Many of us are just plain fed up with Loomis and his antics. His total lack of class came to the forefront last Wednesday in raiding our contingency fund, without having the decency of mentioning his intention to the Town Manager PRIOR to making the motion, totally ignoring the Manager's recommendation.
To prove the double talk of Loomis, we need not look beyond two statements he made.
He is known to have said he took this action to avoid discussing furloughs, layoffs and a potential reduction in benefits in order to "balance the budget."
At the council meeting, Loomis said, with total disdain, if we don't have work in six months we
can "fire them," meaning the workers.
He claims he wanted to avoid any layoffs, but has no qualms in firing these same people in six months!
That's a hell of a way to "balance a budget." "Steal" from a contingency fund, that doesn't help one iota in balancing a budget, and then, if the Town Manager believes it necessary, let the workers go. Why in the world should we think Loomis and his "team of three" would listen to the advice of David Andrews, who served the community for 17 years, including more than a decade as Financial Director, after they unilaterally decided to not give a damn what David said after months of reviewing the financial situation with his staff.
The time has come. Within one year Loomis should be sent packing. The sooner, the better!
Hopefully, he'll take Kunisch along with him---as without Loomis, Kunisch wouldn't know which way is up!
24 comments:
Problem is more then just Loomis. We don't get enough who are interested in running against him.
Most people seem to think he is fine.
I don't think so but obviously others disagree with me.
mscoyote--- You may be correct on your first two points, but don't believe more a minute that "most people think he is fine."
You need not go beyond our poll results---irrespective of the number of participants, to see Loomis is a far cry from "being fine."
I do not agree with the action taken by the Town Council to take money out of the contingency fund to balance the budget. However, I appreciate Mayor Lommis' service to Oro Valley. I may not agree with all of his decisions, but he his a decent man who wants what is best for Oro Valley in his opinion.
I am having a hard time understanding why all of this lampooning of Mayor Loomis is going on while three other council members voted alongside the Mayor? That being said, everyone has their opportunity to voice their support or displeasure of the Mayor should he choose to run next spring.
James---Let's not forget who made the motion to take this action?
It was Loomis who totally abrogated the duties of the Town Manager.
I have been following the council since before Loomis was mayor.
Can you, or anyone tell me of another occasion where Loomis made a motion without first asking a council member to do so?
Believe what you will, but as far as I'm concerned, Loomis orchestrated this deal and a major part of the responsibility falls right in his lap.
I think you'll find not too many citizens share your view of the mayor.
Artmarth, No I don't think that Loomis is fine, but I do think most in OV think he is fine or why does he keep getting elected?
I would just guess that the majority of residents don't pay attention to what is going on most of the time.
Not saying I agree just that it seems to be the way it is.
James, in my opinion, Loomis gets the most criticism because first he is the Mayor and second he has been in office the longest.
If I remember correctly, the reason Loomis got re-elected last time seemed to have a lot to do with the Oro Valley Marketplace deal. I think the numbers were nearly identical as to how many people voted for the $23 million dollar tax-sharing fiasco and how many voted for Loomis. And the numbers were nearly identical as to how many voted against the OVM deal and how many voted for Nancy Young Wright for mayor.
In the annals of history there are many 'leaders' who, at certain times and in certain places and under certain conditions, were considered to be great leaders. Time and consequences proved many of them to be otherwise. Some of them were cunning, some were charismatic, many made promises in times of despair, and many were simply manipulators of issues and of people. So, beware; history is rife with those who would be kings but in the end were nothing but gangsters.
James,
Please do come to a TOV meeting and introduce yourself to others. With firsthand knowledge of how Mayor Loomis runs the show, you "may" understand the response.
I also wonder if you are considering running for mayor.
I would venture to say that after nearly twelve years as the Mayor, Mr. Loomis has probably made decisions that would make nearly everyone disagree with him. I agree with the post by Art that he disregarded the professional opinion of David Andrews and his staff. I think it was the wrong decision, but he had the authority, along with Council Members Kunish, Carter and Abbott to do so. I haven't followed the council as long as Art has, but from what I have seen the Mayor does a respectable job running the meetings.
As for the post by Native Spirit I will plan on attending a Council Meeting in the future and introducing myself. Right now it is just too easy to watch from the comfort of home. As to your question I am not running for Mayor or Council.
James--- For whatever it's worth, I believe you articulate your positions fairly and concisely.
I will say this about Loomis. For as long as he has been mayor, which I believe is ten years, he had---in my opinion, council members that he could control and, if nothing else, generally went along with him.
Al Kunisch would be in that group.
What was such a disappointment, was my belief, and the belief of many others, that the election of Bill & Salette changed all that.
To have witnessed last Wednesday's meeting left me with only one thought. It was a predetermined outcome. If you haven't listened in to the proceedings, please do so. Only Bill, Salette & Barry stood tall.
I hope we agree at least that it was a total SHAM!
James, you pose a 'question' relative to the 'lampooning' of (just) the Mayor in all of this. No, the Mayor has not been the only recipient of scorn; in this case, backtracking to previous streams, so has Carter, so has Kunisch, so has Abbott, and going back even further and relative to other issues and by other persons, so has Gillaspie, so has Latas, and so has Garner.
As a Mayor, this leader should be held to a higher standard than the rest of Council and, in my opinion, should be 'squeeky clean' in the conduct of such leadership; Mr. Loomis, in this case,appears not to have been. Mayor Loomis has a history of walking a thin line
between right and wrong, between serving the community and/or having the community serve him. Yes, in this case he will be chastised just a bit more than the others because he, above all else, should have been more considerate!
HE MAY HAVE BEEN LEGAL BUT WAS HE RIGHT?
As to Kunisch, Carter, and Abbott - they, too, may have been legal but were they right?
I appreciate your assessment Art. I do agree that it was a sham.
I also agree with Zev that the Mayor should be held to a higher standard because he is the Mayor. However, he is only one vote. His vote does not count anymore than Council Members Carter or Gillaspie or any of the other four. It appears from the latest development in votes with this current council that at least one new council member needs to be elected that has a better sense of fiscal responsibility than the four who voted to raid the contingency fund.
Geez, James! Without even knowing your identity, it sounds like "Native Spirit" may have asked a good question: "Are you considering running for council?"
If intelligence counts---and I'm not sure if it does, you surely come across as having a lot more than some "others."
Once again, I think you "nailed it."
Lots of interesting posts here.
I hope we all agree that nothing that the Mayor has done has been to line his own pockets. I've rarely met an elected official who was so dedicated to doing the "right thing" even if that meant loss of popularity.
To have been re-elected twice--and each time in the primary--is a significant accomplishment.
A mayor in a General Law city (which is what Oro Valley is) doesn't have any particular powers beyond chairing meetings. He is--as demonstrated in this blog--a lighting rod for opinions about the Council's actions.
I have much deeper concerns about Abbott, Carter and Kunisch who appear not to understand some of the more complex issues. Again, no one is serving for monetary reasons and I'm sure that they believe that their decisions are in the best interest of the community.
And, yes, the Mayor can make motions, but he usually defers to others as a matter of courtesy. He is well-respected around the state among other elected officials so you have to wonder what they know that we don't.
Does the Mayor irritate me sometimes? Yup, but I'm confident that his actions are not malicious in intent, even if the effects may turn out to be deleterious when viewed through the lens of history.
boobie-baby--It doesn't take too much to get elected when you run against two other inferior candidates (2002)--and as
"cowgirl" pointed out, Loomis ran against a challenger in 2006 when the voters also approved the Vestar deal.
I would venture to say if the voters were asked to approve Vestar's giveaway today, and vote for Loomis today, we'd see a vastly different outcome.
There is no doubt, as has been noted on this blog, that Loomis is a shrewd politician, that plans each move in advance.
No personal gain, you say. Perhaps you have forgotten about his trip to Europe, courtesy of the taxpayers----and more than one year later, still no report, and nothing to show for OUR $11,000!
I don't believe we can say definitively that Loomis had his 4 votes PRIOR to his motion last Wed. night, but when there is no discussion, and 3 simultaneous seconds to the motion, you have to wonder.
It's no surprise you support the mayor. Your multitude of comments since you became a blogger would lead one to expect that from you.
What elected officials around the state think or don't think about Loomis is open to debate.
What they don't know? you ask.
They don't know what it's like to see how he runs a meeting week after week. Those of us that do, have our opinions---and it doesn't coincide with yours!
Art--
Read again what I wrote. I never said that I supported the Mayor.
What I DO support are intelligent decisions--and the Council's decisions have, at times, been less than intelligent. At other times, they make good decisions.
Frankly, the trip to Germany didn't sound like much fun to me, and if people think that the Mayor did it for self-aggrandizing purposes, then they're entitled to their opinion. Could that money have been put to better use elsewhere? Sure.
Boobie-baby---- I accept the fact that you did NOT specifically say you support the mayor.
However, as far as I'm concerned, the crux of the matter were the actions of Loomis this past Wednesday.
The mayor damn well knew what he was doing. He knew he would make the Town Manager look inept and look like "the bad guy," trying to let people go.
Quite the contrary! David came out of this fiasco looking like the caring, intelligent person that is concerned more about the people of OV than Loomis.
Who ended up looking foolish? Loomis, without a doubt. Kunisch, as usual made the comments that we have come to expect---those that make no sense whatsoever.
As I noted previously, although KC & Paula may have believed they were doing the right thing, to go along with Loomis in undermining the Town Manager was not what we would have expected from them.
Loomis knew what he was doing, as did Kunisch. I don't know if Paula & KC understood the ramifications of their vote.
In any case, "what's done is done."
That doesn't mean we will forget about it.
Boobie-baby, of all posters, I thought that it would be you who might understand most fully the processes in getting a budget done and the 'pecking order' as to the analysis, progression, and finalization of same; OV's method certainly seems to fly in the face of the commonly accepted standards for this process, an accounting norm as accepted by most 'mature' communities. Is not the piecemeal and irregular method of putting together a budget not farcical to you? Having observed a much more professional sequence elsewhere, it certainly is to me.
Yes, Mayor Loomis, Councilmember Carter, Councilmember Abbott, and Councilmember Kunisch ALL played a part in this less than admirable manipulation and application; for me it reeked of deception and the potential for a whole bowl of unintended consequences. As to Mayor Loomis being singled out as 'more responsible than the others', remember what Harry Truman once said in regards to taking responsibility: [THE BUCK STOPS HERE]!
As to your validating the Mayor by
citing [the respect he receives from other elected officials around the State], that does not wash with me because there are many other elected officials for whom I have little regard (and I bet you do too, boobie-baby).
Zev,
Yes, the process was messy--at least we agree on that.
I can't answer the question as to why the other elected municipal leaders in the state have respect for the Mayor. I only just cited that fact, but I have no easy response.
This Council will live with the consequences of their decisions--at the ballot box and/or by having to go back and amend their budget (while still keeping the total under the state-madated limits). This, of course, may include lay-offs, salary reductions, furloughs, etc.
Add the Governor's proposal for a statewide sales tax increase, and we've got the making of a perfect storm among voters. To misquote Bette Davis, "Hold on--we're in for a bumpy ride."
While this deviates from the stream here, there is another 'item' to add to the 'mix' of a 'bumpy ride' (an agenda item listed to be within tomorrow night's Council meeting): Proposed Amendment, Senate Amendments to S.B. 1035 relative to A.R.S. Section 9-463-05 "Development Fees: imposition by cities and towns: infrastructure improvements plan: annual report: limitation on actions: definitions".
Aside from the tightening of restrictions (as I perceive them) relative to the above, the following provision could prove potentially to be an additional monetary stranglehold on the Town of Oro Valley (as well as other cities and towns throughout Arizona):
(Since I am not of legal authority I am simply going to print a portion of the Bill without further comment).
'Paragraph K'- "NOT WITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, BEGINNING JUNE 1, 2009 THROUGH MAY 31, 2012, A MUNICIPALITY SHALL NOT IMPOSE OR ASSESS ANY DEVELOPMENT FEES PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION (9-463-05). BEGINNING JUNE 1, 2012, A MUNICIPALITY MAY IMPOSE A DEVELOPMENT FEE OR MODIFY AN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT FEE PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION (9-463-05).
A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION needs to be made by any of the four council members who voted for the Loomis motion. It's not to late to reverse this vote if ONE of them wakes up and will simply bring it back a vote NO!
Do you think any of them have the courage?
Art, Zev, B-b,
Yes, it's all about the process.
We, the People, like the "F" word and by that I mean fair.
BB, the Mayor was shrewd, cunning but I would not call this move intelligent nor fair.
Intelligent decisions can withstand discussion and debate. Loomis feared that from Garner, Latas and Gillaspie and moved to control before anyone objected. I see that as a sign of weakness. He's a bully who thumbs his nose at the voters, daring someone to do just what Lambchop suggested..a reconsideration.
Excluding the key Council members and Town Manager divides, angers and alienates. While the Mayor may feel he won a battle, he will lose the war.
Last year at a Council meeting, Mayor Loomis leaned over the dais and verbally accosted a speaker who objected to something with, "So, wha d'ya gonna do about it?"
That's where Ms. Coyote's insight hits home...What are we going to do about him?
Post a Comment