After obviously reviewing the credentials of all the candidates in the Executive Session, without fanfare or any discussion, Pat Sporel was approved by a unanimous vote to fill the vacant council seat until June 2, 2010.
Pat is not new to Oro Valley, as she serves on the town's historic preservation commission and also worked on the Steam Pump Ranch planning process.
Additionally, Pat was honored as the female volunteer on the year in 2008.
We certainly wish Pat the best in her new position
21 comments:
I wish Ms. Spoerl the best, and I believe she was one of the most qualified candidate to fill the vacancy.
I do wish the Council would have had the decency to allow the 8 candidates to speak at the meeting. My understanding is that the Town asked that all 8 candidates to attend the meeting, yet they were not given an opportunity to speak.
It is troubling that the Council made the decision without having a face-to-face with each candidate.
I must say the applicant pool was impressive, and I hope that the 7 unsuccessful candidates seek to continue serving OV in other ways.
Congratulations to Ms. Spoerl!
I must have missed something. Was someone who filled out a blue card refused the opportunity to speak?
Ov Mom- I believe some of those up for consideration had the misconception that the Council would open up the floor to the candidates when that agenda item was reached.
It would gave been presumptuous for any of those candidates to fill out a blue card to speak on that item, particularly considering the Council came right out with a motion to appoint Ms. Spoerl.
A great individual was picked to fill the vacancy, but again, I have to question the process utilized by this Council to appoint Abbott's replacement.
I think it's a pretty sure bet that no matter what process was used, it would have been questioned.
Nope OV Mom, I have to disagree. I, along with many in attendance at last night's meeting believe the Council could have opened up the process much more to the public.
Inviting the 8 candidates to the meeting, only to come right out with a motion to appoint, without allowing any of the candidates to speak isn't exactly the most professional or ideal fashion in which to conduct public business. It smacks of back room deals and covert discussions out of the public view. More of the same in this town.
That said, Pat Spoerl is an excellent choice, and I look forward to her continued service in OV.
Note: In full disclosure, a couple of the candidates for this vacancy are acquaintances and/or friends of mine.
As an aside, at last night's Council Meeting did anyone notice how Council Member Gillaspie stated he is against Term Limits? (In his report regarding the AZ Town Hall) New people on boards allow for healthy government and a sharing of new ideas and perspectives.
If his bias against new people serving in leadership positions is a reflection of the beliefs of all Town Council Members, we all must be aware of the corruption that must being going on behind closed doors.
Cactus,
Please recognize that we all have biases and opinions. My point is that if the council chose to interview all the candidates in public or even asked each of them to speak, they would have been criticized for that. Just a hunch.
Laura's comment is a good example. Gillaspie never said he was against term limits. He mentioned them as an item that was brought up during the Arizona Town Hall as an issue with our state government.
Laura not only misunderstood Gillaspie's comment, but she then went on to assume corruption in the rest of the council because of them.
OV Mom: Your "hunch" is ill-placed. No reasonable attendee would have critiized the council interviewing candidates in public. Who could possibly object to that? It's a public office that deserved a public process. The appointment process circumvented a more public process.
As the Laura's comments, I was in attendance at the meeting. Councilman Gillaspie did indeed say that term limits were unfavorable, as they placed inexperienced individuals into positions of consequence. He began discussing this issue because it was raised at the AZ Town Hall and endorsed as such. Review the council meeting video if you have any doubts as to what was stated.
I'm not comfortable going so far as to assume the entire council is corrupt, but the antics of various members of the council at various points during the last few months certainly is a cause of pause.
Look at what happened the night the council voted to accept Andrews' resignation. Some of it was discussed behind closed doors. Some of it was discussed in public during the meeting. A dozen members of the public got up to speak in defense of Andrews. Not one citizen spoke in opposition to him.
A millisecond after the last speaker was finished, Kunisch made a motion to vote on the issue, making it clear to all the speakers that the Public Hearing portion of the agenda item was just for "show." The decision had already been made by a majority of the council BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.
As for choosing a new council member to replace Abbott, the fact that they voted unanimously for Pat Spoerl should lay to rest any fears that favoritism or anything underhanded took place.
VC:
Very good points. One of the few aspects of the process that I appreciated was that the Council UNANIMOUSLY supported their appointee, Pat Spoerl.
It is very important, in light of what has recently occurred on the council, that members of the council show a united front when welcoming a new member aboard.
For what it's worth, in my prior comments on this thread I did not mean in impugn Councilman Gillaspie's character or reputation. While I wholly disagree with his short-sighted and ill-advised perspective on term limits, I support much of his other work in the Town.
As for the new council, including Ms. Spoerl, it's important to move forward and do the work of the people. Elections are forthcoming, so councilmembers need to show us they're worth their weight (especially those up for reelection)!
In my opinion, an open public hearing relative to the appointment of a 7th council member out of a selection of 8 'applicants' could have resulted in
a circus atmosphere; think about it. It was probably most prudent that Council took the action that they did in order to avoid same and 'landed' on a candidate that was perhaps the least controversial as well one as being deserving of such position.
As to the 'aside' relative to the merits of 'no term limits' vs the opposite, I cannot agree that by allowing for the possibility of perpetuity absolute for our 'public SERVANTS', that we can then develop a more 'intelligent' and 'effective' governance. On the contrary, history shows that the more embedded a participant becomes in the 'power elite', the more that person becomes embedded in special and self interest, in essence they then become more prone to be super-professional politicians rather than accountable
representatives of the People. Isn't there too much power in the hands of a few already?
Last sentence, first paragraph should have read "as well as one being deserving of such position".
Cowgirl--- Not to get off the subject, which is the appointment of Pat Spoerl to the council, but one correction to your comment.
You wrote, as it concerns David Andrews termination, "some of it was discussed behind closed doors."
Well it may have been "behind closed doors," but it certainly was not in Executive Session, as Loomis, Carter, Kunisch & Abbott refused to allow that to happen.
Hopefully, the truth will come out as to why those four refused to allow for an Executive Session discussion.
Zev,
Good to see we agree on the term limits. New blood allows for effective, responsive, and efficient government.
I would like to add that I obviously believe a public process would have been the best approach to the council vacancy issue.
Also, after reviewing the 8 candidates for the vacancy, while Pat Spoerl may have been the least controversial, I believe all 8 candidates were qualified enough to be deemed "deserving of such position."
Cactus, what amazes me is that there was (is) no procedure 'on the books' as to how a situation like this MUST be handled. After learning as to how Council seemed to be 'floundering' on this issue due to a lack of 'rules in place' and how 'choices' were coming into play, I believe that Council might have felt a need for consensus here and that opening this up to public advise and consent would have most probably ended up in a kind of chaos that might further the edgy contentiousness that is so pervasive within our Town right now. There were many who thought that, because of divisions within the Community as well as Council, a majority vote might never come about and that nothing would be accomplished until a new Council will have been seated. Though ALL candidates might have been qualified to some extent in their own right, there is no question in my mind that a 'public option' would have resulted in an ugly shootout and I don't think that, especially at this time, it would have been beneficial to any extent whatsoever.
Was the action taken the right alternative? Think of it this way - 8 candidates, each having 3 minutes to advocate themselves, 5 (estimate)'call to audience' blue cards per candidate, 3 minutes for each 'card', more discussion, more banter, etc. At least the way it did come about was quick and decisive as well as Council unanimous.
I would just like our community (and greater society at large) to return to a more civil discourse.
It disappoints me to think that allowing 8 candidates to advocate for their appointment onto a town council would erupt into a shouting match, but Zev, you may just be right about that.
I just want to encourage all those out there who believe they can add value to our town council to run for election and advocate for the change you wish to see.
This is a tiny map-dot town, and it's only a town council...not a presidency, not a U.S. Senate seat, just a town council. You certainly don't need a degree from Harvard or the IQ of Einstein to be qualified or run for town council. This should be evidenced by some of those who have already served on the OV town council.
Politics in OV can be vicious and personal, and that's unfortunate. I encourage all readers to attack and question a candidate's policy positions, and not his or her personal life.
Call it pie in the sky, but we can and will return to a civil discourse--and sooner than later.
I'm Dan Huff, and I was one of the 8 who submitted materials for the council vacancy. Several people suggested I check out this blog.
I just want to congratulate Pat Spoerl on her appointment!
I look forward to finding ways to help better Oro Valley, and keeping up to speed on this blog.
Best of luck to the council for the remainder of the term.
Hi Dan--- Congrats on submitting your name for consideration.
I'm pleased that you became aware of our blog.
It's hard to judge someone from just a few sentences, but from that, it sounds like you can be an asset to the community.
Hope you'll continue to read our blog, and please see fit to use this forum to express your opinion on issues of concern.
If you email us, we'd be happy to add you to our mailing list.
Art
I thought that Wednesday's council meeting was very civil. Sorry you were so disappointed in it, AZCactus1. Not sure how it could have been improved by your suggestions.
Well OVMom, fortunately I'm not obliged to sit and explain my positions and opinions to you until you understand them. I've said my peace on this matter, and I am satisfied knowing others agree with my view.
And welcome as well, Dan Huff. As you already know, I appreciated your Council application and I hope we see more of your efforts in OV.
AZCactus,
OV Mom said, "I think it's a pretty sure bet that no matter what process was used, it would have been questioned." I'll tell you why I agree with that.
About 10 years ago I was involved in the merger of two condominiums. Although we opened the SEALED ballots at the Association meeting, and although we had one person counting the ballots by hand who then handed them to a second person who tabulated them on a computer program, and although we asked for 2 volunteers from the audience to come up and stand behind us as we did this so they could make sure that nothing underhanded was being done, and although we chose 2 people who were AGAINST the merger to supervise us (the two of us who were tabulating the ballots were FOR the merger), and although both tabulations came up exactly the same, and although all of this was done in front of the entire Association at the meeting, in the end, when the votes showed that the merger had passed, there were STILL those who claimed that we had done something underhanded!
It's just human nature!
Post a Comment