation proposal brought before council.

The land is that owned by Mr. Weiderspon, the property where White Bluff Vet Hospital is located, was in that proposal.

That land is not in city limits. The property to the south, Mudhead Ship and Pack, is in city limits. So are the housing developments to the west. The land directly to the north, the pasture land that is Verde Lane Dam, that is not in city limits, but is owned by the city.

Because the mayor’s land is attached by the thinest margin to the dam site, I would guess the land to be 20 to 30 yards wide where it meets with that property, than the land can legally remain as outside the city limits.

Note that I said it is legal. I don’t believe it is ethical.

In March of 2007, an ordinance came before council that proposed annexing the Saddle Club area, the Verde Lane Dam site, the Mayor’s land, and property near the airport being developed by Greg Huck.

Mr. Filsinger first worked to have the single ordinance written as three separate ordinances to be considered at the next meeting. (This was ostensibly to separate the mayor’s property from other land that many people stood in support of annexing.)

At the next meeting, when the ordinance containing the mayor’s land and the Verde Lane Dam site was discussed, Mr. Filsinger actively argued against it. He implied it would cost the city money because infrastructure would have to be provided to the dam site. That argument was shown to not hold water because the city could deny any requests that were not financially feasible and it was improbable that anyone other than the city would ever own the dam site.

The statement by city officials for the best reason to annex the property was that it would square up the boundaries of the city.

Unfortunately, no one bothered to stand up and state the facts about annexing the mayor’s land. With a property valuation of more than $250,000, the city would stand to collect more than $12,000 a year (at our present levy) in property taxes. The city would also be the beneficiary of the city sales tax the mayor would be required to collect on goods and services at the clinic, potentially tens of thousands of dollars.

Mr. Filsinger actually said that annexing the property didn’t “make a whole lot of sense.”

The citizens of Sidney should be aware that not having the land annexed cost them a whole lot of cents.

Maybe because Mr. Filsinger worked to keep the mayor’s tax bill at a minimum the Mayor developed amnesia about the meeting with the city manager.

You know, when you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. Then it’s really nice having someone to scratch your back if you agree to scratch his.

He Ain't Heavy, He's My BFF

Once again, Council Filsinger was the only candidate that did not participate in the forum hosted by the paper and radio.

I was extremely disappointed as I had some questions for him.

First, I wanted to ask him about the multitude of property complaints that have been logged with the city about his residence, his business at 23rd and Illinois and the property he owns just south of the fairgrounds.

According to documents I have, the reasons for the complaints were “Multiple vehicle concerns - encroaching on property, licensing?? General appearance in residential neighborhoods; general appearance of area. Are they in compliance with zoning?”

This is what is listed under the results heading “Staff felt ineffective in dealing with issue due to multiple previous complaints and potential ethical and legal conflicts - referred to Mayor who will handle complaint”

In checking with the city, no official answer was ever forthcoming from Mr. Filsinger or from the Mayor resolving the complaints.

I called Mayor Weiderspon this morning, and he told me that he did not “recall” any one-on-one conversation with the city manager about it.

I asked him three different ways, three times.

It has been part of the public record regarding these complaints for months, yet the mayor is now attempting to deny he knew about it?

Like they say on that Saturday Night Live skit, “Really !?! Really!?!”

Perhaps he should have documented the meeting like the city manager did.

Only Five of the 'Sidney Six' Answer Questionare

The following questions (in bold) were asked by the newspaper of each city council candidate. For those who don't get the paper, I thought I would post my answers here.

Interestingly, Mr. Filsinger did not participate in the questionare. Once again, he seems unable or unwilling to answer to the voters.

Hope to see all of you at the forum tomorrow.

1 )Recently, at the insistence of two Sidney residents, the Sidney City Council reviewed its decision to not move forward with the construction of sidewalk bulb-outs in Sidney's Historic Downtown District. As a result, an approved construction bid included the construction of 6-foot bulb-outs. Were you or are you in favor of bulb-out construction, and why or why not?

I am in favor of the bulb-out curbs because of the safety measures they provide. Many people don’t realize the far right-hand lane in the downtown district is a parking lane only, not a turning lane. It is technically illegal to pull into the far right lane to turn right. (It is legal to turn right on red, but only from the same lane you would use to go forward.) Once the bulb-out curbs are installed, people will be blocked from using the parking lane as a turning lane by the bulb-outs. The result is that pedestrians have a shorter distance from curb to curb when crossing the street, and have a better vantage point to see oncoming traffic. The added bonus of adding a bit of landscaping to beautify the corners makes them appealing as well.

I think the larger problem the bulb-out issue exposed was that while the council had approved the plans for the project several times, some members were surprised when the first bulb-outs were installed. The city had held three public hearings while formulating the plans, had a multitude of public meetings, and encouraged input from the public for more than a year. The plans – approved by council after a detailed presentation at a council meeting – were on display at city hall for several months, and yet, when the first bulb-outs went in the opposition was raised and the council suddenly wanted to revisit those plans. It would appear that the council members who objected so late in the game had either not paid attention to the plans, or lacked the vision to see the plans carried out.

In addition, the engineer for the project recommended the bulb-outs be at least 8-foot to provide highly effective safety measures, and said he wouldn’t recommend going smaller. After listening to his expert opinion, the council approved the smaller size anyway.

I find it very disappointing that all the public input and the expert opinion of the engineer was disregarded, resulting in council compromising not only the effectiveness of the bulb-outs, but also greatly decreasing the landscaping options because of the smaller size.

2 ) A hot button topic at the beginning of the year involved the local form of government, which is classified as city council/manager. Discussion on the subject involved a review of this type and other types of government for Sidney. What is your stance on the current form of government and why?

The hot button topic was that three of our council members – Mr. Filsinger, Mr. Van Vleet, and Mayor Weiderspon – expressed interest in separating the position of city manager from the economic development director position. During the Jan. 26 meeting, I asked Councilman Filsinger if he supported cutting the city manager position, and he said he was interested in making expenditure cuts, but did not say he was interested in changing the form of government here.

I think the anonymous newsletters circulated around town fueled a lot of speculation as to the motivations of our council members in attempting to separate the positions. In the long run, there was strong public support for the city manager serving the dual role and the effort was dropped.

Additionally, if a change were to be made from our form of government it could only be done after a vote by the people. Council does not have the authority to do so.

3 ) Sidney has made it a habit to seek out federal and state funding to match its local investment in construction, street and other projects. This is done by seeking out grants and low-interest loans, some of which may have “ strings attached,” meaning certain requirements must be met in order to receive funding. What is your view of this practice, and why are you for or against federal and state supplemental funds?

Sidney is in the unique position of having high property values and a property tax level lower than the legal limit. The Nebraska state aid program (funded by our taxes) was built upon the premise of providing property tax relief, and has had significant impact in doing so statewide. However, because our property tax levy is no where close to the legal limit, Sidney does not qualify for this aid. The state takes the position that if we needed additional funds to complete projects, we could simply raise the levy.

That means the only way our community has to recoup any of the state and federal taxes we pay through sales taxes and income taxes is to apply for the grants and zero or low interest loans.

Prime examples would be the waste water treatment plant and the water project that could not have been completed without such grants unless the rate payers of Sidney would have footed the bill - to the tune of more than $6 million. We had no choice, we were required by law to provide the services.

I don’t believe that people in Sidney want to pay property tax, sales tax, income tax and all sorts of miscellaneous fees and taxes and have nothing to show for it.

We may not always like the way the funds are administered, but should work to change the rules, not eliminate the funding.

In addition, I think the opposition to using such funds comes from the perception that projects are chosen because grant or loan money is available, as opposed to the project being chosen on the merits. I think those perceptions are largely false, but promoting honest, open discussions during planning meetings and council meetings with lots of community input could eliminate such concerns.

4 ) What other issues do you feel should be a priority for the council, and what issues would become a priority for you if elected?

At one of the recent budget workshops, I watched as council listened to presentations by city department heads. There was very little discussion about what was presented, and they seemed satisfied with the explanations as to the requests. The problem came after the workshop, when the meeting had been adjourned. I watched as three council members started discussing the numbers. Before long they were asking questions of a few public officials that were still in council chambers.

While it might seem that the conversation was innocent, in reality they were improperly conducting the business of the workshop and the conversation should not have taken place.

I have watched as council members have passed notes to each other during meetings instead of participating in the conversation. That is not transparency.

This type of behavior has fueled rumors about personal agendas and preferential treatment, and the level of trust in the council has been eroded.

If elected to council, my first priority will be to promote open discussions during the meetings and to hold everyone to the same standards.

All of us as candidates want to see a resolution of the sales tax refund issue, to provide good streets and infrastructure, to promote a healthy business climate and still be able to fund the amenities that make Sidney a thriving community. I hope to make the process one the people have confidence in as well.

Three Strikes Means You're Out

Before the primary election this spring, our local radio and newspaper hosted a forum for citizens to get to know the city council candidates. Incumbent Marvin Filsinger was the only candidate who did not attend and participate in that forum.

On Sept. 8, 2009, when the city council met to approve the final budget for the 2009-10 fiscal year, Councilman Marvin Filsinger was absent from the meeting.

This past Sept. 14, when council met to approve the final budget for the 2010-11 fiscal year, Councilman Marvin Filsinger was absent from the meeting.

One has to wonder if Mr. Filsinger has too much on his plate to fully serve the constituents of this community when he is unable or unwilling to attend such important sessions.

This election is the opportunity for the community to elect someone who is committed to participating not only in the council sessions but also in community events, someone who is willing to be transparent about their opinions and willing to engage in honest debate.

I would appreciate your vote, and if elected, will strive to be fully engaged in all council business. After all, they say the first and most important step in accomplishing anything is to show up for the job.