News-Miner Editorial
A wrong vote
Council decision on firefighters contract drags out a sore issue
Published Thursday, May 22, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!You would think that an issue as important to the city of Fairbanks as settling a long-running contract standoff with the firefighters union would be reason to want all six City Council members in their chairs at voting time.
You would be wrong, of course. At least, that’s apparently the view of those council members who saw fit to press ahead on the issue Monday night without the presence of Councilman Bernard Gatewood.
It’s unclear how Councilman Gatewood would have voted had he been there, but there’s a chance he would have voted in favor of the proposed contract. He said Tuesday that he was “leaning toward” voting in favor of the agreement. That would have caused a tie on the council, with Mayor Terry Strle then likely to cast the tie-breaking vote in favor of the agreement.
But it didn’t happen because those opposed to the agreement — council members Lloyd Hilling, Chad Roberts and Vivian Stiver — also voted against a proposal to delay action on the contract until Councilman Gatewood, who was out of town, returned to the city later this week. That was a particularly interesting move given that Councilwoman Stiver previously obtained a delay of a public hearing on this very contract because she wanted additional time to review it. Could it be that it’s OK to delay something when it suits her?
The decision by the contract’s opponents shouldn’t surprise anyone. It’s standard practice in any governing body to take political advantage of a colleague’s absence. What’s unfortunate here is that politics took priority over putting an end to a disagreement with the city’s firefighters.
Councilman John Eberhart had it right in a comment he made to a Daily News-Miner reporter Tuesday: “It was an important issue that the parties have been negotiating for four years, and I thought everyone should weigh in.”
The firefighters contract is one of those volatile topics that needed to be handled by a vote of the full council so as to bring about confidence that the final decision is truly representative of the will of the city’s leaders. What we probably have now, as a result of Monday’s council action, is a continuation of hard feelings.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
If it was important to him, he would have cast the vote telephonically. Whatever he was involved in at around 8pm in Barrow could have waited a few minutes for this 'important' vote.
The mayor appointed him to back her up, of this I am sure - looks like she should have picked another croney.
Again I say, Good Job City Council.
The vote was already delayed once - - I guess they could have continued to delay it until the outcome favored what the mayor wanted.
The rules are in place for a reason - and they only require a quorum of attendees - - - I would bet if the vote went in the other direction there would be no DNM editorial stating outrage!
Once again, the bias speaks volumes.
The council did what it did. I disagree with it, but honor left politics looong ago. The headline should have been.."Councilman Hilling owes no one respect". That will make a great soundbyte for whomever runs against him this election cycle. That statement, about a fellow councilperson, is appalling. Same on you Lloyd Hilling.
It's interesting how the person who wrote this article hides behind the term "News-Miner Editorial". We have all known for decades what slant the Fairbanks Daily News Miner takes and here is a great example of that stupidity.
Funny how they 'encourage' for the people using the comments section to reveal their names, but they, themselves, hide behind 'editorial'
Quote from the editor from commenting on comments....
"But this isn’t about me, or what I want. The News-Miner provides this forum, and while it may not be directly responsible for the contents of the comments, the comments do reflect upon this institution as well as this community. Therefore we take our participation policy seriously and that is why we encourage people to use their real names and why no one can comment on this site without first acknowledging they have read and understand the participation policy."
a double standard I think!!!
When the rules dont give you the outcome you wont,just change the rules. Perhaps the "editoral staff" at the newsless miner should be getting paid by the Fire fighters union, or are they?
"Could it be ok to delay something when it suits her?" Well HELLO, perhaps that is why she is the MAYOR and not some unknown staff member at a two cent newsless paper.. get real.... (I did not vote for the present mayor)
The editorial is right on. Some of these comments are shameful, but...it's just my opinion.
Personally, I think unions have long out-lived their welcome. They were well needed in the time of woman and children working in sweat shops. As it is in today's society, with well educated individuals, human rights and equal oportunity laws, as well as the competitive market in the workforce, it would seem to me, they are just a drain on government funds, our taxes, and reduce funds available for other needed services.
And yes, I love the bias this column seems to have. Seems like it was a job given to some write unable to maintain objectivity. Though they may represent the NM, it's clear they don't represent the majority of the readers. Damn shame there's only one newspaper in this town. The competition would do them some good. They're too complacent.
PS. It is possible for local governments to "de-unionize"
Personally, I think unions have long out-lived their welcome. They were well needed in the time of woman and children working in sweat shops. As it is in today's society, with well educated individuals, human rights and equal oportunity laws, as well as the competitive market in the workforce, it would seem to me, they are just a drain on government funds, our taxes, and reduce funds available for other needed services.
And yes, I love the bias this column seems to have. Seems like it was a job given to some writer unable to maintain objectivity. Though they may represent the NM, it's clear they don't represent the majority of the readers. Damn shame there's only one newspaper in this town. The competition would do them some good. They're too complacent.
PS. It is possible for local governments to "de-unionize"
James is rehashing some old ground.
This, from an earlier entry in my editor's blog:
"The masthead in the print edition of the News-Miner lists members of the editorial board including myself, Publisher Marilyn Romano, Assistant Managing Editor Rod Boyce, Columnist Dermot Cole and Publisher Emeritus Charles Gray.
Each day the paper and our Web site feature what some call an “unsigned editorial” that is representative of the newspaper’s and the board’s view..."
http://newsminer.com/weblogs/editors-des...
Maybe the firefighters should hire some of the Hollywood writers who were on strike to negotiate a fair contract with the city...
A contract as a work of fiction? We already have that. Sorry that was snide, even for me.
lol, ahem.
Wondertwin2 is on your side Sean, I think her snideness was showing through a bit there to.
Agree with the NM as a whole or not the facts are pretty hard to dispute.
This contract has been in the works for over 3 years.
At the last council meeting Stiver had the vote postponed so she could have more time to review the contract.
At this meeting, Stiver votes against postponing the vote because she says its disrespectful to the people of Fbks to postpone it any further.
The biggest difference between the two meetings? The absence of a potentially "Fire fighter sympathetic" council member.
Yeah, thats not suspicious ONE BIT. Nope, not at all. Far be it for me to call Stiver a manipulative hypocrite....
Anyway, back to the point. This contract was a big issue that the city has been dealing with for years. I agree with Eberhart that on a matter such as this one the full council should be present.
I believe in the article about this yesterday it doesn't say why he didn't vote remotely. It may be that the council doesn't allow that. Would be worth looking into.
Bugger - the woman who voted to postpone the vote last time and voted against postponing it this time is not the mayor.
I think he should have voted, could have voted, but declined to be availible to vote. Many council members have voted when not in town...especially when important issues are in front of the council.
Did Mr. Gatewood not get a copy of the agenda?
Mr. Gatewood knew where other council members were at with this issue. He voted "no" without casting an actual vote.
Right now it's all speculation on why he didn't vote. Anything said here is just rumor and gossip until he, the council or someone official makes a statement as to why he didn't vote from Barrow.
Aidey -
It is speculation, but the mayor herself said he was busy at a meeting up north during her request for an extension.
The vote was at around 8pm....he knew about the vote....there are phones up north....he can vote by telephone....therefore, he chose not to vote
The council acted as per the bi-laws and a quorum was present ... they did nothing wrong. Blame the person at fault - the person who missed the vote!
End of Story
--------------------------------
Oh - and Kelly - thanks for the link to your 'unsigned' comments blog
I especially appreciated the first two comments on that article and I agree with them fully.
Sadly through the tones of your editorials you tend to present your bias as fact and your tone is always one of arrogance.
How sure you are that all of us are uneducated masses! You truly believe that you and your editorial staff alone know the proper direction Fairbanks should take.
Very sad your opinions differ so greatly from the majority of people who live here.
You know it's a free country. If you don't like how the Newsminer does things start your own paper. It's not easy I tried. Everyone in this town is quick to point fingers but won't back up their own words.
Akguy - As far as I can tell from the information on the subject, the mayor had nothing to do with the vote being delayed or not. That was Vivian Stiver.
We also don't know that he didn't call in and was told there was a quorum without him so he didn't need to be there. Or he could have be on a plane back to Fairbanks at the time. My point is we don't know, and assuming that he just didn't vote for the heck of it isn't going to get us anywhere.
Is anybody sure Councilman Gatewood would have voted for the contract. Given the short time he had to review the document and the history which produced this final product perhaps the budget shortfalls predicted would have kicked in his fiscally responsible attitude.
And passing the darn thing 'cause we been working on it for four years is not being responsible. If the Mayor wants this feather in her cap I suggest she apply her fiscally responsible attitude and start burning the midnight oil to correct the issues we know three councilmembers were concerned with.
If it would have been a tie vote from the council the Mayor would have voted to approve the contract. This we all know. We don't know if she actually even read the contract or just found a clump of paperwork left on her desk from the last Mayor and just wanted to clean up her desk. Has anybody seen the check book lately?
Kelly,
I'm so glad that we know that these pieces are the opinion of you, Marilyn, Rod, Dermot and Mr. Gray. I like to know who I will be taking to task.
I find it laughable that you are casting aspersions at Councilwoman Stiver,
“Councilwoman Stiver previously obtained a delay of a public hearing on this very contract because she wanted additional time to review it.”
Only to then insinuate that it was because of her personal motivations,
“Could it be that it’s OK to delay something when it suits her?”
There is a truth, which you as a capable newsperson (people) should well know. Stiver, as a member of the Finance Committee, asked for the delay so that former Councilman Jeff Johnson (out of town at that time) could review the contract and give his considerable expertise to ALL members of the Committee. Johnson was asked to calculate the final cost of all facets of the contract, giving the members valuable insight into what would be the true cost to the taxpayers of the City.
This exposes a pattern of behavior on the part of the Mayor. Johnson was asked to calculate the costs, because the Mayor had ignored requests from the finance committee to establish the ‘true and actual’ final costs, instead providing politically motivated numbers that showed fictitious savings and creative financing. This is exactly the same thing that happened during the recent debate on annexation of the University Avenue area. The Mayor refused to provide the long term, full and continuing costs of the annexation until after the vote was taken. Therefore the Committee had no choice but to ask for Johnson to try to provide them with the answers that they sought in regards to those costs.
He did so, and the Majority of the Committee found those costs to be too high. It was in part on Johnson’s input that the Council members made their decision. There was no further need to delay a vote once the facts were placed on the table.
As for Councilman Bernard Gatewood’s absence. With all due respect to the Councilman, if he had something better to do in Barrow at 8pm on a Monday night then maybe the Mayor picked the wrong man for the job. To the reports that he had a ‘meeting’ that he must attend, you would think that being a civic leader and an elected (err…appointed) official would give him a valid excuse for a temporary or short absence.
All this points to the fact that Stiver did not delay the vote for her own personal amusement. In fact if any of you had bothered to show up at ANY of the Citizens Review Fire Committee meetings held over the last year. You would have seen Councilwoman Stiver standing up for the Firefighters more often than not against the tough questions and allegations of “Shock Jocks” like myself and other members of the CRFC.
Again to the editorial board, put some personal friendships aside and get some perspective.
FYI, I Michael Dukes, not a board, wrote this opinion piece.
So according to Michael Dukes, it is okay to postpone so that a FORMER council member can review the document, but not okay to postpone so that a CURRENT council member can vote?
Also, the idea of Vivian Stiver standing up for the firefighters is laughable. She has little or no appreciation for the service they provide this community.
Big Mike-
We do not have to assume there is shady politics going on. We know there is because we know those facts. We do not know Why the councilman was gone or otherwise unable to vote. So, to review...If we KNOW it is not an ASSUMPTION.
Michael Dukes-
So it is OK to postpone a vote so a current council member can have her "expert" (a former council member) give them the "real" numbers on a contract. That just stinks like shady politics. But hey, if she agrees with you then it must be roses you are smelling.
Thank you Mr Dukes for giving your opinion. Probably the only one worth a salt on here since you were part of the Review Committee.
I look forward to hearing your show on the morrow.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.