Letters to the Editor...
Just a few comments regarding your Friday, February 17, edition of The Grove Observer. I don’t always agree with you, but your work product is excellent and much needed especially at this time in Grove.
The Airport dispute has been simmering for almost three years. I would not begin to give some simple explanation of the reasons. I do know that the growth of Grove is causing change and conflict to which all parties are having difficulty adjusting. Research that you do quite well will show that the liability question is of recent origin, within the last year. It has merit but it also has motive. The question of control is intertwined with the issue of liability. Distrust, not lack of information or lack of understanding, prevents settlement. A commitment by the City, in writing, to memorialize, for example a fixed period of twenty years, or something similar, in the form of some type of management agreement, would leave everything in place under present procedure and law and transfer all real estate into co-ownership. This would give some permanence and assurance to such casual comments as "You are still in business", or "A handshake is good." Neither of these comments offer any permanent solution. A long-term contract would offer assurance and solution.
I do not think it is possible to even react in a rational way to the view that the Airport is nothing more than something benefitting 1% of the people as a private club for aviators. Would you say this about any other airport, or airports in general? It is self-evident that airports are essential to a growing, prosperous community.
As for City politics and the grand jury, the turmoil and conflict are part of democracy and the rights of individuals to do certain things such as: to have a free press, to have free speech, to have the right to assemble, and to have the right to petition. It is messy, but vigorous and necessary. Only wannabe despots and lazy government officials find this process distasteful. In our free society, the law and elections and the courts render the final decision, not grousing, complaining, bickering, name-calling, and whining. The responsibility for solutions rests with those who hold office, not with those who do not hold office. If they fail to produce solutions, they are held responsible, not their non-office-holding critics.
The grand jury petition is a legal procedure created long before the United States of America, to give the non-elected populace oversight of governmental officials who may be committing acts which are unlawful. Government officials should take responsibility and answer criticism with solutions or dialogue. Blaming others for their own failure and/or shortcomings not only does not work but is an argument that is ALWAYS rejected by the voters. As to the specific situation we are faced with, one correction: the grand jury petition which you cited in your article, set forth the conflict facing District Attorney Eddie Wyant. He cannot be both a witness before and an advisor to the grand jury. The Attorney General will appoint an attorney to represent the grand jury.
Circulation of a petition by citizens is guaranteed by the 1st and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. The signers of any grand jury petition are not subject to harassment, and any attempt to do so is a violation of their civil rights. Once the petition is filed, the names of the signers become public information and are certified by the Election Board of Delaware County. There is nothing secret about the process prior to convening of the grand jury. There is an internal contradiction when you assert that the petitioners are "a fringe group", and then state that they are upset because of certain issues which touch the vast majority of the people of Grove. Plus, ev en one individual, a fringe group, or 90% of the people, have a right to freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and the freedom to circulate a petition. As you stated, good old boys are always there. I have fought them for seventeen years and will continue to fight them as long as I can breathe. One bit of positive news, two good-old-boy deals were overturned this last week, because of public exposure.
The measure of the public will is not by my opinion or your opinion or anybody’s opinion. It is not determined by how many people attend meetings or do not attend meetings. It is determined by the law and by elections. There is no legal requirements for citizens to attend meetings. Public officials are supposed to do their job and follow the law, whether citizens attend meetings or not. That is why the Attorney General, the Open Records Act, and the Open Meetings Act require full disclosure by detailed agenda items and detailed minutes and/or tapes of public meetings. However, one could do a polling by petition to determine whether one group or another is a fringe group. A counter-petition could be circulated in support of what has been going on in Grove and of those who are making the decisions in Grove. It would be interesting to see if that petition would attract as much support as the grand jury petition. They could have 45 days as well. And I would oppose any attempt to harass them, interfere with their efforts, publicize their names, take pictures of their office, monitor the vehicles at their place of business, or make angry public statements about them personally, all of which activities are a violation of civil rights laws.
Thank you for your attention. My goal as always is to contribute to the making of a better community. Growth is difficult, and always causes conflict and problems. In my mind, the opposing parties at the present time are part of that struggle with growth and the solution will be found in what emerges after this period of discord. A mayorial form of government, with a professional, competent full-time mayor subject to Council authority, should be adopted. With this change, the individuals with governmental authority and responsibility will become directly responsible and answerable by election to the people. The City Manager would be reduced to an administrative rather than a policy-making position.
It is my personal view that all of the players on both sides in the present conflict will become irrelevant very soon. The issues are transitory, not permanent, and so are the personalities. The bottom line is that the Grand Lake community and Grove in particular continue to ever-increasingly attract individual and business investors who take a wry and condescending view of the backward and dysfunctional nature of the present political and governmental situation. Money is always smarter than politics, thankfully.
Jack L. Forrest
The Airport dispute has been simmering for almost three years. I would not begin to give some simple explanation of the reasons. I do know that the growth of Grove is causing change and conflict to which all parties are having difficulty adjusting. Research that you do quite well will show that the liability question is of recent origin, within the last year. It has merit but it also has motive. The question of control is intertwined with the issue of liability. Distrust, not lack of information or lack of understanding, prevents settlement. A commitment by the City, in writing, to memorialize, for example a fixed period of twenty years, or something similar, in the form of some type of management agreement, would leave everything in place under present procedure and law and transfer all real estate into co-ownership. This would give some permanence and assurance to such casual comments as "You are still in business", or "A handshake is good." Neither of these comments offer any permanent solution. A long-term contract would offer assurance and solution.
I do not think it is possible to even react in a rational way to the view that the Airport is nothing more than something benefitting 1% of the people as a private club for aviators. Would you say this about any other airport, or airports in general? It is self-evident that airports are essential to a growing, prosperous community.
As for City politics and the grand jury, the turmoil and conflict are part of democracy and the rights of individuals to do certain things such as: to have a free press, to have free speech, to have the right to assemble, and to have the right to petition. It is messy, but vigorous and necessary. Only wannabe despots and lazy government officials find this process distasteful. In our free society, the law and elections and the courts render the final decision, not grousing, complaining, bickering, name-calling, and whining. The responsibility for solutions rests with those who hold office, not with those who do not hold office. If they fail to produce solutions, they are held responsible, not their non-office-holding critics.
The grand jury petition is a legal procedure created long before the United States of America, to give the non-elected populace oversight of governmental officials who may be committing acts which are unlawful. Government officials should take responsibility and answer criticism with solutions or dialogue. Blaming others for their own failure and/or shortcomings not only does not work but is an argument that is ALWAYS rejected by the voters. As to the specific situation we are faced with, one correction: the grand jury petition which you cited in your article, set forth the conflict facing District Attorney Eddie Wyant. He cannot be both a witness before and an advisor to the grand jury. The Attorney General will appoint an attorney to represent the grand jury.
Circulation of a petition by citizens is guaranteed by the 1st and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. The signers of any grand jury petition are not subject to harassment, and any attempt to do so is a violation of their civil rights. Once the petition is filed, the names of the signers become public information and are certified by the Election Board of Delaware County. There is nothing secret about the process prior to convening of the grand jury. There is an internal contradiction when you assert that the petitioners are "a fringe group", and then state that they are upset because of certain issues which touch the vast majority of the people of Grove. Plus, ev en one individual, a fringe group, or 90% of the people, have a right to freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and the freedom to circulate a petition. As you stated, good old boys are always there. I have fought them for seventeen years and will continue to fight them as long as I can breathe. One bit of positive news, two good-old-boy deals were overturned this last week, because of public exposure.
The measure of the public will is not by my opinion or your opinion or anybody’s opinion. It is not determined by how many people attend meetings or do not attend meetings. It is determined by the law and by elections. There is no legal requirements for citizens to attend meetings. Public officials are supposed to do their job and follow the law, whether citizens attend meetings or not. That is why the Attorney General, the Open Records Act, and the Open Meetings Act require full disclosure by detailed agenda items and detailed minutes and/or tapes of public meetings. However, one could do a polling by petition to determine whether one group or another is a fringe group. A counter-petition could be circulated in support of what has been going on in Grove and of those who are making the decisions in Grove. It would be interesting to see if that petition would attract as much support as the grand jury petition. They could have 45 days as well. And I would oppose any attempt to harass them, interfere with their efforts, publicize their names, take pictures of their office, monitor the vehicles at their place of business, or make angry public statements about them personally, all of which activities are a violation of civil rights laws.
Thank you for your attention. My goal as always is to contribute to the making of a better community. Growth is difficult, and always causes conflict and problems. In my mind, the opposing parties at the present time are part of that struggle with growth and the solution will be found in what emerges after this period of discord. A mayorial form of government, with a professional, competent full-time mayor subject to Council authority, should be adopted. With this change, the individuals with governmental authority and responsibility will become directly responsible and answerable by election to the people. The City Manager would be reduced to an administrative rather than a policy-making position.
It is my personal view that all of the players on both sides in the present conflict will become irrelevant very soon. The issues are transitory, not permanent, and so are the personalities. The bottom line is that the Grand Lake community and Grove in particular continue to ever-increasingly attract individual and business investors who take a wry and condescending view of the backward and dysfunctional nature of the present political and governmental situation. Money is always smarter than politics, thankfully.
Jack L. Forrest
posted by Editor | 1:30 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home