Opinions

E-mail >>> Print

Printable Page >>> RSS

RSS >>>

Some Thoughts before Voting in the Recall Election

Posted on Mar. 1st, 2010

Posted by Peter Solie
GardnerEDGE

Voter Man Says Get Out and Vote.

John Shepherd and Mary Peters have been duly elected and should NOT be thrown out of office on a whim. They should NOT be thrown out based on personality. They should NOT be thrown out because they oppose the intermodal. They should NOT be retained solely because of their strong history of public service.

John Shepherd and Mary Peters are standing for a recall election because sufficient evidence was shown to the Johnson County Election Office and District Attorney to approve a petition calling for their recall. That petition approval does not require the same level of proof or evidence that prosecution under the Kansas Open Meetings Act would require. Under the rules of the recall petition, it is up to the public to determine if KOMA was violated and one or both should be recalled.

The public, however, will not limit their decision to a judgment upon whether or not Mr. Shepherd or Mrs. Peters violated the Kansas Open Meetings Act. Voters will consider many factors as they cast their ballot.

Mrs. Peters ran on a campaign platform of transparency. Although Mr. Shepherd was not on the ballot for the 2009 campaign, he has indicated that he participated in the campaign and that he supported the Take Back Gardner platform. The performance of Mr. Shepherd and Mrs. Peters in regards to transparency has been most troubling. The April 20, 2009 City Council Meeting where Mrs. Peters attempted to enact a radical change to the City Charter was the least transparent of actions. The most transparent action would have been to include such a plan in the platform of her campaign. It could have been debated and voters would have been fully informed of the intentions of the Take Back Gardner candidates.

Although certainly less transparent than having the Charter Ordinance change debated in the campaign, Take Back Gardner could have informed the Council of their intent to bring the proposed Charter Ordinance to the Council at a future meeting. They could have voted against the Mayors candidate, as they did, and had sufficient time to consider the changes before the appointment would have become automatic.

The least transparent option was the one chosen. With no notice to the public, city staff or Mr. Winters and Mayor Drovetta, the Take Back Gardner Charter Ordinance was placed on the table for an immediate vote. Although not part of the recall petition, voters will have these actions in mind as they cast their ballots.

Also not on the recall petition, but certainly on the minds of voters are the intermodal contracts. Mr. Shepherd and Mrs. Peters have been clear about their feelings toward the intermodal. Voters that believe that the intermodal is a bad thing will appreciate the actions of Peters and Shepherd to reject the BNSF contracts. Voters that believe that the intermodal is coming anyway and that having those millions of tax dollars flowing into the Gardner treasury and greater control over lighting, traffic flow, and other regulatory issues will let the actions of Peters and Shepherd influence their vote.

The alleged Kansas Open Meeting Act violations that are at the root of this recall petition are troubling to GardnerEDGE. We strongly believe in the need for sunshine and accountability from our elected leaders. The Kansas Open Meetings Act, however, does not provide sunshine and as is demonstrated here serves as a gotcha law. The citizens are not better served, but it is an opportunity for the press, dissatisfied citizens and others to claim an offense where perhaps there was none. It is also true with KOMA that a technical violation of the law can occur, but all reasonable people would agree that there was no violation of the intent of the law. Our dissatisfaction with KOMA does not, however, excuse the actions of Mrs. Peters and Mr. Shepherd. The law is in place and must be observed or the gotcha of KOMA will get you.

The GardnerEDGE has made repeated attempts to interview Mrs. Peters and Mr. Shepherd regarding this issue. Mr. Shepherd has cooperated in the past, but has not responded to our recent requests for information citing their ongoing lawsuit and the advice of legal counsel not to comment of issues related to the recall. GardnerEDGE has also requested from Mr. Shepherd copies of letters to the editor sent to the Gardner News. None have been forwarded. Our readers should not interpret the lack of Letters to the Editor from Mrs. Peters and Mr. Shepherd as an attempt by GardnerEDGE to ignore their opinions. We repeatedly requested statements from both and would have published them if they had been provided. We believe that any statement referring to a need for silence because of the pending lawsuit is laughable given the string of letters provided to the Gardner News over the past month. Again, transparency is given short-shrift. The readers of GardnerEDGE would have liked to read those comments, but Shepherd and Peters were unwilling to defend their case to them.

We encourage all eligible voters to participate in the election. Gardner is not alone in having poor turnout for municipal elections. Clearly, however, elections have consequences. The municipal elections of 2007 and 2009 which brought John Shepherd and Mary Peters back to the Council and Dave Drovetta to the Mayors seat had consequences and the election of March 2nd will have dramatic and lasting consequences. It is clearly the right of Mr. Shepherd and Mrs. Peters to ignore our requests for comment. However, it is unacceptable behavior from elected officials that have touted transparency as the chief principle of their most recent campaign. The willingness of both Shepherd and Peters to ignore many of their constituents by attempting a radical change in City governance without public input have shown their true colors. We encourage voters to vote yes in the Tuesday election to recall both Mrs. Peters and Mr. Shepherd.

Editors Note, some punctuation has been removed from this article because the story would not post with proper punctuation. Apostrophes, quotation marks, and some other marks were removed. This error has occurred with the server change. We will get this problem corrected in the coming days.

Comments

Add Comment | Report inappropriate comments.

Order By: Oldest First | Newest First

jdelphiki wrote on 3/2/2010 1:12 pm

@Observer -

I note that you didn't include Gardner News in your condemnation. Did you happen to see their latest edition, where their op-ed section had SIX anti-recall opinions compared to one comment from a recall supporter?

Did you notice the so-called news articles over the past several weeks that don't even cover news, but propound vague insinuations about the recall that they don't bother proving out?

I agree with you that Gardner is no longer the small town that it was almost 20 years ago when we moved here, but I'm not really sure I agree with your assertion that there's anything that our city could DO about it.

The growth has come on its own. The population has grown by a staggering 1000% in 20 years. I didn't see the city leaders dragging people into town over that time. I also point out that both of the Council members being recalled were on the Council at various times over those years. Are they as "guilty" of condemnation as whichever ones you deem are the "select few" running the city without a care for its "small town charm"?

What does any of that have to do with the recall?

Gardner is growing like crazy? Sure. This whole recall thing is a mess? Absolutely. Condemn the current Council because Gardner isn't a tiny farming community anymore? Um...what?

I AM glad you voted. I think it's important for citizens to have their votes heard.

It's disappointing that your vote went toward the Council members who tried so hard to keep you from voicing your opinion, but hey...at least the recall folks aren't going to throw your No votes away.

Sick wrote on 3/2/2010 1:03 pm

I'm sick of the claim of Gardner being a small town. There are 18,000 people in Gardner, 3,500 was a long time ago. Get over it or move to Wellsville or Spring Hill.

Observer wrote on 3/2/2010 12:34 pm

I have learned a couple things from this whole mess. First - GardnerEdge is a completely agenda-driven online publication. Hardly an unbiased news source. Nope...no journalism here. Second - Gardner is run by a select few who do not seem to care for the small town charm that originally attracted families like mine to move here.

Signed - Currently looking elsewhere

btw - I voted NO

Jonesy wrote on 3/2/2010 8:13 am

The whole reason the recall exists is because of two city council members actions. The two members up for recall set aside what was best for Gardner and its citizens to further their political agenda. To rule Gardner at any cost - should have been their motto.
This is why a recall election is occurring today. Put the blame where it is due.
Your vote today is your voice. Get out and vote.

I have voted NO because this recall wrote on 3/2/2010 7:55 am

is wrong and the lowlifes behind it will never give you a government that is worthy.

KL wrote on 3/2/2010 7:49 am

Send a message to your local government that you will not tolerate unethical behavior. Vote Yes.

jdelphiki wrote on 3/2/2010 6:49 am

The important thing is that people get out and vote.

Vote wrote on 3/1/2010 10:54 pm

yes if you beleive in a lie

Report inappropriate comments.