• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Oops, I screwed around and got elected.

self preservation

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
1,036
Location
Owingsville,KY

Congratulation. I don't think you will need a lot of advice. If you stick to the 3 promises above, you will successfully deal with almost any problem. I will give you one piece of advice, get a copy of "Ky. League of Cities Official Legal Handbook". It has an amazing amount of information in it. I am constantly surprised at the stuff that city council members don't know, that they could easily find out with this book. They are just too lazy to look it up. The city may already have one. If they do, it probably has never been opened. Ask the Mayor to get one, or just buy one yourself. It will pay for itself in no time. There is a big discount for city officials. I have found the people at KLC to be very helpful. You should get to know both Andrea Shindelbower and J.D.Caney(J.D is a no BS, straight shooting kind of guy; you'll like him). They can be a great help to you. I'd bet the others would not bother to pick up the phone to ask a question. They are probably too smart to ask any questions. These two things will make you a "city legal expert" in no time. You will be Mayor soon. Now, for your biggest problem, is anybody there aware that you are acquainted with Drake? Was he your campaign manager?

Thanks, I will most certainly get a copy of the above mentioned book. As far as Drake, he has went into hiding on me.:cry:
 

self preservation

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
1,036
Location
Owingsville,KY
What is your definition of "right?"

Congratulations and good luck.

That is the $64.000 question at times. I fully understand that I was elected to represent the citizens of my city as a whole and not just my wishes, but I'm sure that I will face some of those tricky situations eventually. I guess for starters I would consider "right" to be dictated by morality and ethnics. For one I would have to ask myself "does this vote violate the state or U.S. Constitution?......Will anyone be victimized by this vote?......Is this vote really the will of the citizens or the "will" of bigger money or special interest groups?.." I'm still trying to get my head wrapped around the whole thing, but no doubt I will learn as I go.

Take taxation for example: I'm sure the issue will require my vote at some point in time. I fully realize that raising taxes is a double edged sword that is going to cut your head off no matter which way you swing it. But I also believe that reasonable taxation is a necessary evil. Without taxes we (I'm only speaking of my city in this context) wouldn't have paved roads, road crews to clean and salt said roads in the winter, we would have no police or fire coverage, etc. But at the same that modest tax increase of $10.00 per month that may go practically unnoticed by many, may very well be detrimental to some families. (ie: elderly, below the poverty line, individuals that are simply finding themselves in tough times, etc)

If you vote no on the tax increase then you may very well be a temporary hero.....until the roads are riddled with pot holes and now you are a SOB because you haven't fixed them. Kind of like the having your cake and eating it too story. So in closing, who the hell knows?:confused:
 

self preservation

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
1,036
Location
Owingsville,KY
As I recall, he volunteered to be first to donate his Congressional pay to the widow; his fellow legislators were not so munificent.

Also, be very careful, downright wary, of any possible conflicts of interest. If it even MIGHT look bad, don't do it.


"My favorite example of #1 is David Crocket's (TN) opposition to a bill to provide a $100,000 pension to the widow of Commodore Stephen Decatur. He said providing for widows was a good thing to do, but that Congress was not authorized by the Constitution to do that. He suggested a private subscription be established to raise a charitable contribution from those that desired to make one, and to not take money from people who do not desire to contribute."

This post cracked me up a little because the gentlemen that you refer to and I may share the same last name. :lol:
 

HPmatt

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
1,467
Location
Dallas
your pothole anecdote assumes no money is currently budgeted to fix potholes. Operational metrics on pothole fixing efficiency - how many potholes fixed pervweek/shift - pothole crew goofing off till overtime?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

self preservation

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
1,036
Location
Owingsville,KY
The cost of fixing pot holes may go up. Crews may goof off. All these things must be considered. To give a better example, in 1985 a $30.00 fuel budget per week per city
Vehicle may have been a "good" budget, but with today's much higher fuel prices 30 bucks a week won't get you far.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
That is the $64.000 question at times. I fully understand that I was elected to represent the citizens of my city as a whole and not just my wishes, but I'm sure that I will face some of those tricky situations eventually. I guess for starters I would consider "right" to be dictated by morality and ethnics. For one I would have to ask myself "does this vote violate the state or U.S. Constitution?......Will anyone be victimized by this vote?......Is this vote really the will of the citizens or the "will" of bigger money or special interest groups?.." I'm still trying to get my head wrapped around the whole thing, but no doubt I will learn as I go.

Take taxation for example: I'm sure the issue will require my vote at some point in time. I fully realize that raising taxes is a double edged sword that is going to cut your head off no matter which way you swing it. But I also believe that reasonable taxation is a necessary evil. Without taxes we (I'm only speaking of my city in this context) wouldn't have paved roads, road crews to clean and salt said roads in the winter, we would have no police or fire coverage, etc. But at the same that modest tax increase of $10.00 per month that may go practically unnoticed by many, may very well be detrimental to some families. (ie: elderly, below the poverty line, individuals that are simply finding themselves in tough times, etc)

If you vote no on the tax increase then you may very well be a temporary hero.....until the roads are riddled with pot holes and now you are a SOB because you haven't fixed them. Kind of like the having your cake and eating it too story. So in closing, who the hell knows?:confused:

You are beginning to sound like a politician, more worried about being re-elected....
 

self preservation

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
1,036
Location
Owingsville,KY
You are beginning to sound like a politician, more worried about being re-elected....

Not at all. If I was worried about a reelection I would be more focused on what is popular instead of what may be needed. In this hypothetical scenario I see folks being "victimized" no matter what choices are made. I'm simply pointing out what I feel may be a "political pickle" with no right or wrong answers.

Let me change it up a little. In Kentucky, cities, by ordinance can ban concealed weapons inside of city buildings. I'm absolutely opposed to this for reasons that you already know. But what if 90% of the citizens want the ban? Do I vote the way that I want, or do I represent their desires and vote the way they want?

Keep in mind that this ban, unfortunately, is state law and well within the rights of cities to do so if they choose. But on the other hand if this were Washington, D.C. and an outright ban on handgun existed, despite the desires of the many I would have to vote against such a ban because it goes against the constitution.

It can be argued that a concealed ban in Kentucky is also against the constitution because it is an infringement, and I agree with that, but where would you turn on the issue?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Not at all. If I was worried about a reelection I would be more focused on what is popular instead of what may be needed. In this hypothetical scenario I see folks being "victimized" no matter what choices are made. I'm simply pointing out what I feel may be a "political pickle" with no right or wrong answers.

Let me change it up a little. In Kentucky, cities, by ordinance can ban concealed weapons inside of city buildings. I'm absolutely opposed to this for reasons that you already know. But what if 90% of the citizens want the ban? Do I vote the way that I want, or do I represent their desires and vote the way they want?

Keep in mind that this ban, unfortunately, is state law and well within the rights of cities to do so if they choose. But on the other hand if this were Washington, D.C. and an outright ban on handgun existed, despite the desires of the many I would have to vote against such a ban because it goes against the constitution.

It can be argued that a concealed ban in Kentucky is also against the constitution because it is an infringement, and I agree with that, but where would you turn on the issue?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, if 90% of the people wanted to outlaw political speech, then what?

You should not vote for any regulation that you feel violates the rights of the people, even if they want you to.

I have run for public office .. people knew my positions ... if they had a question on a specific bill or proposal, they should have asked me before they voted for me.
 

self preservation

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
1,036
Location
Owingsville,KY
LOL My town's proposed budget was defeated for the first time ever that I know of and certainly of the nine budgets since I've been resident, including two while I was town supervisor/board member! Yippee yippee!

So what's the first bandage that I hear of, a bag fee for the garbage dump! Nickle and dime revenue instead of cutting expenses. FIRE the junior cop. Spend no money on "infrastructure" (means the picnic pavillion for tourists). Yippee yippee

Funny that you mention firing the junior cop to save money, because last year that exact thing was done. It was done in the name of the greater good. Yeah, that one guy lost his lively hood and his family suffered for it, but that 10 cent increase on the water bill never happened. Yippee.

Maybe life is just complicated like that and there really is no good answers at times.

What happens when the infrastructure is cut down to nothing? Where do you turn then? I know when it's comes to my personal budget I have cut off cable TV service, cell phones, and all of that fun stuff, but not paying the gas bill in the middle of winter wasn't a reasonable cut.

Once again, life is sometimes cruel and its damn if you do damn if you don't.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

self preservation

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
1,036
Location
Owingsville,KY
Well, if 90% of the people wanted to outlaw political speech, then what?

You should not vote for any regulation that you feel violates the rights of the people, even if they want you to.

I have run for public office .. people knew my positions ... if they had a question on a specific bill or proposal, they should have asked me before they voted for me.

+1000 on that. Voting for such a measure would go against my oath to honor and defend the constitution. I need to be true to myself, to the people as well as to my oath. I just realize that at times it's going to be impossible to do them all without them conflicting. (Such as in your above hypothetical)

The oath would take top priority. Then when it comes to the others, I may just have to take a deep breath and do the best I can based on the situation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Any advice from you wiser folks will be appreciated considering I will have no idea what I'm doing come January 1. :uhoh:

Congrats and thanks for serving. It is way harder to actually serve than to sit on the sidelines and complain about how others are doing the job.

I have three areas for you to consider. Two I think are good principles, one is my personal pet-peeve:

1-We wary of giving too much deference to the unelected city employees. In my part of the world they are referred to as "staff". Especially if your office is a part time gig, it can be easy to feel like you don't have as much information as the professionals who are working full time in the various city departments. But try to remember that the city employees (including department heads) have a fundamentally different view of the universe than do the citizens at large. It isn't necessarily a wrong or bad view, it is just very different. City planners assume that the government should plan certain things that maybe ought to be left to the free market to work out. Bureaucrats tend to favor lots of rules and treating everyone and every case identically, making judgment calls is very unpleasant. But consider on the evils of zero tolerance polices and mandatory sentences that tie judges' hands.

2-Be very careful of signing up for on-going expenses when times are good. When times are bad, be careful with what areas various departments want to cut. City rec centers, parks, trails, and other amenities can help make a city a very nice place to live. But revenue gets tighter will department heads, employees, or even citizens be willing to accept reductions in the budgets of these luxury items? Or will essential services get cut so as to force the residents to accept a tax hike?

3-(My pet peeve) When it comes to zoning I believe two things should be considered: First, that nobody likes having the rules changed mid-stream. Developers love to put high density housing into established lower density areas. They make more money. They appeal to free market principles of the rights to control their property. But they carefully avoid externalities that get borne by existing residents. Nobody wants to put in adequate parking for high density, and so pre-existing neighbors often end up with parking in their areas, excessive traffic, etc. 1.8 cars per unit is laughably low, and most enclosed garages won't get used for parking cars but for storage meaning more cars to park in the non-enclosed spots. Higher density almost always means high crime, but taxes per unit will be much lower than taxes on single family homes. Again, existing residents pick up the bill for increased police coverage. Then pretty soon the higher density residents complain about the noise, or smell or whatever it is that comes from their neighbors and start demanding zoning changes to force neighbors to change their lifestyle. Secondly, be very careful of what metrics are used to make decisions. As noted above, claims about how many cars will belong to each rental unit are often laughably low. Today's family apartments become tomorrow's college housing. I've seen completely laughable and unsupportable claims about how many customers will arrive at certain venues using mass transit of car pooling. These were laughable in places like Boston. In the greater SLC area, they were so far detached from reality as to be lies from whole cloth. But city council members often do not question such metrics nearly strongly enough.

Best of luck.

Charles
 

self preservation

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
1,036
Location
Owingsville,KY
Update? How's the new "Job"? Hope all is going well.

Nothing exciting to report. We passed about 30 resolutions the first meeting. Things like housing authority board, planning and zoning board, hazardous mitigation board and a few other super boring things. I serve in a very small city, so it's not very often that the "evening news" topics come our way. We get those issues here and there, but not very often. As I stated before, the "gun issues" are under control at this time. But if the General Assembly goes full blown communist on 65.870 I may have to plead the "just because we can doesn't mean that we should" argument.
 

self preservation

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
1,036
Location
Owingsville,KY
Congrats and thanks for serving. It is way harder to actually serve than to sit on the sidelines and complain about how others are doing the job.

I have three areas for you to consider. Two I think are good principles, one is my personal pet-peeve:

1-We wary of giving too much deference to the unelected city employees. In my part of the world they are referred to as "staff". Especially if your office is a part time gig, it can be easy to feel like you don't have as much information as the professionals who are working full time in the various city departments. But try to remember that the city employees (including department heads) have a fundamentally different view of the universe than do the citizens at large. It isn't necessarily a wrong or bad view, it is just very different. City planners assume that the government should plan certain things that maybe ought to be left to the free market to work out. Bureaucrats tend to favor lots of rules and treating everyone and every case identically, making judgment calls is very unpleasant. But consider on the evils of zero tolerance polices and mandatory sentences that tie judges' hands.

2-Be very careful of signing up for on-going expenses when times are good. When times are bad, be careful with what areas various departments want to cut. City rec centers, parks, trails, and other amenities can help make a city a very nice place to live. But revenue gets tighter will department heads, employees, or even citizens be willing to accept reductions in the budgets of these luxury items? Or will essential services get cut so as to force the residents to accept a tax hike?

3-(My pet peeve) When it comes to zoning I believe two things should be considered: First, that nobody likes having the rules changed mid-stream. Developers love to put high density housing into established lower density areas. They make more money. They appeal to free market principles of the rights to control their property. But they carefully avoid externalities that get borne by existing residents. Nobody wants to put in adequate parking for high density, and so pre-existing neighbors often end up with parking in their areas, excessive traffic, etc. 1.8 cars per unit is laughably low, and most enclosed garages won't get used for parking cars but for storage meaning more cars to park in the non-enclosed spots. Higher density almost always means high crime, but taxes per unit will be much lower than taxes on single family homes. Again, existing residents pick up the bill for increased police coverage. Then pretty soon the higher density residents complain about the noise, or smell or whatever it is that comes from their neighbors and start demanding zoning changes to force neighbors to change their lifestyle. Secondly, be very careful of what metrics are used to make decisions. As noted above, claims about how many cars will belong to each rental unit are often laughably low. Today's family apartments become tomorrow's college housing. I've seen completely laughable and unsupportable claims about how many customers will arrive at certain venues using mass transit of car pooling. These were laughable in places like Boston. In the greater SLC area, they were so far detached from reality as to be lies from whole cloth. But city council members often do not question such metrics nearly strongly enough.

Best of luck.

Charles

Thank you. Very sound advice.
 

self preservation

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
1,036
Location
Owingsville,KY
That is the "just because we should (or want to) doesn't mean we can" argument.

As of now Kentucky has a pretty darn good preemption law. The city that I serve as a council member on once violated this law with signage. No doubt the mayor still wants to hang those signs, but he can't. Part of our preemption is that local governments can't prohibit their employees from carrying while on the clock. Unfortunately, that part of the preemption may be removed (or rather added). If so, no doubt the first thing that my city would want to do is prohibit city employees from carrying while on the clock. This would be when my "just because we can doesn't mean we should" argument would come in. I can't wrap my head around the idea that "Jim Bob's" life is worth defending when he is off the clock, but when "Jim Bob" is reading water meters his life now isn't as worthy of defending. In my eyes legality doesn't trump morality.
 
Top