Sure, I can agree with Mayor Daley.

The Mayor is being criticized by some for his appointments to the City Council. He has now appointed 19 of the 50 Chicago council members. He denies those appointments are just puppet votes for his proposals. The Mayor claims he appoints the best candidates possible.

I have long advocated vacant council appointments be made by the Mayor. It is the least messiest way of filling vacancies.

I’ve got your back Mayor.

Many thanks to Kevin Underhill at Loweringthebar.Net for the following …

The author of a book about the parking situation in London (which is evidently so bad an entire book can be written about it) says that area city councils routinely issue tickets to city-owned vehicles but then dispute the tickets, requiring them to appeal against themselves in an effort to force themselves to pay themselves the amount of the fine.  Or in an effort to not pay it, I guess.

Barrie Segal wrote that in one case, the council failed to offer any evidence against itself, and then tried to recover costs from itself on the grounds that its lawsuit had been unjustified.

Parking disputes in England are resolved under provisions of the Road Traffic Act of 1991.  Motorists who want to challenge a ticket first present the challenge to the council for the area where the ticket was issued.  If the challenge is rejected, there is another appeal to an official known as the Parking and Traffic Adjudicator.  After the Adjudicator (a much scarier title than “judge,” although it seems a little misplaced in the parking context) rules on the appeal, either side may seek costs, but costs are allowed only if a party’s behavior is found to have been “frivolous, vexatious or wholly unreasonable.”

The council that sued itself was Islington, which believed (wrongly) that its individual departments had independent legal status.  In 2007, an Islington officer ticketed an Islington vehicle, but the department that got the ticket appealed.  Because the department is not a different entity, in legal terms the council was appealing a ticket it got from the council, and under the rules above, the council was hearing its own appeal.  After the council rejected its appeal, it then appealed again to the Parking Adjudicator.  But having appealed, it then presented no evidence, and the Adjudicator voided the ticket.  Feeling its appeal had been an outrageous waste of time, the council asked for costs, thus accusing itself of having acted frivolously, vexatiously and/or wholly unreasonably toward itself.  The Adjudicator declined to award costs, pointing out that “[t]he legal status of the two parties in this appeal amounted to one and the same.”

Several other councils have reportedly sued themselves as well, including one that managed to win its case and so had to pay itself the fine.

And you think your city council is screwy?

I have always believed that political apathy starts at the bottom. That is the citizens. They do not go to meetings when issues are being discussed that impact their lives. They do not speak up at the earlyist opportunity to provide input. I recently came across an article that challenges my theory.

It was written by someone who just refers to himself as Dan. No last name. It was written in 2002. Dan lives in Britain, but what he says could also refer to the United States. Dan believes that apathy comes from the top down. Not the bottom up.

Dan writes, “It is an inevitable end result from the transition of politics from an art form that is dominated by those who engage in politics for the love of politics, and a genuine desire to improve conditions and see good done, to cooler, colder, more calculating ‘career’ politicians, who see it as a job, like in any other company, where the goal is to keep the current party, or company, in power, without the regard to what happens in the country as a whole.

Politicians are, indeed, apathetic. They seem to have no true beliefs these days. This is sad, but also inevitable; since to belong to a major party these days is to allow oneself to be submitted to their rules – namely, you must not have an opinion unless it is that of the party. There is no belief behind their politics.”

Dan continues, “Now, if the politicians really cared and were there for love of country, then they would be more outspoken and genuinely campaign for what they think is right. But they do not, since they love their jobs far too much for that. They stay in the safety and toe the party line. They are apathetic, in short, about genuine politics.”

Dan’s conclusion is, “If politicians or other commentators bemoan that no younger people these days are interested in politics, then how can they be blamed? They should look around them – the politicians aren’t interested in politics, the politicians in power aren’t interested in the public’s wishes, and the public, in term, has nowhere to turn to get things done. They created my apathy. They must remove it.”

Dan is certainly correct. Partisan politics now permeates our government. It does not matter what the issue is. If one party supports an idea, the other party opposes it, just for the sake of opposition it seems. There is no attempt to find common ground to solve problems. The bickering is non stop. Politics as we know it today, is split along party lines. Period. Exclamation point!

Dan, you’ve made me think. I’m not ready to agree that apathy is a problem that starts at the top down. But, you definitely have made me think about it.

Yesterday I was at the State  Capitol. I need to tell you a story of one of the State Senators.

Back in the mid 80′s I was a young Mayor. We had an upstart radio station that bought some fresh voices to town. I don’t even remember the names of most of those voices.  But one of those young radio announcers went on to a successful TV news career before being elected to the State Senate.

Shortly after he was elected I ran into him. He reminded me of way back when he was a young radio announcer and had to interview the local Mayor. He never forgot  how an open and accommodating I had been to him. I vaguely, very vaguely, remembered him from that time.

It just goes to show that you better be kind to everyone coming up the ladder … you never know how high they may go.

They might become a State Senator or even more.

And it is good to have friends in high places.

The same as a merry-go-round horse, some people keep coming back.

Like how about a Town Administrator that the Town Board thought they fired.

A La Crosse County judge has ruled the town of Onalaska board violated a former administrator’s contract when it eliminated his position in late summer.

The town’s financial hardship did not constitute just cause to release Paul Kitzmann on July 28, Town Chairman Dave Paudler said.

“The town does not have the money to pay his salary,” he said.

If a town has to downsize … who can they get rid of Judge?

I’ve preached about this before but it is a lesson that bears repeating over and over again.

Now it is the City of San Diego which is debating the virtues of Strong Mayor vs. Weak Mayor philosophies of government.

According to the National League of Cities website the difference between Strong Mayor vs. Weak Mayor is:

Characteristics of a “weak” mayor:

• The council is powerful, with both legislative and executive authority
• The mayor is not truly the chief executive, with limited power and/or no veto power
• The council can prevent the mayor from effectively supervising city administration
• There may be many administrative boards and commissions that operate independently from the city government

Characteristics of a “strong” mayor:

• The mayor is the chief executive officer, centralizing executive power
• The mayor directs the administrative structure, appointing and removing of department heads
• While the council has legislative power, the mayor has veto power
• The council is relieved of day-to-day administration

This is the lesson.

Strong Mayor doesn’t mean effective Mayor and Weak Mayor doesn’t mean ineffective Mayor.

It all depends on the Mayor.

There is controversy in the Pontificator’s home town.

In a nutshell Park/Recreation Director Ronn Kopp was suspended for eight weeks. The details of that suspension are irrelevant to this story. This story is about the punishment because in addition to the eight week suspension the Director must comply with a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP).

What is in the PIP can be found here.

Two items in this laundry list are of importance to me.

* Detail of discussion occuring during department head meetings are not to be conveyed to members of the public, elected officials and/or committee members.

* Kopp may not lobby individual board members or council members, except the mayor or the council chair.  He may not organize the public to lobby or campaign for or against an issue.

Am I the only one who sees a problem with those restrictions and this?

* Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I admit Ronn Kopp is a personal friend of mine. I could be prejudice in my looking at this issue.

Maybe “Congress” in the Constitution means just that Congress, and City Councils can prohibit freedom of speech and right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances?

Huh? What do you think?

Am I clouded by being too close to the situation?

Or may this be unconstitutional?

Sometimes local officials stretch some rules if they can. Some try to stretch too far.

Allegedly the City Manager of Las Cruces sought to find out how far he could stretch his perks.

Assign city staff to babysit his children.

That’s a perk!

At the very least, I agree his contract should be revisited.

Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

Let’s talk a little drunk driving. I’m weaving this story into local politics through the police department.

A South Dakota woman who prosecutors say had a blood-alcohol level almost nine times the legal driving limit has pleaded guilty to two drunken driving charges. Authorities said 45-year-old Marguerite Engle was arrested Dec. 1 when she was found passed out behind the wheel of a stolen delivery van along Interstate 90, with a blood alcohol level at 0.708. The legal limit in South Dakota is 0.08. Officials have said Engle’s blood alcohol level likely is a record for the state.

She was arrested again in late December, with a blood alcohol level more than 3 1/2 times the legal limit.

Engle faces up to two years in jail when she is sentenced on Feb. 23. In exchange for her guilty pleas, prosecutors have agreed not to pursue other charges, including receiving stolen property and drug possession.

She blew a .708 …  A new state record … Followed up by another one in the .30 range!

This a menace to society. A real genuine menace to society and she only get up to two years in jail?

Have I ever driven when I shouldn’t? I’m from Wisconsin what do you think?

BUT A .708 !!!!! Not even in my college days could I do that.

Two years isn’t enough.

What do you think?

I have long described myself as a devout capitalist. For that reason I have no problem with this idea.

New Berlin — With the economic downtown continuing to put a financial squeeze on municipalities, one Waukesha County community may allow advertisements on its Web site as a way to generate new revenue.

If New Berlin does permit such ads, it could become the first municipality in southeast Wisconsin and perhaps the state to allow advertising on a municipal Web site.

“As far as I know, no other municipality in Wisconsin does something like this,” New Berlin Ald. Ron Seidl said. “We’re just trying to come up with a different way of generating revenue for the city. I don’t believe raising taxes is always the way to generate extra revenue.”

Even if ads do show up on newberlin.org, it won’t be a get-rich-quick venture for the city.

The hoped for ads, from local businesses or national chains with stores or restaurants in New Berlin, likely would raise only about $7,000 annually for the city.

“Obviously, it’s not going to be a huge amount, but we’ll do anything we can to help the city,” Ald. John Hopkins said.

While I believe this is a good idea, others may disagree.

How about it students?