I was surprised to see the Villages on the Rum Board's letter to the Editor arguing for the direct appointment to the City Council of Jeff Kolb. http://www.isanticountynews.com/readersforum.html I did not realize Home Owners Associations were so politically active.
Unfortunately there are several factual mistakes in their letter. The upper end of their estimate of $4,000 is equivalent to the cost of a full city election from past years. The exact amount will be forth coming as soon as it is calculated by City Staff. Secondly several individuals have stated they would donate the cost of the election to the City so there would be no expense to the taxpayer. If these pledges fall through I will not take any pay as Mayor until the election is paid for. I have refused pay for my services on the Planning Commission, already saving the City over $500. Lastly if an appointment is decided upon, there is no way to bind the Council to appoint a specific person to the open seat.
The appointment is attractive because it is expedient. There are several issues with the direct appoint however. First we are setting precedent. Jeff’s appointment would be nice because he lost by only a few votes to the second place finisher. What if he had lost by 300 votes? What is the standard or does it not matter. Secondly we are looking at the law and without a special election ordinance on the books the Council may not be able to even call a special election. Thirdly as I have stated if the appointment option is decided upon then the new Council may appoint anyone they choose. I, as many others, would hope if the Council chooses to make an appointment then it would be the third place finisher. Lastly the vote was for two Council positions not three. 1305 people voted on election day, this equates to 2610 total Council votes because each person could vote for two candidates. The vote was so split the first place finisher received only 18% of the 2610 possible votes. 17.5% of the total votes were cast for no candidate. 13% were cast for the second place and third place finishers.
It would be the fairest to let the voters make a first choice to serve on the Council not to take the third choice from a past election. I would like to see a consensus pick from the whole City. How long is to long for an appointed position. If the seat had come open with three years left do we take the third place finisher from the last election even though it is a year old? We are setting City Policy and must make sure it is correct.
We need to take a breath and let all the facts come forward before some start making erroneous assumptions. If allowed by law we should call for a special election. We are setting precedent for future Councils. Our greatest right is to vote for our leaders not to allow others to appoint them. With no cost to the taxpayers why not allow the Voters of Isanti to exercise their rights. Perhaps I am wrong, but it is odd to be forced to make the arguement that voting for an elected official is the right thing to do.
About Me
- George
- I have served the City of Isanti as Mayor since 2007. We have accomplished great things together and I look forward to building on our success. United, we move forward to a better future. You may contact me at 763-442-8749 or e-mail me at george@georgewimmer.com.
11 comments:
why would anyone have a problem with letting voters vote. isanti has a history of appointing people to council and it has not worked.
i do not think you should have to pay for the election.
who is on the board of this place. do they not have enough on their hands without trying to appoint a member of the council. do they speak for the majority of the place or just a majority of the board members?
I agree. Let us vote. geezzz
If the council decides to appoint and not get what needs to be done, done for a vote then that just proves once again they do not care what the people of Isanti think but choose to do what they want. If it does come up to a council vote on the choice between holding elections and appointing, I can't wait to see who votes yes and who votes no. That's if the choice comes up for a council vote?
After reviewing the election history on George's website, I hope we can get a vote done and not rely on appointment. At this point I have no confidence a good choice will be made. Here is what I understand has happened in the past.
David Apitz was originally appointed to Mayor and Ralph Johnson was appointed to a council seat. If I read the results correctly so was Sue Larson (appointed early to replace Kurt Nauman who resigned, but she won the 98 election).
From 1996 to 2002 there were 7 appointments and a coin toss. From what I could tell, these were all due to resignations. In 1999, Mayor Dale Shortell resigned and Apitz was appointed. To fill Apitz role on the council seat Randy Melland was appointed by interview. He resigned less then a year later in 2000 and David Peterson was elected by interview and coin toss.
What makes me wonder a bit more is in 2001 Dale Shortell was elected as a council member and then 5 months later in 2002 he resigned again which made Ralph Johnson become appointed by interview.
The precedent is set for appointing the seat and the example is set on how poorly those appointments have turned out.
I am new here and voted the first time in the past election. There were so many choices I was not even sure who I was voting for. I would want a chance to make the right decision this time. Thank you for listening.
Once again you are the only one leading. I know not everyone likes it but you are leading us forward instead of just sitting on the sidelines complaining.
I would like to know who is on the board of the villages on the rum.
I am outraged by the letter to the editor. The letter is signed as a board. Why did they not sign their own names. Is this the opinion of all the members of the association. My friend that lives there is as mad as I am. I guess the association needs to look at its own board and vote them out.
I would like another chance at voters to vote for me. I feel strongly about helping the residents of Isanti and will not give up. I have learned alot from campaigning and peoples concerns. A appointment to the council and mayor, as done in the past, needs to stop. I am not saying that Kolb would be a bad choice or a good choice, I'm just saying there needs to be an election. with two canidates out of the way that would leave five if all would choose to run again. This would change the votes. There would be no second choice on the ballot. Like Brian said earlier; if the council does take a vote on weather to hold a election or appointment, I will be interested to see who votes for what. This will have an outcome on the next election in two years thats for sure. I thought we needed change. By appointing anyone, this would not be change, that would be the same good old boy/gal crap all over again.
Who is on a board like this that would want to get involved in an election? I doubt their by-laws allow them to make such statements. I want to know who they are. Why would they hide behind the "board" and not sign their own names? What are they scared of?
You have got to be kidding me. Who are these clowns that would not let us vote. Keep fighting them George
George, Is the only reason you don't want an appointment because Stevens or Kennedy were not third place. Your comment about paying for the election yourself and from private funds is not how government works. We do not want the upper class paying for and influencing elections. The people have spoken and Jeff Kolb was 3rd place. In your run for Mayor you spoke about lowering taxes and moving forward with "reform." An appointment would be a speedy efficent way to get your "reform" that I voted for moving.
As I campaigned I told people that I would want a special election if I won the Mayor's race. It has nothing to do with who came in third. I know and like Jeff but it is all about setting the stage for the next future as I laid out in my arguement. I offered to pay for the election because that is how strongly I feel about allowing the democratic process unfold.
We do not always like the results of an election but it is the only fair way to decide. If the third place finisher only recieved a handful of votes would you still want that person appointed. I am also curious how this has anything to do with taxes. This is the arguement raised by a certain faction and it has no place in this discussion. There would be no cost to the city. This faction did not say a word in support for my 12% tax reduction plan. But let the voters vote and look out the world is crumbling down.
Post a Comment