Yeah, I know. I gave Dustin Zacks, former candidate for Mayor, a "hard" time. It was no where near as hard as he gave to Mayor Waterman, a woman who is raising a family and making a sincere effort to rise above the economic hardships that she and millions of Americans have endured over the past several years.But Mr. Zacks was right when he talked about volunteer city boards and the politics behind some decisions. Zacks also suggested that the city do background checks on those individuals applying and in so many words he said not to appoint jail birds. I agree with all of that. It is just common sense.
Wellington will now have a new Ordinance that will make it easier for boards to kick out their own members if they miss 2 meetings in a row or 4 out of 6 meetings for any reason. They will also be doing background checks. One city councilwoman complained about the cost of a criminal background check but background checks don't have to be in-depth or costly. If there is a felony conviction within 10 years of appointment, that person will not have a chance on a city board. They are not doing a credit check, the very thing that was used against Waterman. At least Wellington understands someone's finances or lack thereof should not be held against them.
I would like to see The City of Lake Worth take stronger action and not be allowed to appoint anyone who is 1) an anarchist or 2) convicted of any crime. I think we should even be tougher than Wellington and not limit it to just felonies. There are many despicable acts that are anti-government and anti-social that should be considered when a government appoints anyone to represent the city.
21 comments:
You betcha!
Then Lynn, you would have to get rid of cara jennings and her boyfriend. Both of them have been in jail I think.
I believe that you are right on the jail thing. One thing that we do know, they both admit to being anarchists.
So you are saying that Cara's partner Peter should not be serving as the chair or on the board for the CRB? What good does he serve?
Why would volunteers be subjugated to such a process when our elected officials are not?
Most anarchists are socialists or communists, and I do not accept this idea of equality of entitlement as government clearly does not owe us a living. They want the entitlements but reject the benefactor. Confusing ans dangerous group. We sure do not waat these people on city boards.
Those running for public office will be outed before any election. The election process is transparent. Look what's happening to Herman Cain as we speak. If someone wants to elect a jailbird, so be it but I doubt if it happens too often. We have the right to know the backgrounds of people appointed to make decisions to influence our elected officials.
I would have to disagree with you anym 1:06. While we may not approve or agree with certain factions of government and with certain ideologies. One of the things that makes this country great is that we have tolerance towards opposing view points. You can scream in my face with some crazy anarchist comment and I would simply say back, I respect your opinion but I do not agree with you for these reasons. One of the worst things we can do in my mind is lose that tolerance towards others and view them not as fellow Americans but as enemies. No doubt we have plenty of these anarchists in our city who often hold us back but I still respect them as fellow citizens.
Board applicants submit resumes. Even these are not checked out. Anyone can make up anything. No one even checks out the address that they give. I have a law degree from Tim Bucktoo University. Big whoopee. We always get impressed by what people tell us but the facts are sometimes not what is presented. There literally is no standard other than accepting someone's word. Shouldn't we be more cautious than that when appointing someone to make critical decisions? We have enough problems without contributing to them by a lack of due diligence.
Lynn, while I appreciate your intent, the idea to ban someone from a Board because of a conviction of any crime is a bit over the top. Do you, for instance, prevent a 60 year old master planner from sitting on Planning and Zoning beacuse he/she had a misdemeanor marijuana arrest when he/she was in high school? Do you prevent a retired CEO from sitting on the FAB because of a DUI when he/she was in his/her early twenties? I think not.
I do, however, like the idea of fact checking the resumes and references for everyone who submits a Board application. And checking for a criminal history is fine, as long as you are you are realistic and resonable with how you handle the results.
Lynn, I would be the first member to get a background check, go right ahead, you will find one speeding ticket from when I was 16. If the city would want to check us out I would be fine with it. I just feel that even though elected officials go through the grueling process of a campaign and we may find some things out about their past. It would only be fair to make them get a background check also. My question is who will pay for them?
Austin, all that sounds peachy keen but we don't have to have these people representing the city. They do NOT represent me. Do they represent you? They can go out and demonstrate their little hearts out just so long as they don't take over city boards. Let them all go occupy wall street. Get a job. That would help on everyone else's tax bill.
Wellington is going back 10 years for felonies. No, of course not going back to when someone was 16 and a youthful discretion. Let's get real. This master planner is now what, 50? Don't be silly here. You get my point. If you don't, get the board members you think you deserve. Set the bar higher than it is, that's what I am saying.
Anony @ 2:04pm It is not up to you or me who represents our city on a board that is up to the commissioners. However, we do decide who our commissioners are and as you know for a good amount of time one of them was an anarchist. While I may not have voted for her the majority did and that's something you and I both have to live with no matter how much we hate it. Personally I find it sad that in a city of over 35,000 ppl only 1,000-2,000 vote.
Lynn, you wrote an excellent article here and I am glad you raise these points. Have to say I agree 100% with everything you say - except that Rachel is "making a sincere effort to rise above..." She's just a fraud and the truth came out about her. I just hope the voters don't forget who she really is when she runs for McVoy's seat next election.
What is the process for the Commission to 'unseat' a member of a Board? It is ridiculous to have any anarchists on any boards at all.
Austin, if you don't think candidates have background checks done on them by the political opposition, you're a nut. They do, and then some.
Misfeasance, malfeasance or lack of attendance...you can't remove someone because you don't like their politics. In this case, the only way you will get rid of someone is if their term expires or you sunset the board. If someone knows of other reasons to removed someone, please pitch in.
Can we please sunset ALL of these friggin political "volunteer" boards? We have city staff that are paid to do these jobs and MANIPULATE and LIE to,oh sorry, make suggesstions to the Commission. We can fire staff and unelect Commissioners. ALL the boards need to go!
Agree--we don't need many of these boards, they are a total waste.
To 3:45 pm - Rachel Waterman is not a fraud - quite the contrary. That is your opinion but it is not the truth. Maybe you just do not like her.
Post a Comment