Sunday, January 24, 2016

Memo to elected officials concerning this blog.

I was contacted by an elected official yesterday, who, this time, shall remain nameless.

Like many in positions of public trust, this individual did not like what I had to say.

That, of course, is their privilege as it is any reader's privilege... although for many of the haters, I've got to wonder why you bother since you disagree with me so much.

This post isn't about the substance of the post or their disagreement with it.

As I explained to that person, any elected official or candidate may, at their discretion, provide a rejoinder to anything I write on this blog... which, after all (I'm assured) "no one reads anyway," and I will post it as received without editing... although I reserve the right to comment on what I receive.

I rarely get rejoinders, which likely means that a great deal of time, I'm typically right more than I'm wrong.

No, this is about the last message I received from this elected official, which said this in response to the long-standing rule of this blog:
XXXXXXXX, like any other elected official, who disagrees with me, you may feel free to submit a rejoinder, and I will post it on the blog unedited. But over your name.
The response?
I have put it out there but I am not interested is publicly going after YYYYYYYY anymore. (They) understand what happened and I thought you might also like to get some insight so in the future (so) we can get it right.
I have this platform and have had for a decade plus.  I have a perspective.  I believe that the jobs of the county elected begin and end with their departments and they have no greater political impact with the council than I or anyone else.

That at least one of the councilors stupidly tried to use them as an excuse for abrogating her duty to the voters of her DISTRICT instead of acting like a puppet where county electeds are pulling the strings is not a lie.

That's what happened.  And I have yet to see a denial from anyone that it didn't happen as I wrote it.

Assessors access.  Auditors audit.  Sheriffs enforce the law.  Treasurers keep track of where the money goes.  Any other opinion they have is no more relevant than that of a doorman at the Pollard Hilton.

But the decision to unnecessarily increase our property taxes that had been cut to make up, in part, for the 5% of property tax increases my fringe-left democrat brother-in-law implemented has nothing to do with any of you who, if Olson/Green were to be believed, were the proximate cause for Olson/Green to ignore her constituents and vote like a staffer, a RINO and a C3G2 hater simultaneously had their hands up her back like she was a ventriloquist dummy.

You don't like what I write?  Fine.  But don't expect me to assume your political position on an issue that is, frankly, none of your damned business to begin with.

Make all the allegations you like.  But I am not going to be manipulated by anyone.  I am, unfortunately, my texting-while-driving brother-in-law's keeper, because I am unfortunate enough to have this clown governing me.

Somebody, somewhere, has to stand up to the abuse of The Three Stooges.  But even if no one else does... Then I will.

Do not text me again.  If you've got something to say, utilize .  But remember: anything you tell me from now on is subject to being published.

And do not believe for a minute I don't mean it.

1 comment:

Pete Masterson said...

Those "elected" officials of specific departments -- i.e. Auditor, Sheriff, Treasurer, etc., are 'captive' to their respective departments. While they're elected there's little difference in their functions had they been appointed as employees of the county. The reality is that these departmental officials has only a small modicum of policy influence, but considerable effort in supervising and insuring that the services of their particular departments perform the duties required of them. Indeed, under the new "county manager" form of government that the new charter has created, the policy influence of these elected positions have even less impact. Those who set policy are the members of the elected council, one from each of four districts and one at-large "chair" ...

I suspect the elected personage who contacted you is feeling bruised about his/her lack of intelligence in failing to realize that bureaucrats ALWAYS want more tax dollars to spend. I say, set up an open system of contracting, so that private industry can compete against the "civil servants" who swallow up so much of our tax dollars. Does the Sheriff have to have county employees manage the jail? Does the county need to build/upgrade the jail facility? Or can jail management and/or facilities be built by independent contractors? (There may be some issues with state law that I'm not familiar with.) I lived in one county in California that (expensively) picked up the trash twice a week (because they always had done trash removal twice a week). Yet I lived in another county that did not even grant a "concession" (monopoly) to a trash hauler. Indeed, there were 4 competing trash services. I have never paid less for trash removal, nor have I had better service. If a service missed a pickup, two telephone calls later I'd have a new service provider who would come immediately to get my "missed" can....

The point is, we need some creative people who look at the services that the county provides and do what is in the best interests of the taxpayers. They are elected by TAXPAYERS, not county employees, nor by other elected county department heads. They should keep that in mind.