News

Harry Knuckles wrote on 3/11/2010 12:15 pm

Special Election

jdelphiki wrote on 3/11/2010 11:51 am

Yes. I don't need to know what he thinks as long as he doesn't let it interfere with the job he was elected to do.

For me, I think if I let myself worry about what I think Thompson thinks, and allow myself to judge him, not on his actions but on my _perception_ of his actions, I'm not much better than all those TBG angry people who spend all their time "perceiving" evil in anyone who disagrees with them.

Now, if I found that any one of our elected officials were somehow actively supporting such a questionable lawsuit against a citizen's group like GRC -- if I found out they were donating money to such a cause or meeting with the lawyers prosecuting it -- I'd consider the question much more relevant to their elected position. And that would go for any of our elected officials.

It's a thin distinction, I suppose, but it's important to me. I feel that, without any words or action to the contrary, we ought to give folks the benefit of the doubt. We haven't heard Mr. Thompson offer any opinions on the slander lawsuit that's been hinted at and we haven't seen him take any actions that would suggest he's involved with it. Unless he shows us anything along those lines, I'm don't see it as being an issue.

terrance wrote on 3/11/2010 10:00 am

You wouldn't want to know if he supports a threatened slander lawsuit before begging him to stay seated?
I'd like to know how he feels about it.

jdelphiki wrote on 3/11/2010 9:21 am

As far as I know, the slander lawsuit hasn't been filed, so technically, I could duck the question on those grounds, Terrance.

Seriously, though, I'd be inclined to say that as long as Mr. Thompson (or ANY of the Council members) aren't planning on bringing the slander lawsuit into City business, their feelings on the matter are irrelevant to the job. I expect that a lawsuit being brought by (now) non-Council members against non-city citizens would engender strong feelings by anyone familiar with the details, especially our Council members. But I would also expect them to treat it as non-city business.

Personally, I AM curious about Mr. Thompson's feelings on the issue. But while he's an elected official representing our city, as long as he doesn't allow those feelings to affect his elected position, it's not really my concern.

Jerry L Kellogg Sr wrote on 3/11/2010 7:50 am

I hope Mr Thompson reconsiders his intent to resign. With two vacant council seats already, Gardner would be better served if he remains to provide balance and offer the perspective of his supporters during the council members replacement process. His wisdom and fiscal experience gained during this past year would also benefit the council as it begins deliberation on the City's 2011 budget.

I ask Mr Thompson to not resign now, but rather serve Gardner at least through mid-summer. Until then he can continue to show his value and leadership in healing the divisions within our community. By then maybe he will have also decided to serve out his full term until 2013, already knowing that three council seats will again be contested during the 2011 election cycle.

GardnerEdge gets scooped? wrote on 3/10/2010 3:12 pm

How is this possible? As far as I can tell, your "news" is all made up, and it flows effortlessly.

I wouldn't use the word scooped. I'd say it's best described as being pooped.

thanks for info... wrote on 3/10/2010 9:10 am

A

Mike P wrote on 3/10/2010 7:56 am

I too hope that Mr Thompson will decide to stay on the council, but not because I think he is an "innocent" but because he has the chance to help pull our city togather. He is not helping his cause by leaving a voice mail to resign, then decide to "think about it". Makes his decision look hasty and self serving, which is not what we need in the Council right now. Please Mr Thompson, let's get over the hurt feelings and worry about the business at hand. Building a Council that is receptive and can work together.

jdelphiki wrote on 3/10/2010 7:13 am

@MarieL -

Just saw your potshot at me over at Gardner News. Were you going to reply here, or were you just trying to sneak in yet another few insults to me in hopes that I wouldn't see them?

And people wonder why it's so difficult to carry on decent, intelligent conversations anymore.

It's a problem I've seen a lot lately. People have opinions? Sure thing. People want to state their opinions? Well, that's just human nature.

But what happens so often on the Internet is that, instead of discussing issues, people go after each other. They make personal attacks, trying to undermine someone rather than stay on topic. And some, like my friend MarieL here, seem to want to be able to post whatever attacks or insults they want and expect no reply.

Marie accused me of "pirating" the Dan Thompson story and, worse, she accused GardnerEDGE of doing the same. At the time I started commenting on it, Gardner News had already posted a blurb on their website and the people here who were discussing it in the open forum, myself included, made a point of saying that they'd seen it at Gardner News.

Because Dan Thompson didn't see fit of making a public press release of his intention to resign, or of his decision to reconsider, it was my understanding that GardnerEDGE had to actually call the Mayor to get their own confirmation that a Gardner Council member was thinking about stepping down. I don't see piracy in that, but I would welcome Marie, or anyone else who would make such serious allegations, to discuss the topic. If they have direct accusations to make about Avis and Peter, I would strongly suggest they take it up with them directly, and not slur them and GardnerEDGE by hinting an impropriety.

Worst of all of this, aside from the point that Marie (and others who have dittoed her allegations) completely ignore the questions raised for our city by Mr. Thompson's surpise (and untimely) decision to resign (maybe), is that she (and they) seem to want to have her insults and allegations stand, without response or defense.

She repeatedly attacks my right to voice my own opinions, my right to defend myself, the verbosity of my post, or the fact that I also post over at Gardner News. She wants to make whatever unfounded allegations she can think of, then have those posts stand unquestioned and those allegations undefended.

That's where I see the problem.

I welcome her criticism of the questions I raise about Mr. Thompson. I even welcome her criticism of how I conduct myself. But I see it as troublesome, how often people want to be able to say whatever they want and beg to silence the response. It does nothing to help open discourse of our differences and the important issues we face when people make serious allegations and insults of others, but don't think that those others should have the right to reply

So, Marie, I'm sorry that you got another lengthy post. I hope it's not too much for you to read. If you want to talk, we can talk. But can we do it in the open?

gardner2 wrote on 3/9/2010 3:24 pm

@Steve Schute

Since the mayor said you put your name into the hat of volunteers for city council what would be your solutions to the city financial woes? How would you move the city forward?

harry knukles wrote on 3/9/2010 2:09 pm

But I think a Special Election is in order here...

jdelphiki wrote on 3/9/2010 2:02 pm

Agreed.

We've already had THREE special elections pertaining to the Intermodal and the folks who are trying to stop it.

We had the 2006 special ballot question so that voters could decide the annexation question.

When that didn't work for them, they ran a whole mess of candidates in last year's election...so many that we had to have a primary just to weed some of them out.

Even winning a majority on the Council wasn't good enough for 'em, so the voters had to start recall proceedings, just to get them to explain what they'd been up to. Of course, what they'd been up to was, in fact, enough to actually get them recalled, leaving vacancies on the Council that, had they simply done their jobs honestly and openly, would not have been necessary.

Now, because of all of THAT, people want even MORE elections? So that moneybags can throw in another slate of candidates and flood out any chance of finding candidates who might be neutral to the polar sides of all this chaos?

Even though I'm ordinarily all for letting the voters decide, I'd say it's probably not the best of ideas right now. Especially considering that the law already provides the proper procedure for filling vacancies on the Council.

Keep in mind that the people that we DID elect chose the path that got them recalled. And that the voters who recalled them knew (and were reminded often) that the "balance" of the Council would be shifting AWAY from Take Back Gardner control to something else...maybe Dave Drovetta control, maybe something better.

That's why it's ALSO important for Dan Thompson to stay on the Council and to accept Drovetta's gracious offer to help him fill the final vacancy. Drovetta is not only giving Thompson an opportunity to be involved in the process and to help bring a better balance to the Council, he's also, in part, giving Thompson the very power that Peters and Shepherd tried to usurp by their Charter change...not permanently, mind, but the option to help fill that slot.

Makes me kinda wonder if, had Shepherd and Peters actually ASKED Drovetta for input on the selection process (as opposed to trying to change city government so they could usurp it), Drovetta might have made a similar offer to them.

At any rate, even IF a special election were the accepted legal precedent for us, having one would undermine the fragile beginnings of building a City Council that might actually be able to work together.

Isn't THAT worth taking a chance on trusting that Drovetta isn't picking "cronies", that Thompson isn't really a puppet of TBG, that the Council might actually end up more balanced and productive than anytime in recent memory, and that Gardner might actually move beyond all this divisive conflict?

A Weatherford wrote on 3/9/2010 1:35 pm

A special election to replace vacancies of the council goes against the city charter (ordinance 19). A change to the city charter would require a two thirds vote of the council if I am not mistaken which could not happen until the council vacancies are filled. The current city charter requires that any vacancies be appointed by the mayor with the consent of the remaining council members. There is no legal option for a special election.

Avis wrote on 3/9/2010 10:50 am

It is illegal to copy language from other newspapers, magazines, etc and post them here. You can summarize the story and post a link.

terrance wrote on 3/9/2010 10:16 am

I do believe and was called to that verse.

jdelphiki wrote on 3/9/2010 9:22 am

And you wonder how we got that image?

Could it be from people who'd rather see themselves as being on the outside, sitting in judgement on all the "morons" who they see as being the problem?

Kinda seems like you jumped right in with everyone else with your decision to attack, insult, and pretend that it's someone else's fault and problem. Good job "Gawrdner".

Joshua's Farewell address wrote on 3/9/2010 9:04 am

Terance I don't believe quoting a single passage from Joshua's farewell address:

Joshua 23:1-16

in which Joshua warns against intermarrying with other nations and worhipping other gods really applies to the issues at hand.

What today calls for is forebearance, forgiveness, healing and understanding.

Recall Facebook... wrote on 3/9/2010 8:23 am

I believe the recall people are ready to move on by what their facebook page says.

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

I agree with you Teresa. Like Jdel says, there are a handful of people that are making it hard to move on. Most people are ready to be done with the drama.

Theresa wrote on 3/9/2010 8:11 am

After reading the posts on this blog I have to ask why all the hatred? Both sides need to step back and take a deep breath. If this community is going to go forward then the hateful speech and personal attacks need to stop. What's done is done. The Gardner Recall people need to stop gloating and the Take Gardner Back people need to stop whining. The best thing we can do right now is to pray for our city leaders. I will be praying that Mayor Drovetta will pick fair-minded people that do not have an agenda to promote and that they will work together for the good of the community.

And as a sidebar, if you aren't brave enough to post your name then you should keep quiet.

Matthew 22:36-39 wrote on 3/9/2010 7:36 am

I do believe in loving our neighbors as ourselves.

Also in the Holy Gospel According to Matthew, the golden rule. Matthew 7:12

I live my life by these tenets.

Of course I also believe Jesus Christ is a Liberal, and that Gardner needs a "Special Election" to get us out of the mess we are in.

jdelphiki wrote on 3/9/2010 7:13 am

@Gardner -

You should NOT get nasty responses to your comments. You said what most of us feel strongly: that we all have to work together to make Gardner a better place.

For me, the saddest part of all of this is how easy it is for a small handful of angry, antagonistic people to turn an open discussion of ideas and opinions into an environment where people are almost afraid of saying anything for fear of being personally attacked.

I did not voice my concerns over the divisive tactics I saw being used in 2006 because I didn't want to make targets of my friends and family. Even now, I use a nickname to post my opinions, rather than open up the people around me to the kind of attacks that "jsteve" made on me yesterday (that post has been deleted now, I think) or the personal-record-sniffing smear tactics that Judith seems so fond of.

Most of the people in Gardner are not as far apart on the issues or on how they view our city as you'd think. It's just difficult sometimes to look past the people who would stop at nothing to get what they want, regardless of who they hurt along the way.

Steve Shute wrote on 3/8/2010 11:18 pm

@Gardner is my home: AMEN. The problem, unfortunately, is that in the realm of politics in this town, we're still fighting small-town battles, but (some of us) still haven't realized that we now have the problems and concerns of a growing, exurbian community of almost 20,000 people.

Gardner is changing, true, and a lot of people are extremely resistant to it - and it is true that a good chunk of them are long-time residents. But some, like you, just want to try to solve the problems facing this city together, instead of continuing to fight the same old battles, over and over again.

Personally, I think that Dan Thompson, who's a good, decent man who believed in Take Back Gardner's principles but isn't a pure partisan, cares deeply about this community and would be a huge asset in helping to heal it. I pray that he reconsiders his decision - if not for himself, then for the community that he has lived in for several decades.

jdelphiki wrote on 3/8/2010 8:11 pm

Thank you, "Voted YES". That's what I've been trying to say all day. You summarized my feelings precisely. And in many fewer words.

harry knukles wrote on 3/8/2010 5:52 pm

Yes, I agree with Marie. Let's have a special election. I will not try and go back and try and study why not. I will just mention it w/o thinking much.

curious wrote on 3/8/2010 5:34 pm

In the forum at the high school before the 2009 primary, the mayoral candidates spoke first, and then the council candidates. A group of out of town Steve Schute supporters arrived during the mayoral debates. By then, there was little room for them to sit. One lady sat scrunched in a temporary seat in the aisle next to me. Of course, she was there to support Steve, so she probably wasn't especially interested in what the remaining mayoral candidates had to say. However, when mayoral candidate Dan spoke, she simply wrote LEFTY next to his name! I wanted to visit with her about it at the break, but she quickly moved on down to be with her group hovering around Steve as he prepared for his time on the stage. I'm not sure what caused this LEFTY perception or how this label even applies in city politics. I had to laugh at the irony of the LEFTY description when I thought of the many editorials that Dan's daughter had written for the Gardner News.

curious wrote on 3/8/2010 5:12 pm

The thing that I remember most about Dan's role in the campaign of 2009 (other than that he initially ran for both mayor and council person) was that in the forums he spoke most passionately about how painful the division in our town had been and how he wanted to bring the two sides together. Can't imagine that he would have run if he had any idea how things would have turned out. So far, it seems that he's had NO influence on reconciling the sides. If he would stay, he would have a 2nd chance to help mend the fences.

terrance wrote on 3/8/2010 3:37 pm

Intermodel is the whale
Jdel is father Mapple
Ryan Beasley is starbuck
Judith is stubborn
I will be Gabriel since I have the correct prophecy
Chuck Norris can be queequeg
Gardneredge is Ishmael

terrance wrote on 3/8/2010 2:44 pm

I think most of us really wanted them to fess up and we'd forget about it. Say they made a mistake. I think we'd all understand that they got rapped up into the frenzy and did something they shouldn't have. I've felt sorry for the recalled a few times, then they say something or do something that makes me think they don't understand.
We don't need him there unless he realizes he's made a mistake, owns up in even a small way and moves on.
I think he really didn't like being mixed up in this after he learned that it was illegal or simply unethical.
Sheepherder and Pary Meters will not learn. And if you think this is over, forget about it. Bottlenosed Dolphin Song Lady will fight with her last breath against whomever she sees as wrong.
Read or recall Moby Dick, Dolphin Song Lady is Ahab.

Not understanding wrote on 3/8/2010 2:18 pm

Can't really understand why you would want him to stay seeing that all this KOMA and recall action he was apparently involved with just like John and Mary. Just seems odd that some of you post that you wish he would stay.

= ( wrote on 3/8/2010 1:10 pm

People should remember that Dan is a person and he has feelings. The recall is over and there is no reason to keep rehashing it. No matter what side you WERE on, there is no reason for personal negative remarks NOW nor were there THEN.

That being said, it is truly sad that Dan has made this decision. Dan has bent over backward for Gardner and the people in it since he has lived here and one mistake (whether you believe he did or did not make it)should not take away from all he has done for our community.

I would love to see him reconsider. Gardner has been so lucky to have Dan as a resident, I can only imagine the benefits Gardner could reap from having Dan continue on.

Heal wrote on 3/8/2010 1:03 pm

Now if Dave and Steve resign true healing can begin.

Chuck Norris wrote on 3/8/2010 12:41 pm

I think Mr. Thompson is doing the honorable thing given his complicity in the alleged KOMA violation. I doubt it was his idea, however. From what I observed in the council meetings, he does not appear to be capable of expressing a thought that was not given to him by Peters or Shepherd.

Buh-bye, TBG regime, and thank you for playing.

GOOD wrote on 3/8/2010 12:35 pm

He should of been on the short list with Peters and Shepherd..