News

terance wrote on 3/5/2010 8:40 am

@ JDEL

I thought it was obvious I was responding to 4seats. I didn't read into your responce that I was barking up the wrong tree.

I need to more clear to whom I'm replying from now on.

jdelphiki wrote on 3/5/2010 8:11 am

Actually, Terrance, I would recommend that people send their own thoughts to the Mayor and the Council since between them, they're the ones who will make the appointments and confirmation.

My thoughts were that, since we're not voting on the issue, campaigning among the people is probably not going to do much good. Given how the first appointment -- the one to bring the Council to a quorum -- has to be made before anything else happens, there's not much time for a full public viewing of the available candidates, with the exception of the meeting on 3/15 where they decide it.

I'm not going to condemn anyone who feels they need to discuss their own choices or options, just like I'm not going to condemn a candidate who chimes into the discussion here like Steve Shute did. Given that his name had already been tossed out by someone else, I don't see his responding to the question or clarifying his position as being all that self-serving. Looking over his posts, I get more of the impression that he's just trying to be open and communicate with us about what's going on with him. I don't grudge him that.

Mainly, I was just trying to answer the question someone asked as to what I thought about potential candidates. I'd rather not speculate, but that's just me.

4 Seats wrote on 3/4/2010 10:16 pm

You have it right JDEL. The process is up to the Mayor. Those of you who may be campaigning for themselves or for someone on this board are barking up the wrong tree. The Mayor gets to decide, we don't. Of course they should be considered but campaigning here just makes one look desperate and a little self serving. My opinion.

jdelphiki wrote on 3/4/2010 8:44 pm

Hey Terrance - Sorry I didn't answer earlier...been offline for awhile.

I understand that a special election would need some kind of special change or consideration in the law to circumvent the appointment process. I support having Mayor Drovetta appoint successors and not some kind of election in this case.

What I was talking about before was in the hypothetical. We have laws of appointment (or succession, when necessary) to deal with elected officials who, for whatever reason, can't finish their terms in office. But those methods bring with them inherent problems, the most obvious of which is that the replacements aren't necessarily elected (or, perhaps, aren't elected for that position).

The Secretary of State or the Speaker of the House can become President of the US just through succession. I would be uncomfortable with that I probably would have preferred Condi Rice from the last presidency to Hillary Clinton from this one, but that's just my own personal preference. And still, that's a person who wasn't elected. Would we toss out settled Laws of Succession, just because of who might end up in office? In my book, no.

Still, I strongly believe in the power given to voters to cast ballots and decide elections. So hypothetically, as a general rule, I find elections are preferential to appointments.

terance wrote on 3/4/2010 6:30 pm

everyone remember that Dan got so many votes for mayor, because he ran for mayor in the primary. He endorsed Fotobich for mayor, but took enough votes away from Fotobich to get Drovetta elected.
If they hadn't pulled that blunder, Fotobich would be mayor, dan,john and pary meters would be on council and none of this would have happened. Wow. that is farout. then the three screw up and try and takeover, two get recalled and now Drovetta can fill two more seats.

that is the most interesting part of this whole story to me.

terance wrote on 3/4/2010 6:01 pm

And another thing,

Steve Shute was the only one that wasn't back by the takeback gardner group or the can't beat them tax them group.

people asking for a fresh face and someone out of the fray couldn't ask for more.

you with me JDEL?

terance wrote on 3/4/2010 5:53 pm

if you scroll down, you'll note that I brought Steve's name up. that kind of invites him into this.

those of you bashing him, did you go to any of the candidates forums to listen to him speak?

just wondering if you know anything about him or not.

Steve Shute wrote on 3/4/2010 5:20 pm

@Gardner1,

I stand by what I said earlier. I have been nothing but consistent in my positions. I believed, and still believe, that the people of this city deserved to make the decision on whether to recall Shepherd and Peters, and they were indeed given the opportunity, thanks to the work of the Gardner Recall Committee. I didn't even bring up the appointment issue until after the election was over. So, how exactly was I being self-serving?

Like (presumably) everyone else, all I want is what's best for the city that my family and I have made a home in. I don't besmirch anyone else's character here; please refrain from doing the same.

Gardner1 wrote on 3/4/2010 5:02 pm

@Steve,

You won't find much support for you here from us. If I remember right your name started to pop up right after the petitions were submitted and approved. I think there may have been even a post of you saying you just wanted to serve the city in whatever capacity.

I think you said you hadn't signed the petition. Now you're on here drumming up support for an appointed seat... sounds a little self serving.

terance wrote on 3/4/2010 4:39 pm

Jdel,
I just want to clear this up.

My number one argument against special election is I think it's not legal.

the second argument was to the question of, what's wrong with a special election. which is a hypothetical question to me because I don't think it's legal anyway.

Hi Steve. I'd better make sure me and mrs.D get that letter to Drovetta.

Special Election wrote on 3/4/2010 4:23 pm

A couple of more things I don't like about the appointment process. First, someone will be appointed to a seat with THREE YEARS remaining on the term. Second, the local election of 2009 notwithstanding, incumbents generally have a tremendous advantage in elections, providing the appointee with that advantage in future elections seems unfair.

That's why I'm suggesting a "Special Election" compromise ... make an appointment for Shepherds seat, which is up in 2011, and hold a "Special Election" for the seat Mary Peters won just last year the term of which runs through 2013. Does anyone see the merit in that?

Steve Shute wrote on 3/4/2010 3:50 pm

First of all, thanks, terance, for the kind words. I did notify Mayor Drovetta yesterday that I was interested in one of the open vacancies, if he wished to appoint me.

I didn't want to comment on any of this until the people of Gardner made their voice heard. Now that there are two open seats on the Council, here are my thoughts:

1) First of all, if these two positions are appointed by Mayor Drovetta, that will mean that a majority of the Council will be appointed by the current Mayor. This has the possible *potential* of becoming a rubber-stamp Council and placing an extraordinary amount of power in the hands of one individual. However, that is how the current charter ordinance reads, and the mayor has the authority to make these appointments as he deems appropriate.

2) In light of this, it becomes incumbent upon the Mayor to make decisions and add people to the Council that will represent the interests of everyone in the City of Gardner, and not just the narrow interests of a vested constituency. For better or worse, the people of this city (who, deservedly, are sick and tired of the infighting and civil war of the last three years) will be watching Mayor Drovetta extremely closely to see if he acts in this spirit.

3) Personally, I voted to recall Peters, and to keep Shepherd, as I felt that removing Shepherd only a year away from a City Council election would be counterproductive. However, now that both have been recalled, we all need to involve ourselves in this process going forward, so that we have the best possible representation for the city.

Whether Drovetta calls for a special election (which I would say is highly unlikely) or not, we all need to begin to recalibrate ourselves away from the acrimony and bitterness and toward making a better future for all of Gardner's citizens - in whatever capacity we wish to serve.

Special Election wrote on 3/4/2010 3:34 pm

Terance it appears we may BOTH be a bit paranoid, I don't mean that in a bad way.
Henry Kissinger once said "even a paranoid has some real enemies".

terance wrote on 3/4/2010 3:17 pm

Jdel,
You think having a special election would be nice? You know 900 votes would go to mary and john if they ran and the 1200 votes would or might get split up and john and mary would be back on council.
You think that'd be nice?

Special Election wrote on 3/4/2010 2:57 pm

Jdel your post are always so well thought out and thought provoking, I do enjoy reading them.
The length and breadth of my issues with the appointment process don't have anything to do with the Mayor per se. No, my problem lies with the basic premise of majority rule.

The members of the governing body, including the Mayor, are elected to office by a majority of voters, or they're not, because they're appointed.

Motions are voted on by the City Council and passed by a majority vote of elected representatives, or they're not, because the majority of representatives are appointed not elected.

I would be glad to let Mayor Drovetta appoint a City Council member, in fact I like the appointment of Steve Hale, alot. If the Mayor needed to appoint a second councl member, ok, I suppose, look how well he did appointing Steve Hale. It's not like he's appointing all the council members. If he was to appoint a third council member, well that would mean 60% of the council would be appointed and that is a majority, and majority rules. Now I'm uncorfortable, now it's beginning to resemble an oligarchy. They certainly would not be aristocrats, and my best guess is they would not be plutocrats, but one elected official and his three appointments on a five person council and six member governing body is beginning to make me uncomfortable, even if the appointments are diverse.

How about we appoint someone for the seat John Shepherd held, and hold a special election for the seat Mary Peters held? Would that be any better? Thoughts anyone? Without any name calling or condescension please.

jdelphiki wrote on 3/4/2010 1:21 pm

A special election would be nice, but I don't know how practical it would end up being at this point. Also, I'm not sure if it's the thing that Gardner needs right now.

We got into this whole mess because a well-funded special interest group, Take Back Gardner, organized a successful campaign built on the notion that the officials in office at the time lacked integrity, were influenced by outside money, and basically could not be trusted. The TBG candidates were supposed to bring us balance and transparency.

Instead, the roles seemed to reverse themselves from the campaign images we were led to believe. The Take Back Gardner candidates plotted and schemed all kinds of things behind the scenes, even to the point of involving a Council member who wasn't up for election. They tried to carry out their scheme and, when the voters questioned them about it, they did everything in their power to obstruct the voters from either getting the direct, honest answers they sought, or to block the voters from taking action against them.

On the other hand, the prior Council members, who we were told we couldn't trust, did their best to stay out of the whole mess, speaking out only when they were dragged in by misstatements and allegations made (once again) by the TBG Council members, ex-candidates, and their supporters.

Gardner went through all the pains of recalling two of its Council members because their lack of integrity and desire for power mobilized the voters to do so. That these two Council members even reached that point says much about just how far their special interest backing and their caustic supporters were able to push the message that our prior Mayor and Council members could not be trusted.

Having a special election now, after all this, tells the citizens of Gardner that even though the Take Back Gardner folks proved to represent precisely the twisted ideals they'd accused others of having, their message MIGHT have been right.

They created the image of mistrust on others, but proved that that image actually fit THEM better. So now we STILL might kinda believe that their characterizations are true, after all?

I'm not sure that's the best image to portray for Gardner.

IF we truly believe that NOBODY in our current city government can be trusted, then we should throw them ALL out and start over. Special election or whatever we have to do to legally accomplish it.

But if we are to get beyond all the division and anger over the whole mess -- if we're to trust that our elected officials CAN act in the best interest of the city and its citizens -- then we need to step away from the notion that we have to keep rewriting the laws or rules to take those duly-appointed powers away from them.

We recalled Shepherd and Peters because THEY wanted to have the Mayor's power of appointment to fill vacancies on the Council and thought they could take it from him without anyone noticing. Why should we have a special election, then, to remove that power from Drovetta, this time?

When it comes to our Mayor making appointment suggestions, should we take the word of Take Back Gardner, who proved to us (painfully) that they couldn't be trusted, or should we take the word of Drovetta, the guy who DIDN'T scheme behind the scenes to rewrite Gardner government and take power for themselves?

Gardner needs to get beyond this whole mess. Keep in mind that the Council still has to approve appointments and that an agitated citizenry will still be watching closely (I hope) to make sure that the appointments aren't simply "yes" men.

I feel like a special election will set us back, keep us in a mode where we continue to propagate the notion that our leaders are incapable of acting in the best interest of the city. Like I said before, if we REALLY feel we can't trust anyone who's in office, we need to toss them all.

But if we're going to move on, we have to accept that the people we elect are going to do their jobs. If they don't...well...Gardner's one of the VERY few towns that's been able to successfully recall anyone. If THAT'S not sending a message to our elected officials to pay attention to the voters, I don't know what is.

terance wrote on 3/4/2010 1:02 pm

@bdot

I was going to answer you first thing this morning and got side tracked.

I don't know how Shepard is feeling. We all hate to be rejected, even if we'd rather not be there. I feel bad for the both of them.

It's hard not to get angry with them when you feel they've done wrong and lied. I guess it's like corrected your children a little, except that it doesn't hurt me more than them on this one.

I guess I'll feel differently if they have some poor comments about it in the news.

if they do, I might have a pary meters story to share then.

terance wrote on 3/4/2010 11:57 am

And another thing,

My letter to Mayor Dorvetta is for him to have political courage, pick who he thinks is best to move Gardner onward and upward. Take that time to either fail or succeed. We've all said it's up to him now to run Gardner. If we decide who we want,then he's off the hook.

Mrs. DoGood likes Steve Shute. I hope I spelled his last name right. I like him alright too.

this was my letter to dave, it's not an opinion. it's my advice to Mayor.

9999999 wrote on 3/4/2010 11:46 am

The recall was done by exsiting laws...why not appointments?

4 Seats wrote on 3/4/2010 11:25 am

Even if the Mayor called for a special election he wouldn't get it. The Johnson County Election office would have to put it together and they would probably have to go through the DA. At some point someone would look at the LAW and say, well no you can't have a special election. Nice of you to ask though.

BTW, The president of the United States doesn't appoint Senators or Congresspersons.

Special Election wrote on 3/4/2010 11:06 am

Terance I agree with you about GardnerEdge. I read it every day and I'm ssigned up for "Breaking News" as well. It's a great information source and Avis and Peter should be lauded for it.

I still think a "Special Election is in order. I know there are Kansas statutes Terance, there is also a City charter, but I believe the Mayor and the governing body could and should request one be held!

terance wrote on 3/4/2010 10:05 am

And another thing, I've heard a lot of thanks going out to the GRC and it's well deserved. I'd like to thank Gardneredge.com for having a place to keep track of the news in town. I'll continue to keep track of Gardner on this site. W/o Gardneredge.com where would we have gotten all this information? We'd have to go to every council meeting. Find court documents, etc. They also give us a forum to exchange ideas and opinions.
everyone give them a hat tip to gardneredge.com

B Dot wrote on 3/4/2010 8:13 am

terance I think the person that was complaining about the value of their home is just a little disgruntled about the outcome of the election. Maybe a little sour grapes? Any idea where Pary Meters is, I would love to hear from her. Just one quote would be nice. I read in the Gardner News that Shepherd was looking forward to relaxing Mondays now. Do you think he's relieved by it all?

999999 wrote on 3/4/2010 7:29 am

Open your eyes, it is housing most places. Not just because of trains.....some people need to use brains and leave trains out of it....

Housing Market wrote on 3/4/2010 6:26 am

If you think the intermodal has been hard on the housing market here in Gardner, you should see what it's done in CA, AZ, NV, FL, NY, NJ, MD, VA, CT, and MA. Those places must have an intermodal on every street corner!

Couldn't be the collapse of the housing market wrote on 3/3/2010 10:40 pm

that cost you $27000 over the past few years, could it?

terance wrote on 3/3/2010 5:47 pm

http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-statutes/getStatute.do?number=5930

I'm pretty sure Gardner is a city of second class, but we don't use a ward system. This is tough for a non lawyer, but I figured it out several months ago and was told I was right.
help yourselves out to help me figure out what the law does say.

the above link should be in the ball park.

Mrs. DoGood has supper ready. but I'll try tonight to get it figured out again.

terance wrote on 3/3/2010 5:15 pm

political courage, I never claimed or tried to project political courage. what the? I'm just saying, the law is the law. Try putting a specail election in front of a judge. Let's say all 2000 voters wanted a special election. It would only take one citizen to challege it in court and have it ruled they way the law is spelled out.

way, if I project political courage, I must really have it.

political courage. roflol

and another thing, don't judge a person on their spelling. Look at some of the founding father's letters and see how they spelled words.
Meriwether Lewis's journal was filled with poorly spelled words.

I'm still laughing about political courage.

OMGROFLOL

Special Election wrote on 3/3/2010 4:41 pm

Gardner1 ... I voted YES to recall both Shepherd and Peters, and I'm a Dave Drovetta supporter. Whenever I've called or emailed the Mayor (or councilman prior to 2009) I've always gotten a thoughtful response that I've usually agreed with, he is a top flight public servant and has been for 15 years.
Yet because I don't believe in rubber stamping a council majority, because I believe in the democratic process I'm now Larry Fotovich? Really?
Shame on you Gardner1.

Gardner1 wrote on 3/3/2010 4:32 pm

On another note. Is it safe to say that Larry F, Linda M. and the rest of the Take Back Gardner group is done with? As long as apathy doesn't set in again there days may be done with.

Gardner1 wrote on 3/3/2010 4:29 pm

@Special Election (Larry F) You want to run? You'll never win under a name like that.

Concerned wrote on 3/3/2010 4:14 pm

Has someone checked on Judith today?

terance wrote on 3/3/2010 3:41 pm

is that really Fotobich commenting? If it is, he's clearly not prepared to have been the Mayor. Damn, get online and read the law.

terance wrote on 3/3/2010 3:33 pm

No special election. No rules change in middle of game.quick appointments. Move on. The yes voters knew and voted for it

REALLY??? wrote on 3/3/2010 3:27 pm

9999999------> LEARN TO SPELL!!!!!!!!

Lynching Ryan Beasley ... wrote on 3/3/2010 3:20 pm

... would be a great name for a punk rock band. It makes me wish I played guitar Johnny Ramone style.

Special Election wrote on 3/3/2010 3:04 pm

"If you do what you've always done, you'll get what you've always gotten" Anthony Robbins

The political appointment process is what got us into this mess in the first place. It's why the "Take back Gardner" group tried to rewrite the City charter, albeit for their own political purposes and agenda.

A "Special Election" would get us "elected officials" and would keep those officials from enduring even a whiff of cronyism or impropriety.

I realize that a "Special Election" is not part of the process, but these are special circumstances, right? I can't believe I'm the first person to think of this, or that I'm the only person who thinks it's a good idea. It's not as if the business of the City won't move forward. As Asssistant City Administrator Melisaa Mundt is quoted as saying in this very article "Gardner has a requirement of four to create a quorum. Gardner's requirement of four to create a quorum IS OVER THE STATE'S REQUIREMENT OF THREE. We will confirm this tomorrow, but in previous research we learned from the Attorney General that THE CONDUCT OF GOVERNMENT WAS PREDOMINANT. Because there will only be three Council Members, the existing three will form a quorum until an additional member is appointed."

So Gardner could very well move forward until new members are elected just as easily, or am I missing something?

I believe Mayor Drovetta should do the right thing and call for a Special Election. It's the right thing to do and it would require the type of heroic spirit which all great leaders possess.

terance wrote on 3/3/2010 2:24 pm

Now people are thinking... great post

curious wrote on 3/3/2010 2:18 pm

We all knew when we voted in this most recent election that if either council member were actually recalled that their seat would be filled by mayoral appointment with remaining council approval. If we change the rules now, AFTER our vote for or against recall, isn't that kind of like newly-elected Mary and Dan (along with John) trying to change the the rules as the first order of business after the 2009 election? In that 2009 election, we also knew when we voted, that if Mr. Drovetta was elected mayor, then his council seat would be filled by appointment by the new mayor...Mr. Drovetta himself! As a voter, I took those rules into consideration at the time of my votes. The rules were part of the package. John, Mary, and Dan tried to change the rules without telling the voters before they voted. We have to follow the rules in place at the time. (That's why only 2, not 3 council members could be recalled at once.) If these rules are not adequate, we should change them for the future, but not in mid-game. (Yikes! Like we'd have to go through this again?!)

Special Election wrote on 3/3/2010 1:51 pm

Terance is right when he says "And another thing, who of us would really want the job?" which makes the idea of a "Special Election" all the more appealing.
Some might want the job, like candidates from the last election who didn't win, but it seems to me the people have already spoken on each and every one of those candidates. Members of the GRC might want the job, but what a conflict of interest that would be!!! I voted to recall Mary Peters and John Shepherd, and I believe the GRC did a stalwart job in advancing the recall effort, but to name one or more of them to the council would seem improper.
So who would that leave?
Perhaps someone who actually wanted the job with the best interest of the citizens of Gardner in there heart.
I think Mayor Drovetta should call for a "Special Election" so the Citizens of Gardner could elect people with a calling to serve.

4 Seats wrote on 3/3/2010 1:38 pm

It would be nice to have an election, but the city has to continue making decisions. 60 days later $25k on an election, an assured heated campaigns with signs all over town again, we'll have new officials. I trust the Mayor, I just hope he takes advantage of this opportunity to reach out to the 40% of the people who may not be real happy right now.

terance wrote on 3/3/2010 1:22 pm

And another thing, who of us would really want the job? having to listen to dolphin song lady complain every meeting.
People love to complain, it makes them feel smart w/o actually having to do something.

Dave is a smart, normal person who knows how to manage and we have people saying he's a shill for big business and has cronies. B.S. if you believe that you've not been around or have an open mind at all. you're delusional at best...

that's all

Fremont b wrote on 3/3/2010 12:30 pm

Democratic process at work! Now 50% or about 42% of the people are not happy and call foul. Going to sound alot like the fans of KU/KSU after the game tonight, 50% will say the referee's called a great game and the other 50% are going to say they got hosed!!!!!

See the light, it doesn't matter what you ideas are, if they are not yours someone else is to blame. Whether it is in Washington, Topeka(Google), Olathe, or our city Gardner; we are not happy with government right now. But that is what makes us Americans and I am proud of that. We have differences, but the difference right now compared to our fore fathers is they found a way to make it work for everyone and behold The United States.

So those who want input on who Mayor Drovetta's appoints, let him know, but don't swear it at him, don't belittle anyone about it, don't think spending thousands of dollars of city tax money(that we don't have and was quite obvious to John and Mary when their people sent mailers telling us why we are in the state we are in were sent to every residence in Gardner) on a "special election".

Myself, I would want a 20 something appointed with "blue" collars for one seat. And then find me a 40 something for the other seat. Seems to me we would have a diverse council that could represent everyone from the young starting out person or family, to the business owner, to someone who is in the middle of the field, to a past school board type leader, to a person with some age on them. Represent everyone in the community not the "old boys" groups. We have a lot of talented people in this City, lets find them and use their abilties. But on the other hand, after the past "two" elections now, couldn't blame anyone if they did not want to get involved either!

We have an opportunity to take Gardner from the laughing stock and bring us back to the proud city we were before: intermodal, "pretend that they are not there", layoffs, no raises, change the charter, "i don't care what are employees wear", big budget problems, recall elections,.... well "we" should all get the point. Remember there is no "I" in team. Lets support the City of Gardner, the way we supported the high school football team last fall. Be supported and get involved.

Special Election wrote on 3/3/2010 12:20 pm

So does that mean you would prefer a "Special Election" 4 Seats? These are not normal circumstances we are dealing with at this point in time. How do you think the residents of Kansas would react if Mark Parkinson was appointing 60% of the Kansas House seats? What if Barack Obama was appointing 60 Senate seats?
We have elections for a reason, we had a recall election for a reason, and that was so the people could decide who represents them. I think Dave Drovetta is an exemplary public servant and a man I trust, but I don't trust anyone to appoint 60% of our, so called, "Elected Officials".

4 Seats wrote on 3/3/2010 11:59 am

I think there are three seats up for election next year? If you put up Mary's set you'd have 4 seats up for election and if you gave all 4 seats a 4 year term that may get a little messy. I like the rotation of every two years having the option to move things around.

Keep up to date wrote on 3/3/2010 11:44 am

Keep up to date with appointments and future elections on the recall facebook. We'll continue to watch what is going on.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Gardner-KS/Gardner-Recall-Committee/139695436264

9999999 wrote on 3/3/2010 11:17 am

MAYOR APPOINTS COUNCIL APPROVES OR DIS-APPROVES.like the great Mr. Hale....

Special Election wrote on 3/3/2010 10:54 am

I believe the Mayor could actually call for a "Special Election" but I may be mistaken. What the recalled council members and Mr. Thompson were pushing for when they tried to change the City charter was over the top, however, if the Mayor appoints someone and the council doesn't vote to confirm them doesn't mean the Mayor can't get his way in the end. All he has to do is wait 45 days(I believe) and he can have his appointment confirmed without council approval. This stipulation by itself should constitute grounds for a "Special Election" at least, and should precipitate a change to the City charter at some point requiring an up or down vote on political appointments.

Special Election 2 wrote on 3/3/2010 10:39 am

I agree it would be nice to have a special election. I don't believe that is an option though and it would cost a lot of money. I am very interested in who and how the Mayor will make his appointments.

I'm going to let the mayor know my feelings. You should to.

ddrovetta@gardnerkansas.gov

Special Election wrote on 3/3/2010 10:26 am

As someone who voted "YES" in yesterdays recall election because I believe the council members broke trust with their constituents, I do believe a "Special Election" is in order. If 60% of the City Council is appointed, then the true voice of the people isn't being heard. As can be attested to by anyone watching the political process in Gardner since the last election, alot can happen in a year. By the people, for the people, why not here, why not now?

5 Year Resident wrote on 3/3/2010 9:55 am

I voted "yes" yesterday and here is why.

The people of Gardner, through a majority vote, spoke to the city council in favor of annexing and taxing the land the intermodal will be built on. There was no realistic expectation that even if you did not want the intermodal that it would simply go away as some wished it would.

When the newly elected council worked behind closed doors and without a fair and public discourse they violated the trust put in them to govern fairly and with integrity. Their actions showed a contempt for the majority opinion and a lack of character. This is why I voted to recall them.

Not only did they act without integrity, they acted stupidly. As I mentioned above there is/was no doubt BNSF would build the intermodal at some point, thanks to Shepherd and Peters we have absolutely no say now in how the intermodal will impact Gardner, nor do we have the ability to gain tax revenue. It is simply another give away, like New Century was, and the decision to let Wyandotte have the speedway and the development around it.

The other disturbing trend that is coming out of the taking gardner back community is the implied and veiled racism embedded in their propaganda. I don't know about you, but when someone uses terms like "those kind of people" it worries me greatly and I find it gross and without class. The majority of Gardner are hard working, honest, blue collar people; we are the kind of people the intermodal would employ. Apparently we just are blue blood enough to be counted as 'real' citizens here in Gardner.

B Dot wrote on 3/3/2010 9:27 am

Take Back Gardner, John, Mary, Larry, Linda, etc. should have thought about what their consequences would be if they got caught in their attempts to coup the Gardner Government. After all the terrible lies and rants that Larry Fotovich has spewn in the Gardner News, Drovetta would be stupid to even answer a phone call from Larry.

The Voice of Reason wrote on 3/3/2010 9:17 am

To the person who identifies themself as "K": Your ranting about how much this recall election cost and blah, blah, blah, blah, is nothing more than sour grapes on your part. Way to be mature.

I speak for everyone who voted "yes" to oust Mary Peters and John Shepard, and who received their mailed letter to my residence a couple of weeks back that said that if they were removed, our voices will not be heard because whoever replaces them will be appointed and not voted upon. Yes, that is true, but the main point is that the voices will not be Mary Peters or John Shepard. END OF STORY.

Why Call a Special Election wrote on 3/3/2010 9:02 am

An election is just a year away, we don't need to do another one. This is a representative republic and according to that laws have been made for situations just like this. Just because some of the council is now no longer elected they are all sitting there because of democracy!

This isn't a democracy folks, start reading your history. It's called a Republic!

jdelphiki wrote on 3/3/2010 8:38 am

Shucks, "k", at least you got to vote.

If Peters and Shepherd and their high-priced lawyer had gotten their way, all the early ballots would have been thrown away. And as I understand it, they were ahead in the pre-balloting.

As for the cost of special elections, maybe you could also consider the cost of the 2006 ballot question, forced by the anti-Intermodal gang and roundly answered by the voters. Are you going to complain about the cost of THAT election, too?

We're waiting...

While we wait for an answer, let's also consider that nobody here wanted to have to do a recall. Shepherd and Peters could have easily avoided even the barest consideration for being recalled by simply being open about their plans and agenda. They didn't even HAVE to try and grab the extra seat on the Council...they already HAD a majority.

Instead, they enacted Take Back Gardner's secret scheme for usurping Gardner government, dissembled when asked to explain their actions, and then sued to try to block the question from even GETTING back to the voters.

Elections are certainly expensive and successful recalls are extremely rare. But sometimes, the voters need to know that their elected officials are operating with transparency, integrity, and free from financial influence from outside influences.

The cost of ALL of this falls, not at the feet of Gardner citizens who want accountability and honesty in their government, but at the feet of Peters, Shepherd, Thompson, and their special interest backers who thought that they could buy their way into controlling and rewriting Gardner government to suit their single-minded agenda.

Special Election wrote on 3/3/2010 8:26 am

It seems to me a "Special Election" is in order. Can the City Government of Gardner actually be by the people if 50% of the governing body is appointed and 60% of the City Council is appointed. They hold special elections all the time, Scott Brown just won the Special Election in MA. to replace Ted Kennedy. Why not here, why not now?

k wrote on 3/3/2010 8:18 am

You idiots that voted yes. Look at the money it has caused for a recall that could have gone to MUCH better things in Gardner!!! And who are you to take away the votes of voters that did vote for Shepard and Peters!!! You people are not god and you are the people that in next couple of years will run this town to the ground and run all the GOOOD people and business away!!! Then where will your vote get you? Oh yea, you didn't vote in first time around so did a recall so you could vote this time! LOSERSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

lkr wrote on 3/3/2010 7:56 am

Glad it is over. Now we just need to try and heal from all this. It is to bad all this has had to take place. What a shame we now will again have appointed people rather than people we voted in.

Re: Start Packing wrote on 3/3/2010 7:37 am

New Century has an over 95% approval rating by our community. Many moved here despite having a warehouse and industrial complex on the edge of our City.

Under City of Gardner control the Intermodal buildings could have had more landscaping and better aesthetics than those in New Century. We will have to see what happens under City of Edgerton.

If you want to move your home value will start appreciating when construction starts on this industrial park.

Gardner1 wrote on 3/3/2010 7:10 am

Everyone start emailing the Mayor and letting him know that we want him to appoint good people and not "yes" men.

I think we should be able to see the process unfold and hear the discussions.

Start packing.... wrote on 3/3/2010 5:50 am

Our family moved here 18 years ago...the town has changed a lot and not all for the better. The whole fiasco with the intermodal over the past 4 years has soured us to Gardner. My only hope is that Mayor Drovetta appoints people with minds of their own and not 'yes' people that will push things through the council that won't benefit the city.

Regardless of the outcome of the recall - the intermodal will come - time to sell the house before the home values decrease even more.

Goodbye Gardner!

The Patriot wrote on 3/3/2010 12:20 am

Congratulations, Recall Committee and voters who voted yes.

It doesn't help that Peters and Shepperd deannexed wrote on 3/2/2010 11:37 pm

Concerns are voiced about higher taxes without John and Mary but they are the ones that decreased our tax base with deannexation. Mary also led a lawsuit against that City that would have certainly if successful moved Coleman and all the property on the East side of New Century into the Olathe City limits.

Lowes even approached the City of Olathe about annexing their property with this bunch in control.

I'm gonna live in a dirty ol railtown wrote on 3/2/2010 10:54 pm

Are those mill levies dropping anytime before the current governing body raises it by 2% to 4% in the next few work sessions? Think about it and who is being misled???.

Thanks GRC wrote on 3/2/2010 10:49 pm

Thanks GRC for hanging in there and making this recall election a reality.

B Dot wrote on 3/2/2010 10:41 pm

Judith you still run your mouth and make no sense. Today is a good day for the city of Gardner. I hope this sends a strong message to you and your Take Gardner Backwards group. People don't like to be bullied, at some point the bully gets knocked out.

Stand up to the Railroad? wrote on 3/2/2010 10:27 pm

It appears to me that BNSF got a better deal with probably less oversight moving to Edgerton.

"Helped the Railroad" might be a more appropriate description of Peter's and Shepperd's actions.

I am gonna live in a dirty ol railtown wrote on 3/2/2010 9:50 pm

I for one am very dissappointed that Shepherd and Peters got recalled. I voted for them to come into the council and they did just what they said they would which was stand up to the railroad and the prior city government who obviously doesn't care one bit about the majority here that are real people who don't own businesses or land other than the small plot their house or trailer house sits on and will not benefit one second from the intermodal. If we were still giving it away at 85% I'm positive you dips would still be wanting to up my property tax 4%. We will still get the railyard and the crap that comes with it but at least now I aint paying for it you fools. Thank you Mary and John, I appreciate it.

Chuck Norris wrote on 3/2/2010 9:39 pm

It is too bad that they were able to eliminate any benefit we might have realized from the intermodal project before we could throw them out. It's a bittersweet victory for Gardner.

Paul Jones wrote on 3/2/2010 9:34 pm

I am sure IF, there is another council member out there as good as Mr. Hale, I hope the Mayor can find him...maybe we can ask Mr. Hale if he has a twin....

About time wrote on 3/2/2010 9:18 pm

I wondering how they got so many no votes...oh well, good riddance.

Moving in the right direction wrote on 3/2/2010 9:15 pm

Mayor Drovetta, Thank you for the outstanding leadership you have displayed during this very difficult time with the city. The voters showed the confidence in you one again. Let's move forward like you stated and build our city back up.

Jared Taylor wrote on 3/2/2010 9:07 pm

WOOT WOOT!