[Informed]

Here goes an early outlook and some questions from INFORMED. Would look forward to factual points (and corrections too I suppose if I have miss-stated any of the issues) that can change my mind and perspectives in regard to the following:

MAYOR: Have not decided who to vote for here as I wish to hear the debate of issues first. A bit more than generally pleased with Mayor Oberlie. Most negatives he is attributed with in the media, and especially the anvil chorus, and already from his opposition (which of course is the nature of the beast during campaigns) seem to be a result of or motivated by:
1) Holding him accountable for things he ultimately does not have control of
2) Hidden and personal agendas
3) Focusing on singular modifiers – not the subject, i.e., isolating one point but forgetting to consider the rest of the information and story.
4) Uninformed opinion and innuendo (or where research on the matter would provide fact vs. fiction, i.e., shooting from the hip.)

Biggest personal critique of current Mayor is that I wish he would be more assertive and take a stronger stand of right vs. wrong, and in most cases, flat out clear the untruths that frequently whip through council chambers, and stick up for many of the folks that frequently are under personal attack by a few of the current council members. There seems to be a definite lack of professionalism by some of these council persons, which leads to council meetings sometimes resembling a News & Views episode (now there’s a panel of brain-trusts, but point being information is not factual and tons of deliberate untruths to promote personal and political agendas), and chambers sometimes even resembling a bad Saturday Night Live skit (usually when Paul falls off his soap box during his overtime ramblings) that end up a bit humorous, but ultimately are embarrassing for the City. I feel the Mayor (any Mayor) should address these scenarios as the City’s CEO. I believe this is something that previous Mayor Sheila took to task compared to Mayor Oberlie.

Biggest compliments: About as genuine and honest guy you will find – good people as they say and very intelligent and professional at all times. I believe he is overall an excellent representative of Michigan City on local, state, regional, and National fronts.

OPPENETS:
Jim LaRocco: Know Jim and overall like Jim. From the feedback I am hearing, biggest criticisms seem to be that he has not been actively involved in the community (outside of his tenure on Fire Dept.). Also is being criticized for lack of political experience. Obviously has a name that carries some weight and he will probably do well in debating the issues and running a relatively non-negative campaign and to-the-point platform on the issues.

Joie Winski: Know her too and overall like Joie as well. Personally concerned with the side of the fence she is aligned with in regard to political allies that have already publicly supported her – namely Jankowski and Prezyb. This will more than likely cost her votes and support in that a non-vote for Joie will be equated to a vote against the two before mentioned.

Joie struggled last election during debates and answering questions, which I believe led to the historic landslide victory of current Mayor last election, which saw him sweep 100% of the precincts. As was the case last election, and seems to be starting again, I personally get turned off quick with negative and viscous sort of attacking as the primary campaign strategy. Would prefer a factual debate of the issues vs. slanted perspectives and slamming all the time, but again, I do realize it’s the nature of it all a bit too, so I try not to let it be too much of a distraction and search out the points that are trying to be made in-between all the rhetoric. I do think (and hope) Joie does better than last time in these regards, and only time and her platform will tell.

Enough for now – and council candidate debate will come next time. However, I think I have already alluded to the fact that I feel vital change needs to come at a council level (more so than the Mayor’s office at this point and time) in my estimations to move the City forward in that any of the three candidates for Mayor would have their hands (and stomachs and maybe even trousers) full of a few of the current council members antics and the constant roadblocks and bottlenecks they put up in the council chambers. This holds the city stagnant and in a non-progressive hostage mode in several cases. Need overall more professionalism and less hidden and personal agendas at the council level in my estimations – Do you agree?

[Roger Kaputnik]

Mr. Oberlie makes some good points in his posting.

The current mayor has been involved in MC leadership long enough to be held accountable.

That says it all.

[Ang]

Mr. Oberlie makes some good points in his posting.

Roger, what do you mean by that? I don't believe the Mayor has made any postings here, is this another Mr. Oberlie you are referring to? And are you implying the Informed is a man named Mr. Oberlie? I'm just curious what you mean by that remark.

[Southsider2k12]

Roger, what do you mean by that? I don't believe the Mayor has made any postings here, is this another Mr. Oberlie you are referring to? And are you implying the Informed is a man named Mr. Oberlie? I'm just curious what you mean by that remark.

I think there was a little [wink,wink] [nudge, nudge] going on there with Rogers interpretation of "informed"' post.

[lovethiscity]

I thought this format was for the friendly exchange of information. I am curious as to why a character attack on Mr. Conner was put out here? With no support or reason. Informed also needs to lighten up on others opinions. The way he questions the city council members, is almost plagiarized from Tim Beitry's letter from the president in Januarys Chambers Lake View publication. It is not a view shared by me or my neighbors. Questions that these fiscal body of government members brought up were valid.

1. Nepotism

2. Racism

3. accountability

The first issue was swept under the rug, the council members that brought it up were attacked Karl Rove style. I see Cindy Wallace is a member of the boards, maybe she could address this issue. Or maybe her sister Vanessa the mayors secretary. Or maybe Cindy's husband Al from the sanitary district. or Vanessa's Husband Bob the assistant harbor master. Never mind it is easier to attack Ron Meer.

The second issue zero zilch nada single African American in the Michigan City Parks Dept. WOW this is 2007 not 1950 a town made up of 26% African Americans and not one. This alone is a disgrace, makes me ashamed to be a Michigan City resident. To answer this they attack Paul P.

The third issue brought up about the accountability of the park dept. and its staff. Somebody please give me a reasonable answer on why. A recreation director from Rolling Prairie needs to have a take home vehicle? What is the park board going to do with the painful void in our neighborhoods? Since they have removed every structured activity from the neighborhood parks. What are the intentions of replacing them? Splash pads on the beach will be great for the Sheridan Beach folks. But what about our kids? Instead of answers attack Phil J.

There is something very wrong in our city. The City Council is not the problem. The problem is things like a letter in a publication from the Chamber president actively opposing certain candidates, then turning around and acting very diplomatic. And he going to moderate the candidates in an unbiased manner? Then give us a recommendation. Is he nuts or does he think we are? He already knows who he is going to endorse, so he needs not to bother with interviews and forums. Just let him give the endorsements to anyone that cares.

[Informed]

My mind has not really been changed yet as my points have been confirmed to a great degree by lovecity. Was just trying to express my opinions, which are in some cases in contrast to others. But this is where research on the matters would provide fact vs. fiction – regardless of differing opinions.

Attending or watching various meetings on ALCO (via computer or TV), and having an ability to be objective enough to even consider the other side’s explanations instead of only certain council members unfounded accusations and bogus attacks, could serve lovecity and his or her neighbors well.

Many times, the council member’s accusations are proved false, and at times this has even been confirmed by the council’s own attorney at their very meeting. This is important in considering all the facts as opposed to false accusations you seem to be inclined to rally for or against. The point I am trying to make, and what I try to do, is understand that anyone can say anything they want, but what does the evidence produce? What would happen if it was tested in court? That usually equals the truth of the matters.

A few examples from lovecity post, as I myself was not familiar with some of the accusations mentioned, are as follows:

Nepotism: I did not see the meeting or hear anyone questioning the Mayor’s assistants, including Ron Meer, whom I like, but I do know the assistant’s are serving under two different Mayor’s administrations – regardless of where their husbands are employed.

I do remember Jankowski questioning the Park Department at a council meeting not too long ago, and he in fact made a request to the Park determined to be illegal. The issue apparently came from News & Views discussions accusing Councilman Doyle of being related to Park Department employees (which he is not and has never been related to any Park Department employees according to Mr. Doyle himself as per checking with him, which lovecity could have done as well.)

It was pointed out at that council meeting that the City policy was being followed (and not violated), and that Jankowski’s request for the Park to put together a family tree of relations to each other and city council members, is illegal. The Park Board Attorney and City Council Attorney concurred such an exercise would constitute a violation of employees rights. How professional is this? Were there hidden agendas to the degree that a council person would bring an illegal request before the council? Why did the councilman not work with the Council attorney before bringing the illegal matter to the floor? How does this serve our City well in decision making? I don’t think Tom Thomas would ever take such an approach as I know him and he is very professional and ethical.


Finally, the relationships and employment within the Mayor’s office, since lovecity brings this up, led to me to ask some questions about it to a city department head, and such are not illegal or against city policy either as these department’s too follow the City’s policies in all cases, and the employment situations do not meet the definition of illegal nepotism – just so you know. Lovecity could have researched this as well prior to posting and continuing the unfounded accusations.

Personally, I think Al Walus’s credentials and success speaks for itself. He and the district are Nationally award winning, which was pointed out recently in the Mayor’s State of the City. However, Jankowski spent over a year viciously attacking Walus and the Sanitary District with an array of unfounded accusations, and was even chastised by a member of the audience at one point for doing so. Is this the type of person, lacking professionalism and integrity, that we want voting on important matters for the City?

Racism: Saw that council meeting too, but again, lovecity is avoiding the facts and truth, and focusing on a singular point and perspective, to meet his or her views. First, an issue was made that there was not a “full-time” African American employed by the Parks at the time (but there is now in fact, if you would again check with the personnel office in City Hall or parks before you type). The Park Department pointed out it had until recently, employed full-time African Americans, but that one had retired and another was no longer employed, for example. It also pointed out that there were several African Americans holding seasonal positions with the department.

When the park supt. offered the departments (total) minority statistics to the council, he in fact was attacked because Meer and Jankowski were making an issue of black only minorities and accusing the department of violations of illegal hiring practices, city policy, and EEO standards in regard to hiring a Hispanic minority that was living in Michigan City as the zoo director without actively pursuing or posting the position that could have been of interst to "a black candidate". Meer offered the example of a black zoo director that may have been at Lincoln Park Zoo in Chicago that may have been intersted in the M.C. job, and that the black director from Chicago could then have been hired instead of a Hispanic person from M.C.

Interestingly enough, I just watched a park board meeting from Feb. and this very issue was discussed, in that a person (of African American decent) led city wide training on diversity and the park supt. had brought this up during the training. The trainer indicated the council was not correct in its accusations and expectations and that he did not think the Parks were in violation of any policy or EEO requirements, and the hiring practices of the parks were sound. In fact, the trainer had stated that if you seek out specific minorities instead of all minorities, that such an approach (as suggested by the council members) would in fact be a violation of EEO and federal law. Again I ask in regard to Jankowski, is this the type of person, lacking professionalism and integrity, that we want voting on important matters for the City?


Accountability of the park dept.: Again Lovecity, pick up the phone and you can answer your own questions by calling the people involved, which I did. The recreation director for the parks is a lifelong Michigan City resident that recently moved. The reason? His wife used to be a teacher in Michigan City, but got “riffed” and now is employed as a teacher at New Prairie High School. The couple recently had their first child, so it was a personal and family decision to live where they do. The rec. dir. had lived his entire life in Michigan City when he was hired, is well educated, and had been working at the parks in a seasonal position as well. Mr. Przy. could have looked into this as well to gain some understanding before he started shooting from the hip.

So indeed – the problem is at the City Council level as lovecity, I feel, points out quite well in his or her post.

As far as the rest of the park complaints, the park department folks do not really know what he is talking about. The only explanation they could surmise is that organized activities were moved from the neighborhood parks and school playgrounds (baseball and soccer) to the sports complex at Patriot Park. This was to give the parks back to the neighborhoods instead of kids being kicked off the fields for the organized programs. Also, they point out that parking limitations and safety were a big concern in these regards. Patriot Park is award winning and was also highlighted in the Mayor’s State of the City. They feel splash pads on the beach would be great for all kids, and in fact, have it listed in the master plan that they hope to put these in other parks too such as Adams. The problem just may be that the council has to approve funds though – so I hope we have some new decision makers in place that might approve the improvements funding instead of following their personal agendas of attacking the Park Board and Park Department and stopping progress in the City.

Finally, I did not realize or take any of my information from the Chamber publication he or she refers to, but I am going to be anxious to see this now as it appears I will like what I read. I anticipate it will reinforce my feelings as per the original post. I think the Chamber is working hard to help improve the schools and the City.

INFORMED

[Roger Kaputnik]

The Chamber is stepping in because City gov't failed and seems to be stuck behind the starting line. I would like to see changes in the MC and La Porte Co. gov'ts because of this.

[lovethiscity]

Attending or watching various meetings on ALCO (via computer or TV), and having an ability to be objective enough to even consider the other side’s explanations instead of only certain council members unfounded accusations and bogus attacks, could serve lovecity and his or her neighbors well.

This may be the fanciest way of saying shut up and lets not bother with the issues While this informed guy was sitting playing on the computer, many of us Michigan City residents were attending the pre-council workshops and the council meetings. Attending all gives one a brooder picture of the issues, not just the Roger McKee viewpoint.

Many times, the council members accusations are proved false, And at times this has even been confirmed by the councils own attorney at their very meeting.

Such as? Can we agree to form some basis of truth by providing an example or two. With the issues that surfaced in the park board budget hearings, none were addressed. Not even nepotism. Nepotism was declared personnel in nature

. Finally, the relationships and employment within the Mayor’s office, since lovecity brings this up, led to me to ask some questions about it to a city department head, and such are not illegal or against city policy either as these department’s too follow the City’s policies in all cases, and the employment situations do not meet the definition of illegal nepotism – just so you know. Lovecity could have researched this as well prior to posting and continuing the unfounded accusations.

I have read and reread my post to see where I mentioned illegal nepotism . Could not find it. Informed assumes I have not done research, this is wrong. For example hiring Bob, Cindy Wallace's brother-in-law as the Assistant Harbor Master, a job advertised needing minimum of three years in the marine industry. Bob got the job over men with decades of experience. Bob's experience, none, unless you consider sitting on a board as a mayoral appointment industry experience So is this illegal? I don't think it matters. It just shows the lack of concern for Michigan City, from the mayors appointments. The what is in it for me mentality must end. The City must come first.

Personally, I think Al Walus’s credentials and success speaks for itself. He and the district are Nationally award winning, which was pointed out recently in the Mayor’s State of the City.

I would love to learn the secret of these credentials. I has been said over and over that Mr. Wallace deserves the $100,000 plus salary. There is engineering involved and Al has a degree. But what is the degree in? The only one I can find is a drafting degree. Can somebody find out if he got some kind of engineering degree. With the highest funded sanitary district in the state and possibly the country, it better be award winning. The Michigan City Sanitary District, the single largest benefactor of riverboat money (almost $30 million in the last five years alone) along with bond issues. Including but not limited to TIF bonds doing sewer work outside of the TIF district, along with a 26% rate increase during mayor Oberlie's term would and should deserve award wining sewers.

Racism:

Do not even try to justify ZERO

Jankowski spent over a year viciously attacking Walus and the Sanitary District with an array of unfounded accusations,

Unfounded only to the extent the financial statements could not be provided by the Sanitary district at the request of Jankowski (due to software glitch) Once provided his accusations have been found to be true. Michigan City rate payers will be helping to underwrite the cost of Indiana Springs sewer system.

Accountability of the park dept.: Again Lovecity, pick up the phone and you can answer your own questions by calling the people involved, which I did. The recreation director for the parks is a lifelong Michigan City resident that recently moved. The reason? His wife used to be a teacher in Michigan City, but got “riffed” and now is employed as a teacher at New Prairie High School. The couple recently had their first child, so it was a personal and family decision to live where they do. The rec. dir. had lived his entire life in Michigan City when he was hired, is well educated, and had been working at the parks in a seasonal position as well. Mr. Przy. could have looked into this as well to gain some understanding before he started shooting from the hip.

Once again the question is, why must we pay for the out of town recreation directors take home vehicle? What kind of an emergency would warrant it? Why pick up the phone, as you claim you have to receive a circle jerk response. A reasonable explanation is all I asked for. Because he moved is not reasonable.

[Informed]

Debates with LoveCity are becoming disingenuous at best. I believe based on his bias and the consistency of his messages and purported issues, which are directly apparent from the meetings he attends and speaks out at - in correlation to his posts here - all have the same un-researched and non-factual manner and tone. To this end, it has now become apparent to INFORMED who he is, as per both my ATTENDING some of these same meetings (and workshops too) that he has been at, while watching others via alternative means (never said I did not go to any of the meetings – just cannot attend every one). Note the “his” instead of “his or her” reference as such is no longer necessary in my analysis.

…of saying shut up and lets not bother with the issues …Such as? Can we agree to form some basis of truth by providing an example or two. With the issues that surfaced in the park board budget hearings, none were addressed. Not even nepotism. Nepotism was declared personnel in nature...

Would never tell anyone to shut up – especially via a message board forum that is to encourage various perspectives, and have not intended to do so – not even to you Lovecity. My posts are intended to be issue based, and I stick by my posts as being exactly that. Examples have already been provided in my posts as I believe an objective review would demonstrate, and specific examples as requested are included. However, since he is seeking even more example, and because he mentions the park budget hearings, another example comes immediately to mind, so I shall offer yet another as per his request.

The short (of the long), Mr. Jankowski accused the Park Board of paying salary’s outside of the council’s salary order (under the guise of alleged nepotism as the motivator), and offered an illegal proposition once again, this time in form of an amendment to the salary ordinance. The park supt. provided evidence proving that incorrect salary figures were provided to the council during the budgetary process by another department, which was confirmed by the council’s attorney after the park’s provided him with a copy of the councils own salary ordinance from a previous year to prove where the errors started.

(Then) Council President Meer advised the council that it “should vote no” as it did not have the legal authority to set the park board’s salaries and that “Mr. Jankowski’s amendment was illegal”, as explained by the Park’s and Council’s attorneys, regardless of the evidence presented by the Parks via the council’s own ordinance that illustrated beyond a doubt to the council’s attorney that Mr. Jankowski’s amendment was based from inaccurate figures in error in the first place. Nepotism within the Parks was not addressed as none existed as falsely alleged by Mr. Jankoswki.

The Park Board attorney asked the council to follow the law. Vote statistics from that issue: 7-2 against the ILLEGAL AMENDMENT as Mr. Jankowski and Mr. Przyb. both voted in favor even after being instructed by the council attorney that it was illegal. Again I ask, is this the type of leadership and decision making that should come from our elected officials. Of course it is NOT!

Racism was not being justified in any way as Lovecity spews as none existed as alleged by he in the post and Jankowski at said meeting. Such was pointed out at the very meeting and my post also pointed out African Americans have been, and continue to be employed by the Parks. Not sure what the Roger McKee reference was for or about, but many folks have applauded Roger McKee for his marks of helping African Americans break into the ranks in Michigan City, including a dear friend of his that ironically passed away at the same time as he – Mr. Joe Hawkins. I can assure LoveCity the credibility and integrity of the likes of McKee and Hawkins to this community is greater than he can make claim to!

Lovecity further demonstrates his lack of understanding in that the park’s rec. dir. vehicle is paid for whether he takes it home or not. The position includes the vehicle – if he wants more specifics as to why he should call the parks and ask, and his friend Jankowski could do the same.

The City must have sewers and Al Walus has nothing to do with what it costs to provide this necessary and vital infrastructure to our City, other than keeping the impact as low as possible to the taxpayers, which he and the Sanitary Board does by following a formal bid process required by statute and law. HateCity is way off on the sanitary issue too as Jankowski attacked Walus on many more fronts then he chooses to list and it was and remains ridiculous and inexcusable. If HateCity wants the credentials of Walus – he should call him direct instead of Jankowski and he will provide such to you.

Vote for positive change in Michigan City. Vote for Tom Thomas and Marc Espar to end this nonsense and bring positive and professional leadership to the problematic City Council once and for all!

(Also happen to agree with the positives offered by Roger’s post under Chamber issues and thank him for pointing such out!)

[Southsider2k12]

Ah, an interesting technique to say the least. Seize the high moral ground from anyone else before the arguements even get started. I found it interesting that before we even looked at the 3 people running for Mayor, we were treated to reasons why people would be against the Mayor, and their motivations for their positions. What is really interesting about that is that all of them are personal instead of issue based. Its almost as if all of his positions are the best possible, and the only reason you would be against them is because you have a personal problem with Mr Oberlie. When I read something like this, I immediate roll my eyes and look for the motivation behind the words on the screen. It makes the debate personal, instead of professional, which after reading your posts decrying personal attacks without information, makes me cringe. If you want things to be issue based, the whole section about people's motivations for not liking the mayor is the wrong foot to get off on, if you ask me. It sets the whole debate up to be something personal, and sure enough, after a couple of posts, the namecalling started.

Here goes an early outlook and some questions from INFORMED. Would look forward to factual points (and corrections too I suppose if I have miss-stated any of the issues) that can change my mind and perspectives in regard to the following:

MAYOR: Have not decided who to vote for here as I wish to hear the debate of issues first. A bit more than generally pleased with Mayor Oberlie. Most negatives he is attributed with in the media, and especially the anvil chorus, and already from his opposition (which of course is the nature of the beast during campaigns) seem to be a result of or motivated by:
1) Holding him accountable for things he ultimately does not have control of
2) Hidden and personal agendas
3) Focusing on singular modifiers – not the subject, i.e., isolating one point but forgetting to consider the rest of the information and story.
4) Uninformed opinion and innuendo (or where research on the matter would provide fact vs. fiction, i.e., shooting from the hip.)

Biggest personal critique of current Mayor is that I wish he would be more assertive and take a stronger stand of right vs. wrong, and in most cases, flat out clear the untruths that frequently whip through council chambers, and stick up for many of the folks that frequently are under personal attack by a few of the current council members. There seems to be a definite lack of professionalism by some of these council persons, which leads to council meetings sometimes resembling a News & Views episode (now there’s a panel of brain-trusts, but point being information is not factual and tons of deliberate untruths to promote personal and political agendas), and chambers sometimes even resembling a bad Saturday Night Live skit (usually when Paul falls off his soap box during his overtime ramblings) that end up a bit humorous, but ultimately are embarrassing for the City. I feel the Mayor (any Mayor) should address these scenarios as the City’s CEO. I believe this is something that previous Mayor Sheila took to task compared to Mayor Oberlie.

Biggest compliments: About as genuine and honest guy you will find – good people as they say and very intelligent and professional at all times. I believe he is overall an excellent representative of Michigan City on local, state, regional, and National fronts.

OPPENETS:
Jim LaRocco: Know Jim and overall like Jim. From the feedback I am hearing, biggest criticisms seem to be that he has not been actively involved in the community (outside of his tenure on Fire Dept.). Also is being criticized for lack of political experience. Obviously has a name that carries some weight and he will probably do well in debating the issues and running a relatively non-negative campaign and to-the-point platform on the issues.

Joie Winski: Know her too and overall like Joie as well. Personally concerned with the side of the fence she is aligned with in regard to political allies that have already publicly supported her – namely Jankowski and Prezyb. This will more than likely cost her votes and support in that a non-vote for Joie will be equated to a vote against the two before mentioned.

Joie struggled last election during debates and answering questions, which I believe led to the historic landslide victory of current Mayor last election, which saw him sweep 100% of the precincts. As was the case last election, and seems to be starting again, I personally get turned off quick with negative and viscous sort of attacking as the primary campaign strategy. Would prefer a factual debate of the issues vs. slanted perspectives and slamming all the time, but again, I do realize it’s the nature of it all a bit too, so I try not to let it be too much of a distraction and search out the points that are trying to be made in-between all the rhetoric. I do think (and hope) Joie does better than last time in these regards, and only time and her platform will tell.

Enough for now – and council candidate debate will come next time. However, I think I have already alluded to the fact that I feel vital change needs to come at a council level (more so than the Mayor’s office at this point and time) in my estimations to move the City forward in that any of the three candidates for Mayor would have their hands (and stomachs and maybe even trousers) full of a few of the current council members antics and the constant roadblocks and bottlenecks they put up in the council chambers. This holds the city stagnant and in a non-progressive hostage mode in several cases. Need overall more professionalism and less hidden and personal agendas at the council level in my estimations – Do you agree?

Once again, I would like to remind all people that what happens on the campaign trail can stay there, but please leave out the personal stuff. All it does is ensure that we will avoid the real issues, and go after the person, which is exactly what has happened here.

[Informed]

Southsider, I feel your approach and feelings towards leadership are apparent. But in this case of your response, I ultimately also feel and must say the focus is pretty narrow if you can only confuse real issues as “personal stuff”. I’m never inclined to avoid real issues, contrary to your conclusion.

No doubt real issues are personal to ALL of us. I think this is obvious in the back-and-forth posting. But I don’t automatically dislike other persons because of such, I just dislike the approach and the fiction involved, and I’ll take others to task whenever there is proof available to do so. I believe that for the most part, most everyone having the courage to express their views – even under a key name – believes in what they are purporting and I applaud and respect them for actually getting involved in an effort to bring about change.

So then, let’s please just accept and not get caught up in any denial of the essence of human nature. If all we had to type about was Utopia and hugs and kisses, I venture a guess that there would be a whole lot of lying going along with it.

Having prefaced with all that, I shall also caution you that what follows may make your “eyes roll” right out of your head this time and you may start to “cringe” all over again, but I will sincerely try to do better and refine my technique in presenting my issues, which are probably the flux of what is really wrong in, and what divides our community so, vs. other variables.

I will attempt to make my personal issues more clear, albeit it and understandably, I have differing personal viewpoints then yours and others. My issues are negativity, approach, professionalism, leadership, decision making, roadblocks to progress, and the vicious attacking of others.

The gauge on professionalism for this forum is best left to the readers of our posts and the many other posts throughout your site here. However, professional leadership towards progress is ultimately determined by ones approach and actions in the various arenas at which our city government and decision making takes place, and then the results that are produced. I do understand you and others question the results produced, or the lack thereof, as sometimes I do myself. I just feel that one person, Mayor or otherwise, cannot do it alone or alone be held accountable.

It takes a team effort and more cooperation as our very form of government structure sets the course for action or inaction. It ALWAYS involves all three branches including judiciary (which is coming into play with north end development and other low income housing development issues, and often times dictates a course of action or inaction), the Mayor (executive), and the City Council (legislative) too. This is where the political debates to come will be of most interest to me.

At the council level, a “high moral ground” would certainly be welcomed as far as I am concerned, and this in my opinion, does have a direct correlation to some council member’s blatantly obvious and self serving motivations, (of which incidentally I did not intend to come off as questioning other people’s posting motivations or views, and I am not so much trying to question yours, as I do believe you are consistent and you strike me as a genuine sort of fellow), rather I truly question some council members in these regards.

Why people are against the Mayor (and a litany of other folks too) are plastered all over the freakin’ place – not just here on your site, but throughout the various media outlets as I indicated in my post, and I even underscored the Anvil Chorus as primary. It is within these various articles and submissions, and again throughout the posts on this site, and most unfortunately within the City Council’s very own chambers where you will find the “information and personal attacks” I refer to. And it is in those chambers where I wish the Mayor (any Mayor) would take the gloves off. I even offered a bit of a critique of the current Mayor himself in my post, along with offering some positives and some qualities he posses that I happen to admire, in that he always takes a professional approach in representing our great city on all fronts – regardless of the hostilities and difficult personalities involved. It is not an easy job.

I have offered plenty of exact details and specific examples of the negativity, personal agendas, and personal attacks in many of my posts on this site, and it is in fact what motivated me to participate on this forum in the first place, so I do not agree that I am “without (said) information”, especially if you read my other posts, and especially in regard to certain council members. This is where the roadblocks primarily exist based on my observations and experiences. This is where change must come first most.

Now, I suppose if I had referenced the attacks, fiction, and information I was speaking of more thoroughly and specifically in my post above, this may have helped to eliminate some of your concerns, so I shall attempt to name more than a few here. Please see “Personalities in Politics” and note the personal criticisms of the McKee’s and the lack of understanding of the factual issues. Please see “Chamber to Hold Interviews” and note the personal attacks of the chamber and Tim Bietry. Please see “Winski wants Oberlie's job” for the negative and attacking political strategy where the current Mayor was actually “upbraided” according to the reporter. Please see ALL “Might as Well Get Started” posts for very specific attacks, the lack of understandings, and ignoring the proof and truth of the matters in regard to the Parks, Sanitary, Mayor’s Office, Port Authority, and the Chamber and Bietry again by a poster and also certain city council members.

Please watch the Feb.13th BZA meeting where its board was attacked by other “twisted” branch representatives as well as some members of the public for simply following the law and their attorney’s advice instead of their own personal wishes and desires, which they must do in fulfilling their professional leadership responsibilities to the city.

I can’t believe I’m even going to encourage this but it stresses my points and issues too, so go ahead and watch any particular episode of Screws & Blues or that Whistle Blowhard nut on public access or listen to the same garbage on the Saturday morning radio show. But note that the shows are designed for promoting political agendas and instigating the rhetoric of those on the panel, and understand the information there is very rarely factual, so if you do so, please give those accused and attacked the common and professional courtesy of responding with the truth of the matters, as you will have done yourself a great service before drawing your own conclusions!!!

And mostly, please remember the multitude of past city council meetings where the attacks frequently flew all over the place from a few council members that were playing out their own personal agendas instead of making sound professional decisions based on what’s best for our city - no matter who was before it – Mayor, department heads, developers and business people, MCAS, or even their own attorney as nobody was immune to the abuse, attacks and unprofessionalism there!

In the end Southsider, I simply see some differences between our conceptual views of what is perhaps professional, and what is issue based vs. personally motivated, who should be held accountable and for what and to what degree, and dare I say, what personally might make me (and perhaps others) as compared to you “Mad as hell and not going to take it anymore”.

VOTE FOR POSITIVE CHANGE AND POSITIVE-PROFESSIONAL LEADERESHIP!

[tonyd]

Southsider, I feel your approach and feelings towards leadership are apparent. But in this case of your response, I ultimately also feel and must say the focus is pretty narrow if you can only confuse real issues as “personal stuff”. I’m never inclined to avoid real issues, contrary to your conclusion.

No doubt real issues are personal to ALL of us. I think this is obvious in the back-and-forth posting. But I don’t automatically dislike other persons because of such, I just dislike the approach and the fiction involved, and I’ll take others to task whenever there is proof available to do so. I believe that for the most part, most everyone having the courage to express their views – even under a key name – believes in what they are purporting and I applaud and respect them for actually getting involved in an effort to bring about change.

So then, let’s please just accept and not get caught up in any denial of the essence of human nature. If all we had to type about was Utopia and hugs and kisses, I venture a guess that there would be a whole lot of lying going along with it.

Having prefaced with all that, I shall also caution you that what follows may make your “eyes roll” right out of your head this time and you may start to “cringe” all over again, but I will sincerely try to do better and refine my technique in presenting my issues, which are probably the flux of what is really wrong in, and what divides our community so, vs. other variables.

I will attempt to make my personal issues more clear, albeit it and understandably, I have differing personal viewpoints then yours and others. My issues are negativity, approach, professionalism, leadership, decision making, roadblocks to progress, and the vicious attacking of others.

The gauge on professionalism for this forum is best left to the readers of our posts and the many other posts throughout your site here. However, professional leadership towards progress is ultimately determined by ones approach and actions in the various arenas at which our city government and decision making takes place, and then the results that are produced. I do understand you and others question the results produced, or the lack thereof, as sometimes I do myself. I just feel that one person, Mayor or otherwise, cannot do it alone or alone be held accountable.

It takes a team effort and more cooperation as our very form of government structure sets the course for action or inaction. It ALWAYS involves all three branches including judiciary (which is coming into play with north end development and other low income housing development issues, and often times dictates a course of action or inaction), the Mayor (executive), and the City Council (legislative) too. This is where the political debates to come will be of most interest to me.

At the council level, a “high moral ground” would certainly be welcomed as far as I am concerned, and this in my opinion, does have a direct correlation to some council member’s blatantly obvious and self serving motivations, (of which incidentally I did not intend to come off as questioning other people’s posting motivations or views, and I am not so much trying to question yours, as I do believe you are consistent and you strike me as a genuine sort of fellow), rather I truly question some council members in these regards.

Why people are against the Mayor (and a litany of other folks too) are plastered all over the freakin’ place – not just here on your site, but throughout the various media outlets as I indicated in my post, and I even underscored the Anvil Chorus as primary. It is within these various articles and submissions, and again throughout the posts on this site, and most unfortunately within the City Council’s very own chambers where you will find the “information and personal attacks” I refer to. And it is in those chambers where I wish the Mayor (any Mayor) would take the gloves off. I even offered a bit of a critique of the current Mayor himself in my post, along with offering some positives and some qualities he posses that I happen to admire, in that he always takes a professional approach in representing our great city on all fronts – regardless of the hostilities and difficult personalities involved. It is not an easy job.

I have offered plenty of exact details and specific examples of the negativity, personal agendas, and personal attacks in many of my posts on this site, and it is in fact what motivated me to participate on this forum in the first place, so I do not agree that I am “without (said) information”, especially if you read my other posts, and especially in regard to certain council members. This is where the roadblocks primarily exist based on my observations and experiences. This is where change must come first most.

Now, I suppose if I had referenced the attacks, fiction, and information I was speaking of more thoroughly and specifically in my post above, this may have helped to eliminate some of your concerns, so I shall attempt to name more than a few here. Please see “Personalities in Politics” and note the personal criticisms of the McKee’s and the lack of understanding of the factual issues. Please see “Chamber to Hold Interviews” and note the personal attacks of the chamber and Tim Bietry. Please see “Winski wants Oberlie's job” for the negative and attacking political strategy where the current Mayor was actually “upbraided” according to the reporter. Please see ALL “Might as Well Get Started” posts for very specific attacks, the lack of understandings, and ignoring the proof and truth of the matters in regard to the Parks, Sanitary, Mayor’s Office, Port Authority, and the Chamber and Bietry again by a poster and also certain city council members.

Please watch the Feb.13th BZA meeting where its board was attacked by other “twisted” branch representatives as well as some members of the public for simply following the law and their attorney’s advice instead of their own personal wishes and desires, which they must do in fulfilling their professional leadership responsibilities to the city.

I can’t believe I’m even going to encourage this but it stresses my points and issues too, so go ahead and watch any particular episode of Screws & Blues or that Whistle Blowhard nut on public access or listen to the same garbage on the Saturday morning radio show. But note that the shows are designed for promoting political agendas and instigating the rhetoric of those on the panel, and understand the information there is very rarely factual, so if you do so, please give those accused and attacked the common and professional courtesy of responding with the truth of the matters, as you will have done yourself a great service before drawing your own conclusions!!!

And mostly, please remember the multitude of past city council meetings where the attacks frequently flew all over the place from a few council members that were playing out their own personal agendas instead of making sound professional decisions based on what’s best for our city - no matter who was before it – Mayor, department heads, developers and business people, MCAS, or even their own attorney as nobody was immune to the abuse, attacks and unprofessionalism there!

In the end Southsider, I simply see some differences between our conceptual views of what is perhaps professional, and what is issue based vs. personally motivated, who should be held accountable and for what and to what degree, and dare I say, what personally might make me (and perhaps others) as compared to you “Mad as hell and not going to take it anymore”.

VOTE FOR POSITIVE CHANGE AND POSITIVE-PROFESSINAL LEADERESHIP![size=6]

I have to agree with Informed in his perspective that the City Council lacks the leadership and proffessionalsim as a govermental body. I also agree that any Mayor is only one person and has to depend on the Council and Boards working together to make PROGRESS. I offer this article from the News Dispatch as how Prospective Developers view our City Leaders.

Przybylinski drones on

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.

[Southsider2k12]

Now that is a much better post Something like that I can respect, even if it were to contain things I don't agree with.

I know personal is sometimes a misnomer for local politics as it all seems to be personal. I know you mentioned a lot of different forums and media in your post, but I have a say over only one of them. I can't control what is done on TV, and what is said in the ND, but I can influence what is said here, and it has always been my belief that we can get much further if we stick to the issues at hand, instead of talking about the individuals. Maybe I am idealistic, but the old cliche about change beginning with me, is the best way to look at it, if you ask me.

I am glad to see you read my letter, and far from being an indictment of any one specific person, it is an indictment of the era of local politics we are in now. There is no cooperation, there is no shared vision, and there is no progress.

I would be curious if you do have connections to the mayoral office to hear his views on the questions I raised. I have yet to have any candidate give any answers to these issues that I have seen, and would welcome his ideas, and give them airing in the forum. Like I said in my letter, the one who can give the best answers will be the person I vote for, and I meant it.

[Max Main]

Maybe we need to ask all the Mayor and Council candidates this:

What concrete steps will you take to ensure cooperation between the City, MCAS, and North End development advocates?