Is anyone surprised by the Cox letter printed in the July 2 Explorer?
Certainly those of us that know first hand about his words & deeds expected nothing less.
For perhaps the first time in history, Oro Valley is blessed to have a majority of thoughtful, intelligent citizens on the Town Council serving the citizens.
Opening the Board of Adjustments to other qualified citizens was a very wise decision by this council---against the wishes of Mayor Loomis & Vice Mayor Kunisch.
Cox couldn't or wouldn't accept this decision graciously. Instead, he---as usual saw fit to denigrate some unnamed council members by writing:
"But more importantly and, in my opinion, much more to the point, you cannot have elected officials running to one another lobbying to get their cronies appointed to the boards and commissions for the sole purpose of tilting a board or commission toward their own political and / or personal philosophy. Unfortunately, this happened repeatedly during this most recent cycle of interviews."
This is just another example of why Cox should not be worthy of being on this too important board. The fact that there were only 3 applicants for 3 positions does not mean you have to accept them. The majority of this council shows wisdom that has always been lacking here!
Read the Cox opinion here.
http://www.explorernews.com/articles/2008/07/02/opinion/editorials/doc486aa86ad27a8599143302.txt
41 comments:
I could dissect much of Cox's article, but I'll focus on this one statement.
He said, "I was asked a question by the town council liaison during my P&Z interview that was not asked of any other candidate."
He states this as being a FACT.
Then he goes on to say, "At least, I sincerely hope it was not."
Now he turns his FACT into merely an assumption. THIS from a man who constantly chastises the rest of us if we ever dare to make a statement that he doesn't consider to be "fact-based."
On another topic, Boobie-baby, you asked a question under the OV Marketplace-Absolute Genius posts. I answered your question if you'd like to go back and read it.
VC..... I truly wish that I could share the information with you. At some point you will understand my hesitancy in discussing the issue.
I just love it. (Not sure if a pun was intended)I can see it now....Art sipping on his morning coffee at his computer and looking at the Explorer on line. He sees my guest column and gets so excited that he can't wait to make some kind of response where he can use the word "denigrate". In his highly excercised, wound up state he can't even prepare the headline accurately. You just gotta love it.
But I digress.
In previous years the majority of the Town council have been thoughtless and stupid. Those are the antonyms to the description used by Art. Of course that would not fall into the 'Art' definition of denigration.
At some point, and maybe the following is a foolish expectation on my part, I would hope that Mr. Segal would respond to the issues that has been put forward and not the person expressing the opinion.
To date he appears to be incapable of doing that.
While I have not been a 100% supporter of OVOT, he has hint of a valid point. The bigger issue, though, is that it is actually a SMALL issue. Who sits on the Board of Adjustment is tiny potatoes. They hear relatively few cases, and those they hear may involve someone who wants his garage to jut out more toward the street, or who wants to build around a boulder in his back yard.
OVOT and the bloggers here have overblown this one. I would like to see ONE other blogger step forward and apply for the spot on the B of A. Any takers????
(Don't suggest me--I'm not qualified).
Boobie-baby,
I happen to know that at least one of the other bloggers HAS applied. And no, it wasn't me.
I do agree with you that the Board of Adjustment is relatively small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. What upset some people was that the board was going to be stacked with pro-development board members and they wanted more diversity in its members. What upset other people was that they didn't feel that Alan Dankwerth should be rewarded with a position on ANY board after exhibiting such uncivil behavior in public, and after Cox called the majority of the current council members "lemmings" among other things, some felt that he, too, was lacking in civility.
VC....The decisions made by members of the Board of Adjust seldom (I can think of one in the last 5 years) have anything to do with developers. Most of the cases that come before the BOA are set-back exceptions. One recently had to do with lot acreage requirements in the LaCholla Air Park area. When you combine that with the fact that there are relatively strict criteria (5) already set on what can and cannot be allowed by the BOA there is virtually no room for someone with a developer background to have any effect on the outcome pro or con. So the concern about the BOA being too overweighted with development types is nothing but a red herring. The very best candidates for the BOA are people who have an extensive knowledge of the Oro Valley Zoning Codes.
Speaking of red herrings your second point is also just that. The term "lemmings" is often used to denote an individual or group who simply follow along because others are leading the way. That is the context in which the statement was made most right-minded folks understood that. You are the first person who has made any specific reference to that usage. I would also suggest the if that comment was offensive to any Town Council member(s) then they had better develop a tougher skin. That's mild compared to being called thoughtless or stupid. While this post is relatively new, it is interesting that no one (except me) has taken exception to Mr. Segal's comments.
If you or others ever wanted to objectively look at my conduct while conducting Town business to see if I had "civility" you need only to ask those who have observed or served with me as a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission. I will allow that record to speak for itself should you choose to inquire.
People should be selected on all boards and commissions on the basis of the criteria I referenced in today's Explorer. Nothing more and certainly nothing less.
OV thinker, wellllll...... I understand that YOU contributed financially to Mr. Gillaspie's campaign, which Mr. McNamara forgot to mention in his article. Is that why YOU were chosen to sit on the Board of Adjustments.
According to YOUR logic, this would naturally follow and you would be one of his "croonies" so he would choose you. Truly I don't believe that Mr. Gillaspie would behave in such a manner, I am just following your logic,faulty as it appears to be.
Thinker,
I said that "some people" were concerned about the pro-development bias. I didn't say that I felt that way. Although I am part of the "some people" who were concerned with civility issues.
My dictionary defines lemming as "any of the various rodents of the genus lemmus." So it stands to reason that some "right-minded" people would assume you were calling the council members "rodents" when you made that statement.
But speaking of civility issues, how do YOU feel about this issue in general? Do you think that citizens who have a mean-spirited attitude or a history of public outbursts, such as Dankwerth, should be rewarded for this behavior with appointments to boards and commissions?
I personally think that maturity is just as important as being well-versed on P&Z laws.
It also looked suspicious when no one who graduated from the CPI was contacted about the openings. It gave the appearance that someone at the Town Hall was trying to fill the slots with their "cronies." That doesn't mean that this is what transpired. I'm just saying that that was the appearance.
Dancer...
Let's clarify. The story that Mr. McNamara wrote was about those speaking against my selection and their contributions, not about Mr. Gillaspie. You are correct,I did contribute to Mr. Gillaspie's campaign. And just like donations to Terry Parish there is no quid pro quo for campaign contributions. It does not equate to cronyism or favoritism as you and many on this blog have tried to forward.
You also make the assumption, and falsely I might add, that I was referring only to those recently elected when I made the 'crony' comment.
And lastly, I was selected based on my experience, my qualifications and how well I performed upon interview by a panel of three individuals, including Mr. Gillaspie. And at least two of the three have personally observed my "civility" as a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission for five years and could make an objective assessment of same, unlike the individual who spoke against my appointment. Obviously two out of the three (and maybe all three) voted to recommend my appointment.
Any questions?
Just one question, Objective Thinker. Why are you so hot over this? We're talking a volunteer, appointed job that doesn't pay anything. Be nice (for you) if you got it; but is this really going to make that big a difference in you life if you don't?
Zeeman...Thank you for bringing up a very good question because it allows me to address other issues.
I applied for positions on the P&Z, DRB and the BOA. My instructions to those interviewing which I passed on to a Council member and members of town staff were that I didn't care on which board I served, I simply wanted to do what I could to serve my community. This has been my goal in years past and continues to be my goal.
As part of Mr. Segal's post he stated the following: "Cox couldn't or wouldn't accept this decision graciously." I accepted the decision very graciously. I have not made any statement to the effect that I thought the decision was unfair. I am more than willing (not that I have any control) to have others interviewed. If they can present better qualifications and convince the interview panel of such then I am as happy as a clam. I have interviewed for other positions before and not been chosen and didn't never said a word.
But you know as well as I do what took place here. It has nothing to do with my qualifications. It has nothing to do with my "civility".
As people have already stated it has to do with my postings on this blog. It has everything to do with my disagreement with the Doug McKee extension. Dick, you know as well as I do what this is all about. That's why it is important.
There is much that you don't know that, as I have said to Cowgirl, I simply cannot discuss at this time. But believe me when I tell you that the process for selecting candidates has been tainted by the ego of an existing Town Council member, the inexperience of the two newest members (and in all fairness to them, they have probably been given bad information by the aforementioned Town Council member)
and other folks that you know well but at this time will remain nameless.
Whether I get the position or not, I will go onward enjoying my wonderful blessed life, playing softball, golfing and spend many hours on the Arizona lakes fishing for bass.
I am hot over the pollution of the selection process, not whether I am approved or dispproved.
Where the system truly fell apart was that these openings were NOT publicized as such in a manner that would have indicated that there truly was an appeal for widespread participation. Excuses rolled out of staff as to why they did not utilize proper and/or expanded notification procedures. Because many in this community have felt that there has been a kind of secretive attitude towards the general cizenry in many aspects of the of procedural as well as actual applications of the dictates of our rules and regs in past times, it was thus that this particular process became suspect, too. Yes, certain perceived character deficiencies towards Mr. Cox and Mr. Dankwerth and questions about the third candidate were posed in said meeting but, truly, the underlying actuality and basis for opposition was that community participation/notification had been hidden by the usual 'small print'. As to the qualifications that Mr. Cox refers to, I would argue that, having observed one HEAD COG in the zoning department fumble, stutter, fail to enforce, admit to 'not knowing', etc., well, that person would apparently not qualify according to his standards either; and that person gets paid an enormous amount of money to KNOW!
Is Don Cox his own worst enemy? In the final analysis I would have to say 'yes'. Mr. Cox does have a very tangible knowledge of much factual information and I believe that he most probably attempts to explore information on a perpetual basis; that's the good. However, his conclusions are sometimes difficult to rationalize and are spinned especially when they reflect, and they many times do, his extreme biases towards either the issue OR those that might disagree.
Don Cox, people who are in public service, paid or not, must not be abrasive or abusive towards ANYONE within the constituency whether it's on this blog or wherever or to whomever! Public servants ARE held to higher standards than the served. Argue a point, yes, act with cycinicism, no. Are you capable of those things positive? Probably yes. Do you practice those attributes necessary to endear yourself to the general community? Obviously not.
Mr. Cox,
You wrote: “I have not made any statement to the effect that I thought the decision was unfair.”
Yet you wrote in your opinion piece, “when our elected town council officials are so intimately involved in the interview, selection and approval process, there will be political pressure not only from within, but from their constituent base who have supported them (both financially and in-kind) to appoint individuals who are philosophically aligned to the town council liaison.”
So are you saying that Councilmember Gillaspie appointed you because you donated money to his campaign?
You also wrote: “you cannot have elected officials running to one another lobbying to get their cronies appointed to the boards and commissions for the sole purpose of tilting a board or commission toward their own political and / or personal philosophy. Unfortunately, this happened repeatedly during this most recent cycle of interviews.”
What evidence to you have to support this claim?
OV Mom...You obviously have not read my previous posts. The answer to your questions are container therein.
OV Mom...Just noticed a typo...contained.
Mr. Cox,
I read your previous posts again, but I still couldn't find the answer. Would you be so kind as to cut and paste the answer for me?
What evidence do you have to support your claim that elected officials were "running to one another lobbying to get their cronies appointed to the boards and commissions for the sole purpose of tilting a board or commission toward their own political and / or personal philosophy"?
OV Mom... I have previously stated that there are occurances which I cannot discuss. To do so would not only betray confidences that I have given but would bring embarassment to the Town. That's not my cup of tea.
I doubt that this will suffice and satisfy your curiosity. Frankly, that is not my concern at this point and you really don't need to know the specifics.
Rather than request the information from me I suggest that YOU go directly to the Council members and ask them.
Zev...
The process for notifying the citizenry of openings on boards and commissions has been and continues to be quite successful. There are notices placed in The Explorer and AZ Daily Star. There are notifications placed on the Town web site. The application is readily available at the Town web site.
There were more than enough qualified candidates for the P&Z and DRB. One of the reasons few people apply for the BOA is the fact that it isn't as well known and not as well understood. So I do not agree with your initial assessment of "the system truly fell apart".
As for your position on my "extreme biases", don't be surprised that I once again disagree. They are "extreme biases" from YOUR viewpoint. I am "abrasive" from YOUR viewpoint. But when Mr. Segal refers to former elected officials as thoughtless and stupid, that is acceptable to you. Therefore I must put both of those observations into their proper prospective and make a judgement of what you consider to be abraisive.
I attended a meeting this morning attended by 35-40 people, many of which are residents of Oro Valley or own businesses in Oro Valley. 8-10 of them thought my recent publication in the Explorer was "insightful", "well-presented" and "needed to be said." Interestingly enough, not one used the word "denigrate".
Zev, I have not been what would be considered today as politically correct for 64 years. There is probably a good chance that I will not morph into a politically correct creature before I go to the Big Bass Lake in the sky. But you will know where I stand on an issue and seldom will you have to come back and say that you didn't understand. We dance around far too many critical issues because "we might offend someone's feelings".
VC....
I just noticed your most recent post. Pardon me for not responding sooner.
As far as I know, graduates from the CPI are not routinely notified personally of openings. They are told where to look when openings occur. I am a CPI graduate and have never been notified. I think to do so is a waste of town staff time to notify CPI graduates. Your talking about 400-500 people some of which are no longer residents. Individuals need to make some effort on their own.
As for civility. I have heard of the incident you refer to and I also know that the "upstanding citizen" that people refer to is Mr. Segal, who was at the time, according to what I have heard, interupting and being rude (certainly bot being civil) to then Councilwoman Dankwerth. Now I have never seen Mr. Dankwerth become abusive but I have observed Mr.Segal being disruptive at public meetings on more than one occasion.
You use the term "rewarded". I don't view selection as being rewarded. To be an effective member of the P&Z you have to be ready to devote several hours (far more than just the actual meeting time)of your personal time. The only reward is when you walk away knowing that you have made a proper decision.
In my opinion, the only people that would make the lemming/rodent leap are those who are simply looking for an excuse to be critical. If I wanted to refer to them as rodents I would have done so. I seldom mix my words.
Have a great 4th of July everyone and be proud of your country!!!
I certainly don't need to defend myself to Cox, but I wanted to make sure our readers noted, that as usual he uses 2nd hand information.
He writes: "I have heard----according to what I heard ---" (We won't address his butchering the English language.)
"As for civility. I have heard of the incident you refer to and I also know that the "upstanding citizen" that people refer to is Mr. Segal, who was at the time, according to what I have heard, interupting and being rude (certainly bot being civil) to then Councilwoman Dankwerth. Now I have never seen Mr. Dankwerth become abusive but I have observed Mr.Segal being disruptive at public meetings on more than one occasion."
Cox is nothing more than innuendo, half truths, gossip and for the most part, not to be believed.
As for his response to OV Mom---More BS from Cox.I too have info that I can't divulge here---so don't ask me.
But did anybody hear Art deny what I said?????
OV OT
In this particular instance, I feel the notices were inadequate. The Town website 'muddied' this announcement and the town clerk used an excuse that [the office was short on help] and those that were 'supposed' to be notified got [lost in the shuffle]. This was HER admission, OT, and it is on record. As you should be aware, one of the thorns in my side relative to the disclosures of our past administrations is that they have not followed those rules which demand cetain processes of notification and that problem is verifiable.
That I used the term 'abrasive' most certainly had absolutely nothing to do with my views relative to Art Segal or anyone else. This statement was directed to you and the offhanded 'vibes' I have felt relative to your sometimes attitudes towards me and certain others past and present. Also, please reread the context in which I used the term and note that I specified [people in public service]; Art Segal is not nor is he striving to be a 'public servant'. As to being 'politically correct', I don't think that is a good thing anyway; however, as we say in Jewish, being a 'mench' is.
I will not respond to Cox. However, if anyone is interested, Cox is full of crap!
This will end our dialog.
To Our Readers--- Please note, I deleted the above two comments from Cox which added nothing to the discussion but were only more nastiness.
Please note, I also deleted a legitimate question by OV Mom asked of Cox, inasmuch as I deleted his response, which was unresponsive.
I believe that was the fair thing to do.
I do not want to eliminate dialog, but I will not allow Cox to run this blog. As I noted in my earlier comment, we do not need anymore dialog that adds nothing.
I hope our readers will understand as we move on to more important issues.
To All Blog Readers....The two comments Art deleted were simple cordial responses to what he posted and to OV Mom and Zev.
His action falls nothing short of restricting discussion on this blog.
The discussion of civilty on this blog has often been forwarded. I have questioned, and rightly so I believe, Art's lack of civilty. I appear to be the only one who has the courage to do so.
However nothing I have written herein, stated in public or written to the newspaper comes close to his recent vulgar post.
Many of you have validated his actions by your failure to recognize the dual standard established by him on this blog.
Blog on!!
OVOT
I promised myself a couple of weeks ago that I would never respond to this blog again. The few times I did post, I was taken to task because I did not agree with most of the posters. An oppposing opinion is not welcome here. All too often a single word or phrase is picked apart, hashed and rehashed until the original post has no value.
As I had stated previously, it would appear that any posting containing "Don Cox" garners numerous posts, while many posts that are are truly important to OV receive "0" comments. Art stirs it up by attacking you and then he eliminates your dialog because he feels it is the fair thing to do.
Reading this blog is no longer appealing to me as I do not want to validate his ego.
Yada...The head of the nail has been struck.
Thank you. The losers in this are the voters of Oro Valley.
There is a 'cult' of Segalites. They drink the juice and it becomes habit forming. It's the Hale-Bopp syndrome right here in Oro Valley.
Cox---That "cult" managed to elect Bill Garner & Salette Latas, and subsequently, Barry Gillaspie.
The same "cult" is prepared to send you down to defeat should you try for the fifth time to run for council.
As a result of the election, the town is not the loser. It is you that is the loser, both figuratively & literally.
Art....???
I think the only fifth involved may be something you consume???
Don
Let's do the math.
1) Cox loses in 2004 Council primary
2) Cox loses in 2004 Council run-off
3) Cox loses in 2006 Council primary
4) Cox loses in 2006 Council run-off
5) We can't wait for the 2010 Council election.
I'll simply allow others to form their own opinion on the intellectual level of the last post.
The fact is this: The process used by the Town to select members of advisory boards and committees is seriously flawed, and has been for years.
Without going into the gorey details, the "advertisements" for these positions usually come out in the form of a press release. These may or may not get published (usually they do--once). They're posted on the Town's website. And that's about it.
Graduates of CPI do get invited to apply; and older applications get dusted off and re-visited.
At one time, there was a proposal on the table to allow each Council member to have his or her own appointee to each board and commission. But because the terms of such members differ so much, that idea was tossed.
And while it's the responbility of the Clerk's office to keep track of applicants and appointees, it's the line departments that arrange and conduct the interviews with the assistance of the Town Manager's office and the individual Council members who participate.
Yeah--it's a mess, and it produces the little dustup that happened with the BOA appointment. We hope that the Council will take steps this year to clean up the process, recruit appropriate candidates, and choose the best qualified.
Graduates of CPI are *not* routinely contacted. Several of my close friends are CPI grads, highly qualified for service on boards and commissions, and have never been contacted to serve, even though their physical residence and e-mail addys remain current. A few recent grads were contacted for the recent re-opening of the BoA search, but only because a few council members insisted on it.
Yada, an opposing opinion IS welcome here; there are many who have given their different
analysis within these posts and fruitful discussions have, in fact, taken place. One must recognize however, that a blog site IS going to attract non-objectivity more often than not; even Objective Thinker is NOT really objective (LOL OT)but he can't help it and neither can I. What IS of primary importance is that at least someone who posts has something VIABLE to relate - good, bad, or indifferent. To date, Yada, I regret to say that I have found little substance to your posts; they seem neither to have either the bones or the meat.Come up with a thought, an idea - SOMETHING we can sink our teeth into, and then perhaps you wont feel so lonely.
b-b, a terrific post (your last); your concluding paragraph was a very well stated and realistic position. Amen!
Comments and the Commission selection process
There are four places (that I saw) where the openings for the DRB, P&Z and the BOA were “advertised”:
Vista
General Emails sent by the town advising of press releases and hearings.
Explorer article
Town Website
I have previously attended the CPI but I do not recall receiving any communiqué as a result of that attendance. I don’t think that would be a bad idea to contact recent graduates via email, just to cover the bases.
The town website does have the forms for downloading or you can pick them up at the town hall as noted.
Nothing secret or challenging in the application process that I can see.
Qualifications, well, I’m not sure exactly what they are or what they should be. I do know you must be a resident of Oro Valley for one year. I’ll hazard a guess as to a few.
I would think that civic interest is one of the requirements. I do not believe that commission members are born that way or trained in life to be commissioners. While I have a great deal of respect for the members of the commissions, it is there experience and fairness after they became commissioners that made them the commissioners they are.
I would think that an ability to listen, read and understand the issues as they come before the commission with the information provided by staff and the applicant is required.
I think that being able to “decide” issues based on the rules as presented in the codes and General Plan rather than emotion are important. Some of the “tests” provided in the General Plan and the codes have been well articulated by Cyclone 1 and they are not a “flexible” as many seem to believe they are.
I don’t think that being an engineer is a requirement. The town has staff and plenty of engineers who can talk about the radius necessary for turns, etc.
I think the ability to be consistent in “decisions” is an important requirement to the applicant and the town.
There are among commissioners, more than one point of view or interpretation and each commissioner is just one vote. Hopefully, when they vote for something they see enough “right” in there to realize that it is good for the town and it’s citizens. The ability to reach a consensus is an important requirement.
The process of the interview has some well scripted questions that seem to be fair and they do challenge the applicant. I’m not sure if the successful applicants are selected by unanimous vote of the interviewers, but staff, council and the commission are well represented as members in the interview process.
The commissions, advisory as they are, are a part of citizen oversight. If they weren’t there I would seen no reason that “staff” could not make all the decisions regarding the issues following their interpretation of the rules and their intent.
A little “dusting off”? Maybe. We as citizens want it to be fair but I don’t think the process that I am familiar with is grossly unfair.
It does take some interest and effort by the individual citizen applicants.
New....
As you have so accurately stated, there were at least four places where the notices for the Boards and Commissions wqere posted. You omitted the Northwest Section of the AZ Star,a total of five.
Unfortunately some of the people in this town will argue that because they did not receive a personnal invitation the notice system was faulty.
Your list of qualifications was very reasonable and thoughtful.
There was a portion of your post that would indicate that you have been exposed to some of the questions and therefore were a candidate. If that is an accurate guess, I hope you made it and I thank you for your service to Oro Valley.
Thanks, Zev. I bow to your good taste in praising bloggers.
Does anyone find this amusing (in the most cynical sense) that all of this discussion has been about volunteer positions that have virtually no power except to recommend. (Yes, I know the B of A has some final approval power, but that, too, can be appealed through the courts).
The people who serve on these boards and commissions are true martyrs. The meetings are long, often dull, deal with incredible minutae; and the decisions that come out of them are only recommendations that the Council can (and does) overturn.
We should applaud anyone who applies and chooses to go through the process and then serves. A light meal dinner at holiday time is about the only thank you they get, and they deserve more from us.
Again, I hope the Council directs the staff to straighten out this process and establish some hard rules for "advertising" vacancies. Beyond that, it's still up to the Council to make the final decisions, whether they want to use some guidelines or a Ouija board--it's their choice.
BB...I love your second paragraph.
That is what so truly humorous about this who thing. But it also supports my comment on Part 2...THE SEQUEL
Post a Comment