Video, Part 3: CSD candidates on development and local government

I like the way that it was edited so that you could compare the candidates.  It's only about 5 minutes, so it's easy to listen to, even if you have a rushed schedule.  I look forward to the future installments.

In terms of the candidate comments, and perhaps it will be emphasized later, but I noticed that when Pasek mentioned what he had been involved in, he forgot to mention the Ad Hoc Governance Committee.  That committee fits right into looking at the future of this community and how to run it most effectively, in order to see where costs and rates can can be kept down for all district residents.

I commented earlier, that while I most likely disagree with Betty Ferraro's stand on some things, I really respect the active role that she has taken to learn about how CSD works, so, if elected, she can step in without as much required start-up time.  As Wayne Kuntz mentioned -- the activity behind the scenes is much more than just what one can read in the board packets.  

Thanks rm.com -- this is pretty cool.

**************

Lisa

www.indyeve.com

(site updated 10/1/08)

Thanks again rm.com for doing this -- great idea. I would also like to say that it must be tough to interview in front of a camera if you are not used to doing that. I had to do that for a job once, and it was just a terrible experience -- good job candidates

Hey Steve, nice to see you at the Ad Hoc meeting last night too

Now that I've seen all three installments, I just wanted to say something directed at the second one. The security survey was referred to. In fact, the security survey is often referred to. I once heard Betty Ferraro tell the RMCSD board, at a regular meeting, that the public said in the survey that they emphatically did not want armed officers. I've been hoping that that was just a misspeak, but I also hear Director Kuntz now refer to this survey in the 2nd presentation above. Let me throw out a few thoughts on that survey.

First, here are links to pages of the survey that was presented in Feb 2008. I have a copy of the entire file as a pdf if anyone is interested, just pm me.

Page 1

Page 2

Page 3

Page 4

Page 5

I think it's important to now put this survey into context.

When the survey was conducted, it was believed that our officers had "catch and detain" authority and that they used this authority. They legally detained for arrest, wrote police reports for thefts or vandalisms or accidents, and offered other sorts of law enforcement services. This is what people understood our security to be when they filled out this survey.

In May 2008 the residents were told that security has none of the authority that we thought that they did. They can now only observe and report. Thus, the responses on the survey regarding whether security is satisfactory, or whether we should increase their powers are moot. Referring to them, without acknowledging their context, shows a deep misunderstanding of current security issues.

Furthermore, even in that survey, the residents were never asked what kind of authority that they wanted the officers to have as a stand-alone question. What was asked was, do you want them to have peace officer status, traffic enforcement, and a raise in security tax, as an all-in-one question. There are problems with that. First, the traffic enforcement question is a very different question. Even with peace officer status, our officers could not write tickets for speeding and stop signs. Historically, this community does not want traffic enforcement on the streets of RM, so it's a loaded question. Additionally, the amount of increase needed in our security tax may make a difference in responses. What if it were only $5 dollars a month to have our own police department that could "catch and detain" and offer the services that we thought they had all along? (I just made that number up.) Because board members, etc., have always said that a police department would be outrageously cost prohibitive, without further details in this question, it's also a loaded question based on cost alone. If you look at the three different questions that were asked in this one question, it makes the responses essentially invalid -- even before the change in security, it's a bad question.

What I think is important are the ranked responses of the security issues that residents believe are important. More than 50% thought that the following were important calls for our security to handle (somewhat or very, listed in decreasing order of importance): drug use in common area, drunken driving, drunk and disorderly, vandalism/graffiti, assisting fire/ambulance with emergencies, underage drinking, welfare checks on residents, domestic violence/threats/stalking, minors curfew, driving with an open alcohol container, unleashed and/or barking dogs, and trespassing.

That entire list contains calls that our security no longer has any authority to handle. A few things they can ask, but they have no authority. So, if we judge our security on whether or not they can address the items that this community has said are important, then we must judge our security as unsatisfactory.

**************

Lisa

www.indyeve.com

(site updated 10/9/08)