1 2 > 
1 of 2
Makes sense to me….
Posted: 13 April 2014 03:54 PM   [ Ignore ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  797
Joined  2012-10-10

Well, I see the Agenda for Tuesday’s Commission Meeting isn’t.  The gavel will be handed from Matta to Butler.  There is a Consent Agenda, which is simply items of a housekeeping nature.  Nothing shown as agenda items beyong the Consent Agenda.  Guess it was pretty clear, during last Tuesday’s Work Session, that this Commission already has their minds made up on issues and would rather not have to sit through public input.  Let’s just not publish any items that we will act on so we aren’t bothered with the “little people”... or, “special interest groups”... who aren’t nearly as versed on these issues as those who sit behind the dais.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 April 2014 06:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  738
Joined  2013-07-13

The teabagger’s version of “representative government”.  One can’t listen to only those interested enough to come and petition the commission.  They’re just a bunch special interests in rose-colored glasses. One must serve the “backdoor/backroom” boys who send emails and voice their opinions in “private conversations”.  Isn’t that what you said, Wynn?  Oh, and “staff”.  Can’t forget about THEIR desires.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 April 2014 08:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  797
Joined  2012-10-10

This is one of the reasons why I find it such an appearance of impropriety when the City Commissioners attend the Chamber’s lobby session in Kansas City.  Commissioners… our elected representatives… will make a 250 mile round trip and listen to two full days of lobbying by the Chamber.  They spend these two full days getting “baptized” into the Chamber/CVB cult so they can hand over $1 million in tax dollars to that entity.  Commissioners will readily spend this much time with the Chamber, yet will make jokes about the input of Manhattan citizens at the public meetings.  And, I know Wynn did not attend the January lobby session.  However, I believe the other 4 commissioners did. 
As Wynn takes the Mayor’s gavel, I hope he no longer refers to the citizens who want their wishes known as “special interest groups”... that is unless he will also begin to referring to the Chamber/CVB as a “special interest group”.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 April 2014 06:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  479
Joined  2012-10-10

Larry the Chamber does meet the definition of special interest group:

An interest group (also called an advocacy group, lobbying group, pressure group, or special interest) is a group, however loosely or tightly organized, that is determined to encourage or prevent changes in public policy without trying to be elected.  Randal that definition does also apply to most citizens.  It does not carry an overt negative connotation, it is much different then terminology that you use to refer to the Governor or the TEA Party. 

By the way I will not be going to Overland Park on the City Dime in 2015.  The other four Commissioners might, that is their call.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 April 2014 07:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  738
Joined  2013-07-13

” All it takes is three votes and I have to hand it to the special interest group, the propaganda presented was excellent.  You are correct also on why did no one speak in favor of the project?  Many did by email, but none came to the meeting,”~ Wynn, Sept. 2013.

“Propaganda”?  Not negative?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 April 2014 08:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  479
Joined  2012-10-10

Randal:  I agree on that one.  The comment was posted or made in regard to the Save the Stage Special Interest Group.  I gave them credit for a great presentation.  That would be the point of being a special interest group to sway the vote, they did causing one Commissioner to switch – Rich Jankovich.  But, I did use the term propaganda to describe part of the presentation, which I agree can have a negative connotation. It is defined as - a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.  I believe the term fits with the presentation made,  The presentation that I reference is the one with the Uncle Sam figure, the fact that all veterans want to save the stage and the point pushing the stage as a WWII memorial.  The presentation was not fact based, , as not all veterans agree on the topic and clearly the evidence of the plaque clearly indicated that it is not a WWII memorial.  But as special interest groups go, this one is one of the best two or three in the city, at least in driving toward mission accomplishment.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 April 2014 08:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  738
Joined  2013-07-13

That’s just silly, Wynn.  “All veterans” aren’t going to agree on any topic.  The fact that veterans designed the building as a representative group, not as individuals, seems to be something you can’t wrap your head around.  But, maybe it’s because you don’t want to.  The fact that you belittle and ignore those who presented… who expressed real concern and dedicated real effort, while citing invisible “emails” and “conversation” as “public support” for your little crusade, shows that you don’t understand your job as a commissioner.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 April 2014 02:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  479
Joined  2012-10-10

Randall:  You are back in the propaganda realm that we wrote about earlier.  Not sure where you got the idea that veterans designed the building, they had some input, but it would be misleading - as in propaganda to say that only veterans designed the building.  If they did then once again they clearly failed - if the mission was to create a WWII monument.  Remember the plaque –no mention of WWII.  Facts ate stubborn things.  I will continue to respect the WWII veterans, like my dad, and all veterans having spent 25 years in the Infantry.  I will also respectfully disagree with a number of folks on a wide range of topics, including fellow veterans.  But candor is many times in order and necessary.  The stage is not a memorial, the building is and the building was never dedicated as a WWII memorial.  WWII is mentioned in the 1955 dedication Ceremony by stating that the idea of a functional memorial was conceived after WWII.  The inscription on the plaque states – in all caps – THIS BUILDING IS DEDICATED TO THE MEMORY OF OUR EARLY SETTLES WHOSE VISION IDEALS AND UNITY OF PURPOSE GAVE OUR CITY ITS ENDURING CHARACTER .  . . . AND TO THOSE PATRIOTIC CITIZENS WHO SACRIFICED THEIR LIVES SO THAT AMERICAN DEMOCRACY MIGHT BE PRESERVED.  A concise history and picture of the plaque can be seen viewed at the posted links.  One thing is evident from the document presented at the first list – the process was arduous – 1938 until dedication of the building in 1955.  Many changes, a couple of no votes by the citizens on funding, and no less than 45 civic organizations were involved in the process – not just veterans.  The historical record is what it is, and it is open to interpretation.  The stage group has looked at the historical record and determined that the stage is a WWII memorial build for the WWII veterans.  I read the same documents and reach a different conclusion.  I believe that many wanted or wished the stage and or building to be a WWII memorial, but failed in that wish, otherwise the plaque would not be worded as it is.  I believe that in all of the emotion surrounding the building and stage the idea of a living memorial has been lost.  In either case the primary goal is a new P&R building or offices.  That will be achieved.  A second goal is to increase indoor gym space that will also be achieved.  Both of these goals will happen with or without the stage.  The stage is not the primary focus of the 2014 commission established goals.

http://ourmanhattan.org/images/1955_City_Auditorium,_City_Offices_Planning,_Developing,_Utililizing.pdf
http://ourmanhattan.org/images/092655_Peace_Memorial_Auditorium_Dedication_Ceremony_Program.pdf
http://ourmanhattan.org/newsandevents/areaphotoalbums.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 April 2014 03:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  738
Joined  2013-07-13

Yes, facts are stubborn things.  Fact:  Veterans, acting not as individuals, but as an organization, dedicated time and effort into the design of the building.  This design designated use.  The modesty of these veterans is on display here.. rather than trumpet their own personal history, they chose to include ALL VETERANS on the plaque.  It’s pompous and delusional to construe the lack of chest-thumping as a “failure” or a “lack of purpose”.  You read the plaque as a lawyer would, deciding what was intended by omission.  I read it as a generous tribute to ALL VETERANS, not just those who served in WWII.  It’s not for YOU to decide whether their efforts were a “failure” or not.  It’s your job to respect their efforts and the sacrifices that they worked to honor.

Could it be that, by the time this plaque was affixed, Korean War vets were returning?  Might it be that the wording was changed to include THEM in the memorial?  This kind of generosity and community appreciation USED to be common among veterans.

You’re not seeing this because you don’t want to, not because it’s not there in plain view.

NEW OFFICES FOR P&R! THY WILL BE DONE.  No matter the people you have to dump on in the process, eh?

And, please, don’t post links to your PAC as if they mean something.  Your posting of your own PAC’s propaganda, while crying “PROPAGANDA” at anyone who presents to the commission any information that, in any way, is contrary to your pre-determined opinion, is height of hypocrisy.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 April 2014 08:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  479
Joined  2012-10-10

Randall:  The links were to the historical record.  Some are large and the OM site provides a service by housing the material for your viewing pleasure.  Happy Easter.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 April 2014 11:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  738
Joined  2013-07-13

And a happy Ishtar to you, Wynn.  May your bunnies be as prolific as.. well.. bunnies, and all your eggs be fertile.

What’s your PAC doing with city planning documents?  If they’re not on the city website, why not?  It’s shouldn’t be necessary to navigate to a propaganda website to view documents under discussion, should it?  What’s to guarantee that docs couldn’t be altered to bolster your PAC’S agenda?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 April 2014 10:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  479
Joined  2012-10-10

I am glad you are a fan of Easter.  I had a great holiday in Arkansas with my grandson.  Some of the documents may not be on the city website, or if they are I have a difficult time finding them.  I am not sure all of the historical items were archived as part of the city files.  The stuff posted on the OM site is easy to access as reference, especially large files.  We would not alter the content of a historical document as that would defeat the purpose of posting and would also do a number on credibility.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 April 2014 10:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  738
Joined  2013-07-13

Valentine’s Day too, Wynn!  What better time than the middle of February to remind many people that they’re all alone?

I don’t understand.  How is it your PAC has access to city documents that aren’t available to the public? 

When you say “we”, of whom do you speak?  Why should we be discussing the credibility of your propaganda website when we’re speaking of city documents?  How are those supposed to be connected, in your mind?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 April 2014 01:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  479
Joined  2012-10-10

Randall:  The OM website has a direct link to NSA and so can download almost anything.  The reality is that many of the documents (all open record) are easy to find during the week or month of the meeting.  After that they go into the city archive.  That archive is generally by date of meeting and not topic.  So a lot of the stuff just takes time to find.  So the OM website on occasion puts useful documents in place.  You can look around on the city website for the public documents - http://www.ci.manhattan.ks.us/archive.aspx  Most are PDF files and are easy to download and then place on your computer or maybe another website for easy reference.  As public documents are open record,  we are not doing a Snowden by forwarding, linking or posting to other locations.  We by the way is in reference to the folks that put stuff on the OM website.  Those folks being one of the special interest groups in our community.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 April 2014 02:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  738
Joined  2013-07-13

That doesn’t make any sense, Wynn. No one said anything about secret documents. A link to city archives should work any time, don’t you think?  No need to route people through a shadow website.  Public documents posted on a political site, by definition, have to be suspect.

Why would your political funding website have any interest in where Parks and Recs. offices are constructed?  Do any of the city managers or staff belong to your PAC?  Or are you using the royal “we” as in, you and that polished horseapple in your pocket?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 April 2014 06:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  289
Joined  2012-10-10

Yeah, I gotta say I’m not real keen on a special interest group providing government documents “as a service” to citizens. It feels a little like trying to lure people to your website when they just want official docs.

I really, really want to bring up that “Mr. Kaw” thing from the old forums, but I won’t. OH WAIT

Profile
 
 
   
 1 2 > 
1 of 2
 

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | The Manhattan Mercury, 318 North 5th Street, Manhattan, Kansas, 66502

Reproduction of any kind is prohibited without written consent.