FONT SIZE
Email this
Print this
POST A COMMENT
Locals Only: My (wire) brush with the Mayor
Note: a reader stopped by yesterday to shake my hand and say “welcome to the club”; he has also been “scrubbed” by the Mayor.
Last Wednesday at just after 4 p.m., a familiar City of Ocean Shores SUV drove into the North Coast News parking lot. Mayor Dean Bunkers got out of the vehicle, walked into my office, made a little small talk and proceeded to wire brush me.
“Wire brush” is a term I picked up from him, a military term for getting chewed out by a superior.
Bunkers was upset (to put it mildly) about a “Guest Editorial” by Al Lizakowski, which appeared on this Opinion page last week. Lizakowski insisted that Ocean Shores tax payers are being unfairly burdened, as it is, and that the City’s proposed 50 cent per thousand EMS levy is a rotten idea.
Bunkers, in an hour-long, one-sided meeting: demanded to know my code of ethics; said the Lizakowski piece was filled with errors and misstatements; wanted to know what expertise Guest Editorial writers must have; and insisted I should have made it known that Lizakowski is a part-time Ocean Shores resident who does not vote here.
The latter was the most surprising, to me. What does it matter, whether someone lives here six weeks, six months or the entire year? If he owns property and pays taxes, does going to Texas to avoid the cold and rain make someone’s opinions less valid?
•As for the code of ethics, I told Mayor Bunkers that, as a journalist, it all boils down to two things: accuracy and fairness.
I noted that, with the Lizakowski piece, I felt entirely comfortable that I had satisfied these two criteria, particularly as I forwarded a copy of the Guest Editorial to Mayor Bunkers, and another City department head, the day prior to its publication.
The day that I e-mailed him the piece, Bunkers replied: “These opinions are those of Mr. Lizakowski and solely his, and do not represent the official position of the City. The City has concerns about the facts and interpretations of some of the facts in his editorial.”
When I followed up, and asked him to be more specific, Bunkers declined, asking only that I print his response. Which I did.
Finding no errors in the figures and “factual” assertations made by Lizakowski, I also published his Guest Editorial.
•Bunkers later said I did not allow him enough time to review Lizakowski’s column. That’s a fair criticism; however, before the column was published, the mayor did not request more time to review it.
Anyone who read the previous week’s lengthy Guest Editorial, by Fire Chief Jim Hodges, would guess that the North Coast News is open to input from City officials. And I have given Mayor Bunkers a standing invitation to reply to the Lizakowsi editorial, or to have Finance Director Art Wuerth write an information piece on the EMS situation.
•What makes an expert?
Mayor Bunkers said that, when he picks up the New York Times and reads a “Guest Editorial,” he knows it is written by an expert.
To me, a “local expert” is anyone willing to take the time to ask questions and, failing to get satisfactory answers, do some research. Could be just an average citizen; for example, someone who, circa 2007, didn’t like answers he was getting from the City of Ocean Shores, and started researching transfers from utilities to the general fund . . . .
•It should be noted that the North Coast News does not, merely by publishing a “Guest Editorial” (or Letters to the Editor, for that matter), agree with the viewpoints of the author.
For example, Lizakowski expressed his view that “the city is trying to deceive us” on the EMS.
I do not agree with that.
But I stand behind his right to express it.
tscanlon@northcoastnews.com
All should know the real truth about this lid lift. It is not for just EMS. The 2009 budget calls for a total fire department (including EMS) expenditure of 737,000. This lid lift will virtually take all the fire department expenses out of the general fund, so that they will have this amount available in the 2010 budget to squander somewhere else. It should technically be called the “fire department LID lift”. What’s next, a LID lift for the police department, public works, library, etc? Then we can waste our whole city budget on items such as the $175,000 water rate reduction study. and some more additions like a nice new Taj Mahal police station and public works building.
Government has no right to suppress any opinion that a citizen has regarding their actions. The facts presented in the article were taken from another government agency that just reports the facts.
In fact, the data reported are the facts that the city created by their votes to set taxes for all our properties last year. They represent the taxes levied to run the city as they see fit.
However, we citizens have the right to protest what they see fit. That is our form of government. If they do not like the facts, then they need to show that their own votes, data, and conclusions are different. However, the science of math has not changed in hundreds of years.
Maybe some of them did not pass the WASL and therefore are lacking in knowing that a common denominator, when defined by population as it was here, will result in a value that can be compared to other values when using population as the common denominator.
So, if you take total taxes divided by population from two different cites you will get a resultant that lets you see which is higher or lower.
It works just like Miles Per Hour. We accept that value on our roads every day. We accept that we will go less miles at 25 miles per hour than if we went 35 miles per hour. The common denominator is hours. I think we all consider 60 minutes to represent 1 hour and sixty seconds equal to one minute. That said, where is the issue?
Is it that we only have a limited number of residents? That we have property tax payers that own raw land or camp sites that are not residents?
Well if that is the case, then the point made by the Guest Editorial writer is valid in that those non-resident persons are getting nothing for their money. They are the silent majority here. They do not get represented by our council or supported by staff because they do not vote and therefore do not matter.
The tax increase is still not linked to any metrics to improve the fatal flaw in the department that is supposed to get this tax money. They still fail to collect what they should be collecting. They do not bill for all the services rendered. They have expanded their range of service beyond those that pay for them to be there when they need their services.
I did enjoy the Chief’s letter. It spoke only of billing but not of collecting. He spoke to the fact that we get $140 from District 7 when we roll for one of their calls.
That missed the point that we have to be ready to roll for their calls wheither or not they call. That has a cost. The citizens of Ocean Shores are paying that cost. The citizens of District 7 are not paying that cost. Stand-by costs add up.
If you have a business and no one buys something, you still pay employees, electric, water, and insurance bills to mention only a few.
If District 7 wants EMS services, then they need to tax themselves for these services. They need to petition the County Government, their representatives, for these services.
Then we can return to serving Ocean Shores. We will be there within reasonable times without calling in extra teams or having extra teams on stand-by to cover our calls.
We should bill every call. If we do not, then we are passing the costs to the others in the community. Stop the free lunch billing process. If you call, stop in for services, or we roll because of a situation that you find yourself in, then you need to pay for those services.
Good job Tom in surviving the wire brush treatment. I suggest you go by the Fire Department for some salve. We need the revenue.
If the guest editor’s information is correct no citizen should be voting for this property tax increase. The city administration and it’s employees want the tax increase so they will be against any information that strengthens the argument against it no matter how valid the argument.
Tom,
I agree with your right to express that he has the right to express something that you do not agree with.
I also find it odd that a newspaper’s ethics would be in question for allowing free speech. Your basically just another Fox or MSNBC aren’t you?
Is it unethical for City government to express their opinion that the guest editorial writer is not worthy of commenting on City issues? I thought this would be a rhetorical question when I was writing it, but maybe it isn’t. I think I would tend to answer no it is not unethical, but maybe slightly short of complete acumen