[Southsider2k12]

So finally I am going to lay down some of my personal feelings on this election. I know this and 50 cents would get you the News Dispatch, so take it for what its worth.

I'll start first with the Clerks race, and work my way up to the mayor's race...

Clerk.

Personally Mike Dempsey made the best impression on me. It kind of reminded me of the infamous Kennedy debate where JFK looked so much younger, energetic, and connected to the people. Fedder didn't look bad, but Dempsey said all of the right things, and the thing that most piqued my interest was his promise to modernize the information in the Clerk's office. Maybe it is the idealism in me, but it would be great to have instant access to that much information, because right now, it is a pain to try to piece together that kind of info without taking time off of work to make a trip to City Hall. Johnny Stimley does a lot of good work for kids in the community and has owned a business in MC for a long time, but I am not sure what about his backround makes him a candidate for the Clerk's office. I did only see these guys speak once, but those were my impressions

Council.

First Ward- I definately like Richard Murphy over Lynne Kaser, but I have no problems with either candidate. For my experiences, Murphy was easier to get ahold of, and was an excellent communicator. He definately had a surperior plan for communications with the media, as he got his word out both through a website, and through the News Dispatch. Kaser has done good work with her time in the League of Women Voters, and I enjoyed my interactions with her when I was a candidate, and she moderated our candidate night.

Second Ward- This is my home ward, so I have a little more detail to share here. I liked the effort that Paul Pryz made, as well as Keith Harris. When I sent out emails to all three of these folks, the only person I heard back from was Harris, and I got a reply the same day. He also took the time to follow up and later answer all of my questions for him in full. Paul P. was the only candidate I saw at my front door, and I actually had him stop by to talk to me twice, and both times he spent a considerable amount of time exchanging views and ideas with me. He actually asked about putting a sign in my yard the first time I talked to him, and I said "no" because I wanted to hear what all of the candidates had to say before making that judgement. To Paul's credit, he came back a week after the forum I told him I was attending and asked for my support a second time. Personally, I would pick Paul P, but Keith Harris also did a nice job IMO. On the other end of the spectrum was Marc Espar, whom I never got even a courtesy reply from from the email address he has listed at his website, nor did I ever see him at my door in the heart of the second ward. I even tried talking to him at the Firefighters PAC night, but all he had time to say was that he had seen my email and been too busy to respond. In my opinion, if he is too busy to respond before he is even in office, that doesn't bode well for how responsive he will be to our needs. Espar has raised $12,000 and spent $9,000 for this election, far and away the most of any council candidate, (by a huge margin) but it seems at least in my case he is missing the personal touch that makes a good representative. My vote is going to Paul P during the primary, but Keith Harris is a solid candidate also.

Third Ward- Ron Meer seemingly does a nice job for the west side that he represents. It was good of him to show up to talk, even though he is running unopposed. I was impressed with him.

Fourth Ward- This one was a little tougher to me. I only could find an email for Pat Boy, and I never did get a response from her. Thinking back to the candidate forum I attended, I think I was happy with the speeches that both Boy and David Gring made. I did like things out of both of their platforms, but the one thing that sticts out for me is the allegation about Gring not living in the 4th ward, and instead using a storefront as an address for his "home". I still have not seen conclusively 100% if this is true or not, but it seems like this could be another case of pushing an candidate into a race to unseat an "unfriendly" incumbant. I wish Mr Gring would have filed his information with the electoral board about how much in donations he has received, because a large cash influx would have seemingly reconfirmed this idea for me. Without it, I would have to give the nod to Pat Boy, because there are too many unknowns in her opponent for my taste.

5th Ward- Willie Milsap- I don't know what kind of councilman he has been, but I was disappointed that he didn't even bother to seemingly campaign for his seat, even though he was unoppposed. He also didn't bother to submit his campaign fund raising numbers, dispite no having the added stresses of working against an opponent. I don't know what the deal was in his case, but I wouldn't have been too happy if he was my representative.

6th Ward- This one I am going to have to defer on unfortunately. I did send my email to both of the people in this race, and neither one of them bothered to send even a cursory response. Once again, this tells me something, as if they won't bother to respond to me when they are looking for votes, will they bother when they have other considerations in office? Probably not. Tom Thomas is the challenger, and is a part of the 4 man "ticket" including Espar, Joe Doyle, and Bob McKee. Paul Jankowski is the incumbant in this race. For my money, I am withholding support of either candidate.

At Large- Now this is a little bit more interesting of a race. With so many candidates it is hard to handicap this group. The two people who made the best impression on me were Angie Starks and Bob McKee who both made to respond to my inquirees, and also to offer to make time to talk to me personally. My schedule did fit with Starks, and unfortunately did not with McKee. That was mostly due to my complex schedule, but the effort on McKee's behalf sticks with me, and I do appreciate it. The two incumbants (Baker and Doyle) in this race did not bother to reply to any of my emails, and I did not get a chance to chase them down to talk to them. I did get to talk to Dave Beila at length, and I really appreciated his candor, and his sense of humor. I also did get a chance to Rodney Washington, who also made a good impression on me. Tony Childers I was never able to find an email address for, nor was I able to talk to in person, so I will refrain from comment on him. For my money, I am going to definately say yes to Angie Starks and Bob McKee, and then I would make my third vote for either Dave Beila or Rodney Washington.

Now finally the mayoral race...

I made an effort to talk to all three of the people in this race. The Winski campaign was by far the most generous with their time, and even if I didn't agree with all of their stances, they made the most favorable impression on me as well. Personally I love their north end plan, as it is the most ambitious and complete out of all of three of the potential electees. The LaRocco camp was friendly to talk to, and I did like the press releases that they made, all though I was disappointed to not see a website for this run. In my opinion, a website should be a necesity for an person seeking elected office, but definately for someone who is seeking to be mayor of a town this size, because it is important to show that you are in touch with the 21st century means of communication. Their camp did give me an email address to get ahold of them at as well. I tried to contact the Oberlie campaign through email twice, and never received any answer on either occasion, which was disappointing. Not everyone took time to answer my questions, but many of the candidates at least gave a nice reply to me. I didn't get anything in this case.

One impression that both the Jim LaRocco and Joie Winski made that was extremely positive for me was to attend the YMCA public forum, and Mrs Winski who also attended the business leaders night for the YMCA. They both did an excellent job to withhold their comments until after the meeting, so as to not appear to be pandering to the crowd for votes. They both did stay late and speak privately to board members with ideas and suggestions for the Y's future. Chuck Oberlie did send in a letter to our board President with a couple of ideas.

Overall I think the term of Chuck Oberlie probably speaks the most about his campaign. While the previous mayors of MC have tended to make at least one signature addition to Michigan City, I have yet to see that here. If you think back Brillson was able to entice the Blue Chip into opening in MC, and before that I Bob Behler's adminstration saw the Lighthouse Place mall open, where an empty decaying Pullman factory once was. I know somethings have been done, but with as many big things as are on the table right now, it has been disappointing to see the in-fighting within government entities, and to see a lack of movement, or even vision, on the North End.

For my money, I am voting for Joie Winski, with Jim LaRocco as my second choice.

I'd be curious to hear about what other people think or are saying about the races, and what made them choose certian people.

[Max Main]

Just about in line with you, except for Winski. I will go larocco. And I think we all know what I think about Oberlie.

[mcstumper]

Jog my memory. Did Paul Pryz vote for or against V. Martin's anti-public\private partnership amendment to the motion supporting the Park Board's Washington Park Master Plan?

[lovethiscity]

Jog my memory. Did Paul Pryz vote for or against V. Martin's anti-public\private partnership amendment to the motion supporting the Park Board's Washington Park Master Plan?

Joe Doyle and the missing Chuck Lungren were the only two NAY votes on the Park Master Plan.

[Max Main]

by the way, southsider, this election coverage has been very, very good. There really is nothing else like it around town. It would have been nice to get more candidate input, like Angie Starks's comments, and more reaction etc from groups like the Chamber.

[Southsider2k12]

Hopefully as the site is around for a while, it builds up a little bit of a following. My goal is to eventually let everyone who is on here do most of the talking. Right now there aren't many of us, so I dig up everything I can to give us something to talk about. Hopefully this will be the first place that people go to talk about what is up in their town.

One of the less important, but visually pleasing goals I hope to have done one of these days is to set the board up with three different possible color schemes to mirror the designs of the three different HS's we have had here. There would be an Elston, a Rogers and an MCAS scheme for people to choose from.

[Ang]

One of the less important, but visually pleasing goals I hope to have done one of these days is to set the board up with three different possible color schemes to mirror the designs of the three different HS's we have had here. There would be an Elston, a Rogers and an MCAS scheme for people to choose from.

That would be totally cool. I would have a hard time picking between Elston and MCHS, though. Maybe I could just switch back and forth?

[Informed]

Wow – surprised at some of your rational here South Sider. With all the issues debated throughout this forum and all the issues you have personal convictions toward, I am dismayed that your vote comes down to who did not “return an email” to you (or in essence chose not to participate on your board as pretty much all candidates have decided not to and chose more traditional forums of getting their messages out - for whatever the reasons), but I would not take it personally as some I know would rather have their views come directly from them, and perhaps Mr. Espar felt you were for Przy. all along? Who knows, maybe he saw the Przy. sign in your yard???? I’m left impassive with your second ward comments…

More seriously though, the bigger surprise is that you have succumbed to rumor on your 4th Ward comments, even though you correctly challenged the original rumor post. I would think you could have taken some initiative to find out that this issue was brought before Mr. Behler some time ago by Mrs. Boy with a conclusion of no impropriety. (My speculation is she would have been prompted to do so by the likes of Przy-Jank as per the slate she is on along with Ms. Baker.)

Further, Mr. Gring sold his property in Trail Creek more than three years ago and neither owns it nor sleeps there as alleged. Rather, he lives where registered and has done so long enough to satisfy the requirements as per statute. It is not and was not a storage building as per the rumor post. The previous person that lived there even prior to Mr. Gring, who owns the property and business, moved and Mr. Gring has indeed lived there since. (There is a well at the property and that is why no “city” water bill goes there.) But don’t take my post as conclusive, although you could as you let mere rumor influence your report and you have even ran with it a bit by your “this could be another case of pushing a candidate into a race to unseat an unfriendly incumbent” speculation, which incidentally I feel Mrs. Boy is as friendly an incumbent as can be. But again, a phone call or some independent research, as I have always encouraged to all posters, could and would provide the conclusive truths and answers you seek.

I have overall enjoyed the entertainment value of this board as it often makes me laugh aloud and there indeed are some cleaver characters posting throughout it. It has been fun tracking who has changed their moniker over time, such as Max Main – who used to be someone that Ang was looking for in one of her posts...

But it has essentially left me with an overall conclusion that maybe and actually the transcendent variable and challenge to pushing Michigan City forward and progressing is figuring out how in the World voters decide who to vote for and promoting an ideal that votes should be based on approach, professionalism, honesty, leadership, platforms (the issues), decision making (or for some incumbents a lack thereof and holding them accountable), and ultimately taking down the roadblocks to progress for our great city.

Thanks to all that will exercise their right to vote and participate in the process regardless of who you vote for.

I say vote for positive change and leadership. Vote to help Michigan City progress.

[lovethiscity]

Wow – surprised at some of your rational here South Sider. With all the issues debated throughout this forum and all the issues you have personal convictions toward, I am dismayed that your vote comes down to who did not “return an email” to you (or in essence chose not to participate on your board as pretty much all candidates have decided not to and chose more traditional forums of getting their messages out - for whatever the reasons), but I would not take it personally as some I know would rather have their views come directly from them, and perhaps Mr. Espar felt you were for Przy. all along? Who knows, maybe he saw the Przy. sign in your yard???? I’m left impassive with your second ward comments…

More seriously though, the bigger surprise is that you have succumbed to rumor on your 4th Ward comments, even though you correctly challenged the original rumor post. I would think you could have taken some initiative to find out that this issue was brought before Mr. Behler some time ago by Mrs. Boy with a conclusion of no impropriety. (My speculation is she would have been prompted to do so by the likes of Przy-Jank as per the slate she is on along with Ms. Baker.)

Further, Mr. Gring sold his property in Trail Creek more than three years ago and neither owns it nor sleeps there as alleged. Rather, he lives where registered and has done so long enough to satisfy the requirements as per statute. It is not and was not a storage building as per the rumor post. The previous person that lived there even prior to Mr. Gring, who owns the property and business, moved and Mr. Gring has indeed lived there since. (There is a well at the property and that is why no “city” water bill goes there.) But don’t take my post as conclusive, although you could as you let mere rumor influence your report and you have even ran with it a bit by your “this could be another case of pushing a candidate into a race to unseat an unfriendly incumbent” speculation, which incidentally I feel Mrs. Boy is as friendly an incumbent as can be. But again, a phone call or some independent research, as I have always encouraged to all posters, could and would provide the conclusive truths and answers you seek.

I have overall enjoyed the entertainment value of this board as it often makes me laugh aloud and there indeed are some cleaver characters posting throughout it. It has been fun tracking who has changed their moniker over time, such as Max Main – who used to be someone that Ang was looking for in one of her posts...

But it has essentially left me with an overall conclusion that maybe and actually the transcendent variable and challenge to pushing Michigan City forward and progressing is figuring out how in the World voters decide who to vote for and promoting an ideal that votes should be based on approach, professionalism, honesty, leadership, platforms (the issues), decision making (or for some incumbents a lack thereof and holding them accountable), and ultimately taking down the roadblocks to progress for our great city.

Thanks to all that will exercise their right to vote and participate in the process regardless of who you vote for.

I say vote for positive change and leadership. Vote to help Michigan City progress.

I agree vote for change not a park board slate trying to give away our most precious jewel. Get rid of Oberlie

[mcvoter]

I agree vote for change not a park board slate trying to give away our most precious jewel. Get rid of Oberlie

Agree - the word on the street is that "a change must be made" in the current administration

[Ang]

Informed-

I have to disagree with your analysis of Southsider's post. And personally, I think your response was quite rude and insulting. As a matter of fact, based on your response, I am beginning to think you might be one of the candidates I mentioned earlier who hides behind a screen name here. (truthfully, I've thought that about you for a while and had you on my mind when I made that post-but your latest post worked toward confirming that)

Furthermore, if this message board is so lame and is a source of so much humor for you, maybe you should just continue to read and laugh and keep your comments to yourself.

Just a suggestion.

[mcvoter]

Informed-

I have to disagree with your analysis of Southsider's post. And personally, I think your response was quite rude and insulting. As a matter of fact, based on your response, I am beginning to think you might be one of the candidates I mentioned earlier who hides behind a screen name here. (truthfully, I've thought that about you for a while and had you on my mind when I made that post-but your latest post worked toward confirming that)

Furthermore, if this message board is so lame and is a source of so much humor for you, maybe you should just continue to read and laugh and keep your comments to yourself.

Just a suggestion.

Ang -- What a great response - I also thought that "Informed" was rude, and is obviously an Oberlie or Winski mole ---

[JHeath]

mcvoter, I'm going to call you on this on, as you're more than obviously not just a LaRocco mole, but the candidate himself. You need to not be quite so obvious if you want to hide behind a false moniker.

I will not, as the my mother's campaign manager, have you falsely accusing our campaign of such actions. "Informed" is not from the Winski camp--we would not stoop to that level.

[Informed]

[quote name='Ang' date='May 2 2007, 10:47 PM' post='1975']
Informed-

I have to disagree with your analysis of Southsider's post. And personally, I think your response was quite rude and insulting. As a matter of fact, based on your response, I am beginning to think you might be one of the candidates I mentioned earlier who hides behind a screen name here. (truthfully, I've thought that about you for a while and had you on my mind when I made that post-but your latest post worked toward confirming that)

Furthermore, if this message board is so lame and is a source of so much humor for you, maybe you should just continue to read and laugh and keep your comments to yourself.

Just a suggestion.


Now dog-gone it Ang – I was trying to be direct but pleasant, not rude and insulting. Sorry!

Never said the board was lame Ang – those are your words, not mine. I do believe though that the candidates, which I assure you I am not, have reservations about having someone filter or interrupt what they wish to get across, and this is most likely why many of South Sider’s emails were not responded to or why candidates have not become involved with it. Unless I have miss-read or miss-interrupted, I believe SS’s posted intention was to then post on this board those views/responses “based on” the emails he received…I have mentioned this board to a few candidates, and this was the basic reservation and reason they have chosen not to participate.

In fact, I would venture a guess some of the candidates I support do not agree with some of my points of view. For that matter, it’s a roll of the dice even giving an interview to the N-D in this regard as the editors get to pick and choose which comments go to print, and that was the point I was trying to make, and perhaps I could have expressed this better and my comments would not have been taken as rude…

However, there is a bit of dishing out and taking it to be expected with a forum like this, especially when one perpetuates insinuation and innuendo, which I obviously felt South Sider did a bit with his 4th Ward spiel. If it is rude to call it out, so be it.

As far as laughing, it was more in regard to some of the posts about spell-check and matters of the lighter side, which did make me laugh, but I agree that comment may have been taken better within those postings as compared to this heavy political rhetoric. I suppose loose comments like the “Park Board wanting to give away its jewel” might be found humorous at best by the Park Board itself, but probably more so as simply ridiculous.

If I had an ability to keep my comments to myself, and sometimes I wish I could, I certainly would. For example, I also think JHeath is close – but it’s LaRocco’s campaign right-hand man posting – not Jim himself – in my estimation. Now talk about a rude dude, hell I’m a real pussy cat compared to him as he provides Jim a great disservice when he actually speaks live to folks (let alone in his postings) - very arrogant, negative, and down right nasty towards and about other candidates, which has really turned off a few folks that have mentioned it to me, and I actually got a whiff myself on a single occasion, which I suppose is good for Winski and Oberlie. JHEATH seems like a much nicer campaign manager for sure! But this reinforces my earlier point that candidates may be better off staying away as the obvious floats to the top and it can hurt candidates. Having said that, I feel Angie Starks has used the forum in a positive direction which may have helped her.

Anywhooo - I will take your suggestion to heart and this will “possibly be” my final post. I should mention that I was thinking of you as well when I decided not to comment on some of your MCAS/sports/coaching posts as I know you have strong roots and convictions there, even though I felt you were way off on some (not all) of your coaching critiques and opinions. And I recognize by the volume of posts you make on this board it really means a lot to ya – more so than to me. So I have no problem bowing to the wishes of the regulars, so to speak, and I actually enjoy reading more than typing as my time allows.

Please vote for professionalism and positive change and to make Michigan City a better place!

[JHeath]

Informed, I believe that TonyD let everyone know who I was within my first or second post on this board a few months ago. I've never tried to hide the fact that I am very close to Joie. Not only am I managing her campaign...she's my mother, for pete's sake!

[Southsider2k12]

Wow – surprised at some of your rational here South Sider. With all the issues debated throughout this forum and all the issues you have personal convictions toward, I am dismayed that your vote comes down to who did not “return an email” to you (or in essence chose not to participate on your board as pretty much all candidates have decided not to and chose more traditional forums of getting their messages out - for whatever the reasons), but I would not take it personally as some I know would rather have their views come directly from them, and perhaps Mr. Espar felt you were for Przy. all along? Who knows, maybe he saw the Przy. sign in your yard???? I’m left impassive with your second ward comments…

More seriously though, the bigger surprise is that you have succumbed to rumor on your 4th Ward comments, even though you correctly challenged the original rumor post. I would think you could have taken some initiative to find out that this issue was brought before Mr. Behler some time ago by Mrs. Boy with a conclusion of no impropriety. (My speculation is she would have been prompted to do so by the likes of Przy-Jank as per the slate she is on along with Ms. Baker.)

Further, Mr. Gring sold his property in Trail Creek more than three years ago and neither owns it nor sleeps there as alleged. Rather, he lives where registered and has done so long enough to satisfy the requirements as per statute. It is not and was not a storage building as per the rumor post. The previous person that lived there even prior to Mr. Gring, who owns the property and business, moved and Mr. Gring has indeed lived there since. (There is a well at the property and that is why no “city” water bill goes there.) But don’t take my post as conclusive, although you could as you let mere rumor influence your report and you have even ran with it a bit by your “this could be another case of pushing a candidate into a race to unseat an unfriendly incumbent” speculation, which incidentally I feel Mrs. Boy is as friendly an incumbent as can be. But again, a phone call or some independent research, as I have always encouraged to all posters, could and would provide the conclusive truths and answers you seek.

I have overall enjoyed the entertainment value of this board as it often makes me laugh aloud and there indeed are some cleaver characters posting throughout it. It has been fun tracking who has changed their moniker over time, such as Max Main – who used to be someone that Ang was looking for in one of her posts...

But it has essentially left me with an overall conclusion that maybe and actually the transcendent variable and challenge to pushing Michigan City forward and progressing is figuring out how in the World voters decide who to vote for and promoting an ideal that votes should be based on approach, professionalism, honesty, leadership, platforms (the issues), decision making (or for some incumbents a lack thereof and holding them accountable), and ultimately taking down the roadblocks to progress for our great city.

Thanks to all that will exercise their right to vote and participate in the process regardless of who you vote for.

I say vote for positive change and leadership. Vote to help Michigan City progress.

Hey good to see you again, I was wondering where you had been.

You'll be happy to know that I have plenty of rationale for all of my decesions.

First starting with the second ward. My sign went up approximately 2 weeks ago, after Paul Przy made his second visit to my house asking for my support. He spent about 15 minutes on each visit talking about issues, and debating things that I did not agree with. If you'll go back and note, I did offer up that I don't agree with him on all issues, but I do agree with a candidate who is responsive and open to me. The excuse that Espar didn't get back to me because of a sign in my yard is just that, an excuse. The first email I sent to Marc Espar went out on April 9th (of which I have kept all emails I have sent out, just because I wanted ot have proof), while I put the sign up in my yard two weeks ago this Saturday. I also made personal contact with Mark April 13th at the Firefighters Forum, when I stopped him and introduced myself after the candidates speeches. He took time enough to acknowledge that he had received my email, but had been too busy to respond to it, but that it was nice meeting me, and he had to go. I never heard from him again. I am sad to see that you view a candidates responsiveness as unimportant. I can't believe that you think it is unimportant for a person who is trying to represent you to not be present in your neighborhood. I firmly believe if a candidate won't give you any of his time, that they surely won't have time for you once they are in office. Also if you'll notice, only a couple of the candidates I referred to chose to participate in this forum. Many of the others who responded in varying levels, chose to do so in a private format, and I respected the information that was exchange, except to note who was responsive and who was not. Some of that information was part of rationale I used to make desecions in races, and that is why it was not made public, out of respect for both the person and our conversation.

Plus there is one question I have, and that is if a candidate is so unsure of themselves that they would give up once they believe someone is voting for someone, doesn't that say something for the candidate anyway? You don't think that if they are willing to give up on voters, that they will give up on even tougher fights? I really hope that Mr Espar has more fortitude than you are giving him credit for here. Heck as a matter of a fact, I will offer up the opportunity to have him change my vote. I am by no means sold on any candidate in the second ward, I am even willing to give him a third chance to step to the plate and convince me that he is the ideal person to represent me, and I will publically state it, just as I have stated and defended my convinctions up to this point.

And if all else fails, I would love to have someone to talk about second ward and Michigan City issues with. You obviously have your strong feelings, and I would love to see some of your opinions and ideas meted out here. When I envisioned this board, I wanted to see a strong passionate exchange of ideas. If you see something you want to talk about, talk about it. I might be a strange one about these parts, but I love to be challenged on my convictions. I love the debate, and I love the exchange of information. I also believe that my mind is basically never made up, because if a better answer comes along, I want to be a part of that as well.

I am finally glad to see another answer about the Gring situation. After I issued the public challenge, the only emails I got confirmed what had been said. I didn't see anything that supported Gring position, so that is why it was only a part of the equation. But left without other answers, which I did attempt to seek, I made the conclusion with the information I had at hand. I am curious if you saw this information before, why you didn't offer up this explanation earlier? Its a pretty big thing to just let hang in the wind.

The last paragraph was interesting. My whole intent of this format was to offer as much information to the general public as possible, and let them do what they want to do with it. My hope was that a decent amount of people would want to join into the discussion, and exchange ideas and viewpoints to make themselves more educated, and most importantly more passionate about the life that is going on around them. Opposing viewpoints are just as valid to that, as are viewpoints that reinforce people's beliefs.

[mcvoter]

Informed, I believe that TonyD let everyone know who I was within my first or second post on this board a few months ago. I've never tried to hide the fact that I am very close to Joie. Not only am I managing her campaign...she's my mother, for pete's sake!

JHeath: I apologize to you for typing "Winski"....that was obviously incorrect!

Informed: Ang stated what needed to be stated in her response to your first blog-------

[Southsider2k12]

Hey good to see you again, I was wondering where you had been.

You'll be happy to know that I have plenty of rationale for all of my decesions.

First starting with the second ward. My sign went up approximately 2 weeks ago, after Paul Przy made his second visit to my house asking for my support. He spent about 15 minutes on each visit talking about issues, and debating things that I did not agree with. If you'll go back and note, I did offer up that I don't agree with him on all issues, but I do agree with a candidate who is responsive and open to me. The excuse that Espar didn't get back to me because of a sign in my yard is just that, an excuse. The first email I sent to Marc Espar went out on April 9th (of which I have kept all emails I have sent out, just because I wanted ot have proof), while I put the sign up in my yard two weeks ago this Saturday. I also made personal contact with Mark April 13th at the Firefighters Forum, when I stopped him and introduced myself after the candidates speeches. He took time enough to acknowledge that he had received my email, but had been too busy to respond to it, but that it was nice meeting me, and he had to go. I never heard from him again. I am sad to see that you view a candidates responsiveness as unimportant. I can't believe that you think it is unimportant for a person who is trying to represent you to not be present in your neighborhood. I firmly believe if a candidate won't give you any of his time, that they surely won't have time for you once they are in office. Also if you'll notice, only a couple of the candidates I referred to chose to participate in this forum. Many of the others who responded in varying levels, chose to do so in a private format, and I respected the information that was exchange, except to note who was responsive and who was not. Some of that information was part of rationale I used to make desecions in races, and that is why it was not made public, out of respect for both the person and our conversation.

Plus there is one question I have, and that is if a candidate is so unsure of themselves that they would give up once they believe someone is voting for someone, doesn't that say something for the candidate anyway? You don't think that if they are willing to give up on voters, that they will give up on even tougher fights? I really hope that Mr Espar has more fortitude than you are giving him credit for here. Heck as a matter of a fact, I will offer up the opportunity to have him change my vote. I am by no means sold on any candidate in the second ward, I am even willing to give him a third chance to step to the plate and convince me that he is the ideal person to represent me, and I will publically state it, just as I have stated and defended my convinctions up to this point.

And if all else fails, I would love to have someone to talk about second ward and Michigan City issues with. You obviously have your strong feelings, and I would love to see some of your opinions and ideas meted out here. When I envisioned this board, I wanted to see a strong passionate exchange of ideas. If you see something you want to talk about, talk about it. I might be a strange one about these parts, but I love to be challenged on my convictions. I love the debate, and I love the exchange of information. I also believe that my mind is basically never made up, because if a better answer comes along, I want to be a part of that as well.

I am finally glad to see another answer about the Gring situation. After I issued the public challenge, the only emails I got confirmed what had been said. I didn't see anything that supported Gring position, so that is why it was only a part of the equation. But left without other answers, which I did attempt to seek, I made the conclusion with the information I had at hand. I am curious if you saw this information before, why you didn't offer up this explanation earlier? Its a pretty big thing to just let hang in the wind.

The last paragraph was interesting. My whole intent of this format was to offer as much information to the general public as possible, and let them do what they want to do with it. My hope was that a decent amount of people would want to join into the discussion, and exchange ideas and viewpoints to make themselves more educated, and most importantly more passionate about the life that is going on around them. Opposing viewpoints are just as valid to that, as are viewpoints that reinforce people's beliefs.

And actually before I reply, I almost forgot to include a detail about my Espar contact attempts. The email I sent through their campaign site was actually the second attempted contact to his group. I also sent a message to his campaign person (containing the same details and questions that I sent to him later) through this very website on March 20th, which I also never got a reply to. This was a full month before I decided to support Mr Przybylinski. Once again the excuse of me supporting someone else doesn't hold water.

[Informed]

Thanks for the warm welcome SS (I bet you knew I could not stay away). I just recently followed-up on the Gring issues as I did not think anyone really took it serious based on the rumor post, but guessed wrong on that one…Have been very busy and out-of-town frequently as well…

Your points and explanations are very well taken and appreciated, and I am glad you remain open minded...But my points on making a vote decision and holding leaders accountable were based on very important issues and considerations as well, such as all of this from past N-D excerpts…I believe you will find common roadblocks and attackers such as Przy and Jank repeated throughout:

September 10, 2004
Fire chief feels ambushed

What had Martin so upset he was tearing up and his hands were shaking was a comment by City Council President Paul Przybylinski Tuesday night when the department's salary ordinance was being discussed…On the street, that would be considered major disrespect. That's how Martin took it, and it's how 82 of the other 83 members of the department took it. Firefighter Willie Milsap, who is the 5th Ward City Councilman, apparently was not bothered by Przybylinski's tirade because he voted with him on an amendment presented by Councilman Phil Jankowski to eliminate an assistant fire chief's position.

"The job being done by this department today is being done better than ever," Martin said. I wouldn't expect Martin to say anything else…But if some members of the council have a problem with his leadership, they need to act professionally and sit down with Martin and talk privately. Not ambush and insult him and the entire department at a public meeting.

September 24, 2004
Przybylinski drones on
Rick A. Richards, City Editor

"Robert's Rules of Order" may be dry reading, but anyone holding public office ought to be familiar with it. Consider this passage on the conduct of the president or chairman of board:
"If the chairman has even the appearance of being a partisan, he loses much of his ability to control those who are on the opposite side of the question. There is nothing to justify the unfortunate habit some chairmen have of constantly speaking on questions before the assembly, even interrupting the member who has the floor. One who expects to take an active part in debate should never accept the chair, or at least should not resume the chair, after having made his speech, until after the pending question is disposed of ...
"The chairman should not only be familiar with parliamentary usage, and set the example of strict conformity thereto, but he should be a man of executive ability, capable of controlling men. He should set an example of courtesy, and should never forget that to control others it is necessary to control one's self."
"Robert's Rules of Order" has been around since 1915 and its long-established rules spell out how to run a public meeting, and who can speak and when. Unfortunately, it appears Michigan City Common Council President Paul Przybylinski has never read it.
Since he took over as council president at the beginning of the year, he appears to be more enamored of the title than he does of carrying out the serious responsibilities that title requires.
Anyone who has been unfortunate enough to sit through a City Council meeting knows exactly what I'm talking about. Przybylinski drones on and on, either saying nothing or going off on a tangent about something that isn't even remotely related to the issue up for discussion.
Consider Tuesday's meeting in which Przybylinski cast the lone vote against the city's 2005 budget. His reason for voting no?
The city budget didn't spend enough money on tutoring programs.
Since when is it the city's responsibility to operate tutoring programs? Isn't that the responsibility of the school board? Isn't that why the Michigan City Public Library and the A.K. Smith Career Center have tutoring classes? Isn't that why the Boys and Girls Club has tutoring classes? How about the tutoring programs sponsored by H.O.P.E. or the after-school programs sponsored by Safe Harbor?
None of that seemed to matter to Przybylinski. He used the lack of tutoring money to bash Mayor Chuck Oberlie.
"There's a significant need to get money for literacy. There's a significant need. Monies need to be targeted within the education system," said Przybylinski. No one disagrees but it is not the city's responsibility.
And I'm not alone in my feelings about Przybylinski's little tirades. Take a look at the eight other council members as he drones on. They roll their eyes. They put their head in their hands. They shake their heads.
One council member told me he has written Przybylinski notes reminding him of points of order (they're spelled out in "Roberts Rules of Order"), but instead of acting professionally, the council member told me, Przybylinski sent the notes back with snide comments that since he's the president he can run the meeting as he sees fit.
That was in evidence Tuesday when he spent 10 minutes harping on Oberlie's budget two weeks after he ambushed Fire Chief Ralph Martin in an incredible display of public disrespect during a budget hearing. But after he finished his tirade, Przybylinski got a sample of his own medicine.
Marge Jamieson, a board member for the Michigan City Housing Authority and a resident of Boulevard Gardens, stood up and railed against Przybylinski and his ally, Councilman Phil Jankowski, calling them an embarrassment because of the way they publicly disrespect city officials (specifically she mentioned Oberlie, Martin and Sanitary District General Manager Al Walus) and don't let them properly do their jobs.
Przybylinski sat there stone-faced and didn't respond.
A few minutes later, after listening to comments from another resident who had a complaint about a barking dog and its droppings, Przybylinski turned childish. He said he was sure the mayor would be happy to handle the problem. "I'll let him do his job," Przybylinski said.
That behavior is inexcusable. Why not turn over the complaint to animal control and move on.
An out-of-town developer was at a recent City Council meeting when Przybylinski went off. The developer said he was shocked.
"Are all meetings like this?"
When told that it wasn't unusual, he replied, "That's so unprofessional."
No kidding.

December 22, 2004
Sewer rates to rise 26%

Michigan City residents will see an average $5 monthly hike in their sewage rates after the first of the year, despite the vocal objections of two City Council members.
Council members voted 6-3 Tuesday night to raise sewer rates more than 26 percent. The hike is the first since 1994 and is needed, officials said, to keep up payments on general obligation bonds and to partly pay for capital-improvement plans…
The ordinance also will refinance the sanitary district's largest general obligation bond, a move officials say will save the district some $500,000 per year.
Council members Phil Jankowski and Paul Przybylinski argued with Sanitary District General Manager Al Walus for nearly an hour on the need for the hike.
Jankowski, though, took his argument further in accusing Walus of hiding incriminating financial records and forcing Michigan City residents to subsidize the department by paying extra for improvement projects…

"It's a concern to me as a resident of the 6th Ward," Jankowski said after accusing the district of lying when Walus said the district wouldn't ask for riverboat money for projects if the rate hike was passed.

While Jankowski, Przybylinski and Councilman Willie Milsap opposed the move, several council members said they saw the need for it, even if they didn't like granting it.
Chuck Lungren said the rate hike would better serve taxpayers because they wouldn't be asked to foot the bill for improvements through further bond issues or riverboat funds.
"Instead of taking that money out of the pockets of the taxpayers, we need to pass this now," he said. "I know it's hard, but the district needs it. Hopefully, we can go with smaller increases in the future."

January 10, 2005
Rift on City Council? Members say they are doing what's best for city

The type of rancor seen recently between members of the City Council and Michigan City's administration is usually reserved for bodies on which two political parties are vying for control…
But the infighting and issues that have, at times, overshadowed the work of Michigan City's leaders is not partisan…And some within the leadership of the county's Democratic Party see a need to calm the swirling waters and refocus on what's best for the county and Michigan City.
"Personally, I try to stay out of some of the divisive politics," Dr. Vidya Kora, head of the county's Democratic Party, said Friday. "It's important to keep personal biases out of it and create a good team, both for the good of the party and the community." In the past year, personal differences among members of the council and between members and Mayor Chuck Oberlie and his administration have become apparent.
Councilman Ron Meer admits the issue can make single party politics look fractured, but said it can be expected in a multi-divided society…"Once you're elected, those affiliations tend to go out the window," he said. "We're not all as tight-knit as people think. Unfortunately we know there are two sides to this council, but we're all elected to represent the people in our ward and eventually that's what we do…"If sides can't align, however, the divide will likely continue…"I think (a new council president) will make the situation better," Councilwoman Evelyn Baker said. "I think everybody will be more comfortable now."

January 24, 2005
City council president shuffles members

Several burning issues that have come to the fore during the past year and caused notable disagreements between City Council members and city administrators are likely to die down with the recent election of a new Michigan City Common Council president…The process is often a clue to the new president's vision for the city and, on a board that has shown deep divisions in the past year, Lungren's changes are telling…
Two changes are already making waves among some council members…Councilman Phil Jankowski, who served on the committee last year, was re-appointed this year, but immediately resigned, noting a difference in philosophy between himself, Lungren and Oberlie…"It's a very controversial role. And while I don't shy away from controversy, I have different views on those issues than the administration and those views wouldn't be consistent with their agendas." Przybylinski asked this week if Lungren would consider placing him on the committee, but Lungren declined. Przybylinski hinted that he hoped Jankowski's resignation from the committee might pave the way for his return.
While the new negotiating committee appointments have caused a stir, Jankowski's removal as utilities commission representative could take the heat off the city's sanitary district.
Since he was elected to the council and appointed to the Utilities Committee last year, Jankowski has been on a crusade to straighten out what he feels is fiscal malfeasance on the part of district general manager Al Walus.
Jankowski's fervor in going after the district has led to numerous divisions among the council and ultimately, some members said, played a role in the choice to vote Przybylinski - a close Jankowski ally - out of the council president's seat.
Long-time councilwoman Baker said this week she would change the tack Jankowski took with the Sanitary District, opting to let Walus run the department without much interference.
"As a liaison to that department, my job is not to try to run the department," she said. "The objective is to report back to the council on the job they're doing. I think if they just go in and do their job and if I see something that needs to be changed, I'll voice my opinion…"But I truly believe the department is run well."
Jankowski said he felt Baker would do a good job as liaison to the sanitary district. He was, though, disappointed that he was removed from the position…" Jankowski said. "It's a very complex issue. I'll keep looking into that department."
Walus said he would continue to work with the council regardless of who is his department's liaison.
"The Sanitary District fully respects the authority of the council president to determine committee and liaison assignments," he said. "Myself, as general manager, and all staff members of the sanitary district, will continue to listen to input from all city council members, as we've done consistently in the past."

April 17, 2006
Councilman still on board amid bankruptcy

Przybylinski blamed his employer for the mess…Mittal spokesman Dave Allen said this week the company has “excellent benefits,” and Przybylinski's claim has him confused…“We don't understand this one,” he said. “I can't imagine what the problem would've been. We even cover a number of people who weren't employees of Mittal…”

June 07, 2006
Council approves $320,000 for new zoo exhibit

Officials are excited after a contentious 6-3 vote appropriates money for carnivore facility…After weeks of wondering if it would happen, Washington Park Zoo officials Tuesday got the money they needed to make what many say is the biggest improvement in the zoo's history.
“We're very excited,” zoo director Johnny Martinez said. “This is the first stage of the zoo. This will be the first thing (visitors) see. It sets them up for the rest of the zoo.”
In a contentious vote, the council voted 6-3 Tuesday to give the zoo $320,000 needed to complete a North American Carnivore Exhibit, which will provide native habitats and better public viewing for grizzly bears, mountain lions and river otters…Outspoken opponents to the appropriation - council President Ron Meer, Paul Przybylinski and Phil Jankowski - voted against it, arguing that more than $600,000 is too much to spend on a “bear cage,” Jankowski said.
Many council members Tuesday harkened back to some five years ago when officials were deciding whether to fold the cash-strapped zoo or keep it running in hopes it would survive and - someday - flourish.
Park Department Superintendent Darrell Garbacik pointed out the zoo's $750,000 operating deficit from 2001 has shrunken to just over $300,000 in five years.
“The zoo has been cutting back the last five years,” Councilwoman Virginia Martin, who supported the appropriation, said Tuesday. “This is not too much to be spending.”
…“I assure you this is a modest project compared to other zoos,” he said. “The project simply evolved as part of the (zoo master plan). These exhibits will get people to the zoo, which I think will help the taxpayers.” Garbacik said he'll ask the park board to award the construction contract to Larson & Danielson at its Thursday meeting.
“We'll move as quickly as we can,” he said. “Maybe by fall, we'll have it done.”

June 30, 2006
Head of park board takes issue with councilman

Michigan City Park Board President Bob McKee Wednesday defended himself against accusations leveled at himself and his department by city Councilman Paul Przybylinski.
“This is getting a little bit frustrating, but once again, I need to correct Councilman Przybylinski's most recent misstatement of facts,” McKee said Wednesday…

Przybylinski and other council members have taken issue, lately, with park department spending, specifically in light of a recent $320,000 request for a new exhibit for the Washington Park Zoo.

August 17, 2006
Park plan amended

Progress in Michigan City comes so achingly slow it hurts, so we probably should take some small pleasure that the City Council “approved” the Park Board’s master plan Tuesday night.

The City Council apparently felt it was advancing the Park Board’s master plan by approving it, even though the council put a serious crimp in the board’s vision by saying it couldn’t support leasing park facilities to private enterprises, which was the mechanism to funding improvements.

With that kind of “support”, it will be very hard for the Park Board to implement any of the elements of the Master Plan.

The debate over the plan illustrates how opinions are divided in Michigan City. Various factions have emerged as the discussion has evolved.

Most easily dismissed are the concerns of the park’s neighbors in the Dunescape development, who, now that they have their place on the beach, don’t want any further development. That’s a hypocritical stand. Dunescape's very presence creates an argument in favor of further development, not less.

The next faction includes opponents who don’t want any dunes replaced by structures or parking lots…But the park already is a very developed area. The addition of a lakefront restaurant would remove some natural area, as did the Senior Center and all the many other park features added over the years, including the zoo and observation tower.

Then we have the opponents who just don’t like anyone from outside Michigan City coming here, particularly if they are from Illinois or have a little more money than us. Sadly, they are not looking forward.

…Finally, we have those that understand that tourism and visitors and their money are important to the future economic development of Michigan City. It’s too bad the City Council doesn’t seem to be aware of that.

The city needs leadership that comprehends this and pursues a wide course of development, rather than buckling under to the negative voices that will bring stagnation instead of progress.

THE ISSUE
The parks master plan would be funded by leasing sites for a restaurant and hotel, but the City Council opposes leasing.

OUR OPINION
The Park Board plan now faces hurdles. Various opponents of the plan should realize just how important park development is to the economic health of the City.

August 17, 2006
Park board must find other ways to fund plan

Michigan City parks officials will have to regroup in the coming weeks and try to come up with a new way to fund projects outlined recently in a new master plan for Washington Park…“It's disappointing and surprising, frankly,” Parks and Recreation Department Superintendent Darrell Garbacik said Wednesday, a day after Michigan City Common Council members approved a watered-down version of the plan. “That's why we didn't bring before the council a grandiose plan that didn't take financing into account.”
The council Tuesday approved the master plan 7-2, but with a council amendment disallowing the placement of private business on public lands.

Park Board President Bob McKee said Wednesday he's disappointed in the amendment because it makes funding the plan more difficult. His disappointment was tempered, though, by the support voiced for the plan Tuesday by several economic development professionals. Opponents on the council Tuesday varied in their opposition, with some saying no because they felt the restaurant was planned for the “wrong spot.” Others, like Paul Przybylinski, opposed the plan as a whole because, he said, park officials didn't try to build a consensus.
That sentiment outraged fellow Councilman Joe Doyle, who pointed out that the park board invited council members to several informational meetings, solicited their input and asked them to take part in several tours of the park…Doyle, the council's parks liaison, and councilwoman Pat Boy, were the only council members to show interest in the workings of the plan, he said. Przybylinski, in fact, didn't attend a council workshop held Tuesday night to discuss the plan in detail.
“How closed-minded and unprofessional,” Doyle said. “It baffles me. If they're so against private business in that park, then maybe we should cancel Summer Festival and Labor Dayz and get rid of all the boats and the marina…“There's a lot of private business in that park already and if they want, we can get rid of it all right now.”

August 16, 2006
City Council members gut park plan

The Michigan City Council on Tuesday approved a master plan for improvements at Washington Park, but symbolically took the teeth out of the plan.
The council passed the plan 7-2 - with councilmen Paul Przybylinski and Phil Jankowski voting “no.” But that was only after adding to it an amendment introduced by at-large councilwoman Virginia Martin disallowing any plans to include private businesses on public lands.
The linchpins of the plan were the creation of a privately-owned restaurant and hotel/water park which officials envisioned helping pay for improvements like a boardwalk and a splash park.

Tuesday's resolution was not required, but park board members felt they should present the plan to the commission. The council's input on the plan has no bearing on its future - unless the park department is forced to ask the council for money.
The department envisioned using TIF revenues from the hotel/water park to pay for the smaller renovations. The council would have to approve the allocation of TIF revenues to the park department.
Many proponents of the project stressed the plan is simply a vision and nothing in it is solid…“It says very clearly in the plan that it is conceptual. Nothing is set in stone,” said councilman Chuck Lungren, who voted for the plan. “There are good things in here. Good things for the city. A city has to have vision to dream. This is a tourist town. We don't have smokestacks anymore.”
While residents' opinions were mixed, representatives from the city's economic development commission, chamber of commerce, and LaPorte County Convention and Visitors Bureau, endorsed the plan as a solid revenue generator for the city.
Councilman and former park board president Joe Doyle lauded the plan, saying it is a good first step. “We're never going to go anyplace if we don't have a plan,” he said.

September 16, 2006
City Council questions Patriot Park master plan

Michigan City Common Council President Ron Meer thinks the city's park department can accomplish the majority of it's Patriot Park Master Plan for much less than what park officials are asking for in the city's 2007 budget. Park superintendent Darrell Garbacik, Park Board President Bob McKee and Mayor Chuck Oberlie all assured the council that everything outlined in the plan - as well as the relocation of soccer fields - will be covered by the $750,000 requested.
Oberlie and McKee promised the council that the request will be the last made for Patriot Park, which was a concern for some council members…, who feel many of the city's neighborhood parks suffer because Patriot Park receives the bulk of money and attention.
McKee said Patriot Park completion is the key to begin work on the smaller parks, because Patriot sees the most attention. Once Patriot is done, he said, it opens up time, money and resources to begin to address the other parks, which Meer said have old equipment.
“Getting Patriot completed will allow us to bring in more revenue generators like baseball and softball tournaments,” he said. “Then we'll have the means to start working on our other parks.”

August & September, 2006
Various Headlines from Anvil Chorus

Park progress: Say ‘no’ and die
Council gets it half right on park plan
Park plan great; city is a tourist town
City needs lake to lift economy
Park hardly a nature preserve
Council eliminates exciting possibilities
Too many just gripe about city instead of making it better
Park plan good for residents
City must capitalize on its lake location
Let’s salvage park master plan
Park plan should be revisited
Voter referendum pushed for park plan
City suffers under current council

August 18, 2006
Lunatic fringe battles park plan

Michigan City's not dead yet, but it looks as if the City Council is measuring it for a coffin.
By rejecting the Park Department's master plan for Washington Park, council members underscored the city's long standing tradition of telling visitors to the city to get lost.
Sure, the council voted 7-2 to approve the master plan, but that was only after an amendment by Councilwoman Virginia Martin gutted the proposal by prohibiting any private business from operating within the park. The city might as well padlock the gates.
Without the ability of the Park Department to form partnerships with private businesses, accomplishing key components of the master plan will be impossible.
When Park Superintendent Darrell Garbacik and Tim Haas of Haas & Associates explained a couple of months ago in a private meeting some of the details of the plan, I was floored. Not because I was appalled at their proposal, but because of what I thought was a visionary plan that would revitalize the park and lure new visitors to the city.
I mentioned then that every tree hugger and nutball in the city would probably come out against the plan. I was right…The lunatic fringe railed against it because it would ruin the park for locals while environmentalists worried about spoiling undisturbed dunes.
By proposing a boardwalk along the lakefront, a restaurant, a splash pad for young children and other amenities, park officials were looking for a way to preserve Washington Park for future generations. The most controversial aspect, of course, was for a restaurant near Dunescape, where those residents were outraged.
The irony of their argument - and what makes it so easy to dismiss - is that the 11-story monstrosity that is Dunescape is the biggest wart on the lakefront imaginable. It's design looks like something concocted by the old Soviet Politburo. That doesn't matter, though. Now that they have their own corner of the beach, they don't want anyone else to get near it.
Some parts of the master plan needed to be reworked or eliminated. The ideas proposed for the hill near the Observation Tower were questionable, especially ideas for a water park and a hotel.
But to claim the rest of the park was “unspoiled” as some have is utterly ridiculous. Remember, Washington Park used to be home to an amusement park and some of it is built on backfill. To claim any kind of development would somehow “despoil” virgin dunes is nothing more than the rantings of people who want to preserve the outdoors to keep the public out.
City Councilman Joe Doyle calls the vote by the council to keep private developers out “closed minded” and baffling. “If they're so against private business in that park, then maybe we should cancel Summer Festival and Labor Dayz and get rid of all the boats and the marina.” He might have a point. After all, the annual fireworks show - the most popular one-day attraction in the park - is put on by a private company, which the city says is no longer allowed.
Credit the Park Department for trying. Park officials, like the private developers who have drawn the same criticism from the lunatic fringe for their North End plans, are trying to think big.

September 22, 2006
Council decisions hold city back

First it was the master plan for Washington Park the City Council didn't like, now it's the master plan for Patriot Park… The controversy around Washington Park was to be expected. Some parts of the proposal were controversial, but rather than offer any viable alternatives, City Council members simply gutted the proposal by forbidding any private money from helping to improve the park, a decision that is parochialism at its worst…there's absolutely nothing wrong with a boardwalk along the lakefront with a restaurant as its anchor.
Water front communities in Michigan, Wisconsin, California, Maryland, North Carolina, Florida - you name the place - have developed successful boardwalks that incorporate restaurants and other businesses that blend well with the water front and attract visitors and their dollars…Thanks to the City Council's short sightedness, that's not going to happen here.
Now the council has stuck a knife in the heart of Patriot Park by refusing to complete the vision of the park as it was planned years ago. City Council President Ron Meer had other ideas. Instead of the $750,000 requested by the Park Department to finish the job, the department got only $250,000. Said Meer, “The money is enough to finish the park and move the soccer fields.”
He said the park didn't need two more baseball fields, and Meer didn't stop there. He accused Park Director Darrell Garbacik of misleading the Soccer Association about the project, even though association members told Meer at Tuesday's Council meeting they felt they were never misled…What's worse, when Garbacik tried to defend himself and the plan, Meer cut him off.
And when Councilman Joe Doyle, a former Park Board president, tried to make a case for completing the Patriot Park master plan, Meer cut him off, too…“I don't care about the original plan,” said Meer.
It's outrageous that the council president would refuse to listen to views that differ from his…That attitude has an all-too-familiar ring. Last month after I criticized the City Council for refusing to listen to people that wanted to improve Washington Park, I received comments from residents and former residents who questioned the leadership capabilities of City Hall.
A sampling:
“Our City Council needs a serious wake up call.”
“What is the most frightening thing that is not stated is that it is becoming difficult to attract good people for various city and county offices. You need reasonable people to make reasonable decisions. Yes, there are some, but not nearly enough.”
“This town hasn't done any beneficial growing for years. It is the lack of foresight of the city planners. So very many small towns in the state of Michigan, for example, have created water features and built around them to attract residents and tourists alike, and it works. We have one of the greatest assets that very few states have in our Lake Michigan, but the city planners do not have the insight to utilize it. I was born and raised in Michigan City and have remained here for 65 years. What I've seen happen is really sad.”
I couldn't agree more. It's sad that so few leaders in this city can seem to see beyond the end of their noses. Until they can, the city will continue to putt along with no vision or realization of what this city could be.

September 24, 2006
Mayor: Take charge

A story on Page A1 today explores the concept of political leadership In LaPorte County. A corollary to that story could be written about the state of political leadership in Michigan City. As events unfolded this year, culminating with a City Council meeting this week, it is clear that Michigan City’s political leadership is lagging at the very top – in the mayor’s office…

…Yet, somehow we see things moving very slowly, with efforts often bogged down as he tends to brush fires lit by his nit-picking foes on the City Council.

…At the same time, the mayor, who is looking at a city election next year…needs to build a slate of solid political leaders on the ward level to take on those pitiful members of the City Council who have simply failed to help advance Michigan City. We don’t need obstructionist on the council, we need people with vision, energy, and determination to finally make things happen, not the same old do-nothing bellyachers who do little more than stymie the city’s growth.

THE ISSUE
Mayor Chuck Oberlie is a solid mayor, but he is letting his political foes slow progress.

OUR OPINION
The mayor needs to dramatically increase the pace of progress on North End redevelopment, and work on building a political team to get people on the city council who are in favor of progress.

September 22, 2006
3 council critics on witch hunt
Bob McKee Viewpoint

It is extremely unfortunate for this great City of ours that several members of the Michigan City Common Council have reached a new low. The conduct of Councilmen Meer, Jankowski, and Przybylinski has become outrageous. These three have recently combined to go on a witch hunt against the Park Department.

It has transgressed beyond their usual political grandstanding and has turned into an outright pattern of intimidation, rumor mongering, and misstatement of facts. Sadly, they have become extremely reckless with the truth. This is not the first time this has happened. It now has seemingly turned into a full fledged character assassination of Park Superintendent Darrell Garbacik.

The three have continued to levy false accusations and rumors against the Park Department. They have systematically gone about spreading innuendo to help their cause. Without blinking an eye, they have attacked the character of the Park Superintendent, the Park Board, and the fine men and women that go to work everyday for this City’s Park Department.

Based on their micromanagement tendencies they act as if they are the managers of all departments. The reality is that they serve as the legislative branch of this local government. This theme continued at a recent council meeting when Meer made an allegation towards Garbacik and then, because he can, refused to allow Garbacik to speak on the matter. To add insult to injury, Meer acted as if he were representing the Park Department by sarcastically answering a question from the audience incorrectly. He should have paid more attention at the Council Workshops where the subject matter was covered in great detail rather than misleading the public with an incorrect answer.

Meer also attempted to move forward with voting on amendments to resolutions without allowing public input. Fortunately, Council Attorney Alevizos was able to convince him to allow the public to speak.

Meer then accused Garbacik, the Park Board and the City of violating EEOC standards in the hiring of the Zoo Director. Apparently he was upset that a minority and City resident was hired because it was not the type of minority he wanted. This thought process by Meer would create an illegal quota. This habit of shooting from the hip was exactly why the Mayor was forced to veto unconstitutional legislation proposed by Meer on hiring City residents earlier this year.

Jankowski enters the fray claiming everyone and his brother has take home cars at the Park Department. He also perpetuated rumors that nepotism was running rampant through the Park Department. The facts are that the City has policies in place to prevent these situations and the Parks adheres to these policies. Not allowing facts to get in the way of a good rumor, Jankowski requested Garbacik to essentially complete a Parks/Council family tree so that he could chart who is related to all full time Park employees and Park Board members. The problem outside of being a waste of time and taxpayer money is that it is illegal to divulge personal information under right to privacy issues.

Jankowski also continued to make false statements about the Park Department having a practice of paying directors more than stated in the salary ordinance. The facts on this suggested otherwise and he was proven wrong once again. However, he continued to press on seeking to place blame for something that never occurred, and ultimately cast a vote in favor of an illegal amendment even after being advised by council attorney Alevizos not to do so.

Not to be outdone, Mr. Przybylinski also voted for the illegal amendment and continued on with his over-the-top political grandstanding, dishing out criticism and acting like the neighborhood bully. He has a continual trend of misleading, misquoting and being absolutely reckless with the truth. Perhaps most ridiculous were his accusations that the Park’s encouragement of public input during its bond issue and sending invitations to users of Patriot Park to participate in a public hearing somehow “badgered elected officials”.

Consider next the Washington Park Master Plan Resolution that was voted down. Mr. Przybylinski summed things up by saying that the Park Board failed to reach and should have done a better job of consensus building even though he refused to participate in the process whatsoever.

Przybylinski chose not to attend two Council workshops on the Master Plan. Furthermore, all Council members were invited to set up meetings within their respective Wards to help the committee obtain input from City residents. No members of the Council chose to do this. There were two workshops held on the Master Plan and he attended neither. He was invited to two separate on-site tours to develop ideas on Washington Park and he again chose not to attend either. It is tough to build consensus when those that should participate in government decide not to.

There are far too many situations, events and comments that have been made by this trio to do justice in this short venue. But I could not help but wonder why there isn’t some type of ethics committee within the Council itself that would at least watch over these ridiculous antics. In doing some research here is what I found out. There is an ethics committee. However, the policy that exists is vague and really has no teeth because the Council simply governs its own actions. The Council has been in no hurry to change it.

I guess you could say that this is a Council without acceptable ethics.

September 29, 2006
It’s about time mayor called truce

Michigan City has been embarrassed long enough. The personal sniping and arguing and posturing that has taken place by public officials in the past few months has certainly made for good news copy, but it hasn’t done a whole lot for the city’s image.
…The people of this city deserve better – much better than their elected leadership has given them. They deserve leaders who look out for the communities’ best interest, not leaders who put their interests first.
What has happened over the past few months appears to be nothing more than politics. There’s not even a city election this year, but it looks like council members are positioning themselves for another run.
Look, I’ve been around politics in this city long enough to know that appealing to a particular constituency is nothing new. Heck, pandering to voters is how to get elected. But once elected that kind of pandering needs to be toned down. There are serious issues that need to be addressed in this city, but serious discussion isn’t happening. The city’s future is at a crossroads, but instead of choosing a path forward, it’s been blocked by individual roadblocks.
That’s no way to run a city.
…There are dozens of people who want to get involved in building a better community. They are smart, they are dedicated, they love this city and right now they won’t lift a finger to help.
Why?
Because they don’t want to be vilified by self-serving politicians whose agenda is personal.
So who is to blame?
Frankly, all of us. Voters keep electing the same old, warmed over politicians who are viewed as an old Teddy bear. Voters are afraid to try something new, but you know what? The stitching in old Teddy bears start to fray and the stuffing starts to fall out. In the end, you’re left with nothing but an empty shell.
If the leadership in this city can’t put their differences aside and start working for the good of the entire community, then that’s what they’re going to end up with – a city that’s a shell of what it could be.

October 1, 2006
City’s progressive voices grown still
Diane Hirsch Viewpoint

I agree with …letter “City lacks forward-looking citizens,”… Why on earth do people vote against progress? History has proven people feel uncomfortable with change. Is sitting stagnate a better option? Ever here the saying “If your not part of the solution, then you must be part of the problem?” Nothing good is borne on the heels of negativity. We remain the last frontier on Lake Michigan to drag ourselves into this century.
Why not develop Washington Park into something more we can enjoy. Mr. Garbacik and his team are eager for improvement and work hard. Why not a boardwalk along the beach for all people to enjoy?..Why not a viable riverfront plan for all to enjoy. People from outside our community are willing to step up and invest in helping to renew this area and we turn them away! Why?
…For years we have come up with unapplied answers. Studies and answers are wonderful – if they are instituted and proven…
I fear that people who really do want to see Michigan City return to life and thrive have quit speaking out. I feel they have been disappointed one too many times. They’ve given up. Some have moved away. My biggest hope is that there are many of us hanging on and letting everyone else know we are waiting for positive signs.
We have a Mayor who truly wants this city to prosper. He understands that he faces a huge, ugly mountain. It’s a mountain that must be concurred. He unfortunately cannot bring about change single-handedly. We have a number of people sitting in controlling positions who are only there to collect a paycheck and spew their negativity, spawning more problems for out troubled city.
Elections are right around the corner. It is up to us – the voting taxpayers to make our voices heard and let the City Council know we have had “enough.” I challenge the News-Dispatch to help all of us by publishing the voting record of each person who held a seat on our council who is running for office again. We need to be informed. We want to know their track record. We need to make careful choices on election day.
We cannot afford any more bad decisions by people at the helm who are unable to steer the ship to open seas and keep it from sinking.
Diane Hirsch is from Michigan City.


Please vote for professionalism and positive change and to make Michigan City a better place!

[RedDevilMC]

I guess my whole impression of the campaign has been mostly positive. Great feedback, support, etc. I will stay out of the other races but it is really hard to see candidates being beat up and fought against and dragged down by other candidates and the media. It's very ironic that a few people are harping on unprofessionalism and not working as a team because I see nothing but divide on several fronts. I can only hope that this negativity in some races (campaigning) stops pretty soon (well the election is on Tuesday).

I attended and watched several of the meetings and votes that were mentioned. As a council person, everyone is not going to agree with some of the decisions you make. That's okay as long as you can explain why you made your vote. In most cases that did happen. Another thing, none of the doors I have knocked on have mentioned anything and I mean anything about the Park Department or the Master Plan. In my ward that's not the number 1 prioroty, it's somewhere at the bottom. My current council person has always been accessible and responsive to all my inquiries. We have had some fundamental disagreements but I can say he'll go to bat for our neighborhoods and LOCAL PARKS!!!!! Remember that's very important.

Please make informed decisions on May 8th.

Angie