Month: January 2019

A modest proposal: the more the merrier

(2nd in a series of modest proposals)

Gadfly has been reading back through distant past meeting minutes and newspaper archives and has noted in passing that there seemed to be a time when, for instance, the executive director of the Bethlehem Parking Authority attended Council meetings.

Gadfly’s not sure if that was on a regular basis or just special occasions.

But it struck him that some such attendance and reporting would be a good idea.

And not just the Parking Authority but all the “independent” authorities: Redevelopment Authority, Housing Authority, Bethlehem Authority. Maybe even the Environmental Advisory Council and Backyards for Wildlife that are identified under “Authorities and Boards” on the City web site. Maybe even important players like BRIA.

As the unofficial official representative of the public, Gadfly hungers for information.

Maybe Council needs information too. Council members might receive minutes from meetings of these groups, and that is good if so. But some personal contact would be better. There is a Council liaison to the Parking Authority (there may be liaisons to other Authorities, not sure), for instance, but he has not attended a meeting as far back as the publicly available minutes December 2017, though he has said he keeps in phone contact with the Board chair. A couple months ago there was some question about an action by the Redevelopment Authority when “no one” from Council was there.

The City Council meeting is “our” only regular, centralized, top-level meeting. It is the public face of city government.

Gadfly wonders if the City Council meeting could be thought of (to change the metaphor)bicycle wheel as the hub of the wheel of City governance – the one place at which if a resident paid regular attention (now via tv!), he or she could have a reasonable understanding of what’s happening along the various spokes.

Hence, a modest proposal:

that the half-dozen or so “independent” Authorities be requested to attend at least two City Council meetings per year, once in the first six months and once in the second, to report on current activities and future plans and to receive comments and questions from both Council members and the general public.

(As the new year begins, Gadfly has been thinking of adding some new occasional yet regular features, such as this one called “Modest Proposals.” Things – even really small things – that we’d like to see happen. Gadfly invites you to contribute your modest proposals.)

The timeline of the strange separation (76)

(76th in a series of posts on parking)

Here is the timeline of the interaction among City Council, the City, and the Bethlehem Parking Authority that resulted in the split responsibilities for the naturally linked revenue streams of meter rates and fines discussed in the previous post. Gadfly’s sources were City files (tip o’ the hat to Tad Miller and Louise Kelchner) and Morning Call files (Dan Hartzell was the main reporter in the 1980s).

  • May 26, 1958: Kate Zoll Laepple begins a 7-part series in the Morning Call entitled “Bethlehem’s Parking Challenge,” identifying, among other things, the need for a parking authority to solve a parking problem so bad that one solution proposed was to use the flat area under the Broad St. bridge and build an escalator up to Main St.!
  • June 2, 1970: The Bethlehem Parking Authority is established, called “a key to the renaissance of the downtown” – its purpose to provide the financing for the Walnut St. Garage, which is completed in 1976. The BPA provides only financing; parking operations and enforcement stay within City Hall.
  • July 1988: New mayor Ken Smith’s “sweeping proposals to restructure city parking operations” include raising parking rates and fines, doubling the number of parking meters, eliminating the large annual subsidy of the Walnut St. Garage, moving total control of parking from City Hall to the BPA, and planning for two parking decks.
  • City officials recognize “new space will be needed if the city is to be in its best position to lure developers. . . . We stand to lose development as a result of the parking shortage.” They also recognize that “There will be significant opposition to more meters and increased rates and fines,” but “a much more realistic and financially self-sufficient parking system will be the reward.”
  • August 1988: City Council’s Public Safety Committee unanimously approves the administration’s recommendation to raise the penalty for overtime parking violations because fines are too low to provide enough incentive for motorists to obey parking regulations.
  • October 4, 1988: Mayor Smith’s plan to reorganize parking administration wins first-reading approval of City Council. Council members express concern over several aspects of the plan, including whether differences in policy between the authority and council might cause problems. But the vote on first reading is 5-0, with two members absent.
  • October 18, 1988: Mayor Smith’s parking reorganization plan is given final approval by City Council, but questions remain over whether the administration’s funding estimates for the program will be realized. Some Council members, especially Paul Calvo, are still choking on doubling the number of parking meters in the city. The administration proposes to deal with this potential problem by instituting a residential parking permit program. Calvo warns of the potential for trouble, saying that differences between the operating authority’s goals and council’s decisions on funding matters could result in some difficult situations.
  • November 18, 1988: The BPA announces it will recommend that City Council increase the cost of using city parking meters and expects to unilaterally raise the rate at the Walnut St. parking garage next year. While council approval is needed for meter rate increases, the authority has the sole power to raise rates at the garage.
  • December 29, 1988: BPA and City reach a “cooperation agreement” that spells out the roles and services of each party.
  • January 1, 1989: The BPA officially becomes an operating rather than a financial agency.
  • January 23, 1989: City Council’s Public Safety Committee votes unanimously to allow the mayor and not council to review and approve BPA requests for the location of new parking meters and the rates charged for using them. Committee member Calvo suggests this transfer of power, and city and authority solicitors determine that it would be legal for council to delegate control over meter location and rates. Calvo says he will vote against the addition of a large number of meters, but to subject authority requests for new meters to council’s review would be to jeopardize the mayor’s parking plan. Calvo says he does not want to be put in the position of turning down new meters or fee increases only to be told later that his action resulted in the authority being unable to meet its income projections. And the city must repay any parking fund deficit. Calvo says his motion was not a way to escape responsibility but rather an assurance that the mayor’s parking plan has the best chance of working. Councilman James Delgrosso suggests that, if the change is approved by resolution of council, the mayor be required to conduct public hearings prior to making decisions.
  • February 7, 1989: Council approves on first reading, by a 5-2 vote, an ordinance empowering the mayor as the final authority over the number and placement of parking meters and the rates to be charged at the meters. Council President Jack Lawrence dissents, believing the BPA should have the power, and Councilman Otto Ehrsham Jr wants to retain the current law by which powers are reserved for council. Proponents, including Calvo, deny the change is a move to reduce the political heat for the placement of the new meters and for the increase in fees for their use. Calvo says Council wants to give the mayor’s parking reorganization a chance to work. Calvo opposes the wholesale installation of new meters but does not want that opposition to be misinterpreted as an attempt to thwart the financial premises on which the reorganization is based. Smith readily accepts the responsibility for meter placement and rate-setting. Council and City Hall agree on a provision calling for public input into large-scale meter placement.
  • February 21, 1989: at 2nd reading, an ordinance transferring the power to locate and regulate parking meters and rates from council to the mayor passes 5-1. The ordinance requires a public hearing prior to either the installation of new meters or to any rate increase affecting more than 10 percent of the meters.
  • In all of these recent deliberations, nothing is ever said about changing the responsibility for the amount of parking violation fines, so that power remains with Council.

The strange separation (75)

(75th in a series of posts on parking)

Do you remember the controversy centered on the Bethlehem Parking Authority that sucked the life out of the last third of 2018?

Is the Walnut St. Garage going to be repaired or rebuilt? Is there going to be a Polk St. Garage? Are the parking meter rates and fines going to be increased? If so, what is the new revenue going to be used for? Does the BPA have a business plan? Is the BPA acting in a good faith, transparent fashion? Are there straight answers to anything?

At the core of the controversy, the BPA wants more money from its twin sources of income, meter rates and fines, which should march in sensible relation to each other, which should increase in tandem – fines, for instance, living 10-15% higher than the meter rate.

The Mayor approved BPA’s proposed meter rate increase. City Council, however, denied their fine increases. The reasons are complicated and the subject of the first 73 posts in this sequence. So now there is no symmetry between rates and fines. The meter rates went up January 1, but the fines did not. A situation the two sides will attempt again to resolve in the near future.

But the question for this ol’ researcher is, how did we get to a system where such naturally joined elements as parking meter rates and parking violation fines are separated – the mayor controlling the former, City Council with responsibility for the latter?

The question was asked several times during the course of the controversy in the latter part of 2018. You can understand why. If responsibility for the two revenue streams were located in one agent, either the Mayor or City Council, there would be no gnarled dispute.

Nobody really knew the answer to that question. The answer that this must be a separation of powers/checks and balances element consciously envisioned by “the Founders” didn’t seem to satisfy and, indeed, is not the answer. The answer is the complete opposite. Rates and fines were separated precisely to eliminate tension between the two “houses” of city governance not to enhance it.

Here, in a nutshell, is what ol’ Gadfly found researching both Morning Call and City Hall files. See expanded information in the timeline on the next post.

The Parking Authority was established in 1970 to finance the Walnut St. Garage. Financing was all that it did. At that time and continuing into the 1980s, parking operations continued to be handled by the City, and City Council continued to set the fee structure for meters and fines. In 1988, for what seem like various and good reasons, Mayor Ken Smith proposed sweeping changes, giving the BPA complete responsibility for parking in the city, though Council retained responsibility for setting the finances. City Council not only acquiesced to the Mayor’s radical plan but went further. Councilman Paul Calvo proposed also relinquishing responsibility for the number of meters and meter rates to the Mayor so that 1) the BPA could reasonably control its budget without interference, and 2) so that Calvo (and others) could argue and vote against the Mayor’s plan for increased meters without being accused of “political” bias. Calvo was quick to deny that he was trying to escape the “heat” from the public that the Mayor’s plan to double the number of meters as well as increasing the rate would likely generate. In any event, any political fall-out would be borne by the Mayor. Fines were not part of the discussion or the legislation [was that an oversight?], hence fines remained in control of Council.

Now we know why we have what everybody seems to believe is an illogical system.

Call it the Calvo plan.

(Paul Calvo was a teacher, accomplished athlete, successful coach, 25yr. member of City Council, and a Gadfly neighbor. He died only six years ago.)

Was Gadfly’s research just an academic exercise? Or does it have some utility?

Gadfly kept an open mind up to a certain point in the controversy, but he ended up thoroughly negative about the culture of the BPA.

The majority of City Council likewise had problems of a serious nature that led to their denial of the BPA fine proposal as a means of getting some answers to key questions.

Resulting in the current limbo situation, a situation that cannot persist for long.

One wonders, then, now knowing the rather arbitrary origin of the meter/fine split, whether City Council could, if it so desired, legislate itself back into full financial control in order to be able to completely “call the shots” where parking is concerned.

If Gadfly remembers correctly, the Desman consultant to the BPA indicated that this split is unique. We are alone in having such a divided system.

Should the system be unified again?

Should what might be thought of as a “delegated” power be revoked?

Whatfor art thou, Gadfly?

Paige Van Wirt is a Bethlehem City Councilwoman, physician, and small business owner.

Gadfly, while you are MIA, please refresh your entomology. Your profile picture appears to be a bald-faced hornet. I was stung myself last year by a BFH and still bear the scars. What is this mask, Gadfly? Perhaps a subliminal mistake? (From Wikiwasp) Bald-faced hornets are omnivorous, and are considered to be beneficial due to their predation of flies, caterpillars, and spiders. However, their aggressively defensive nature makes them a threat to humans who wander too close to a nest or when a nest is constructed too close to human habitation. They vigorously defend the nest, with workers stinging repeatedly, as is common among social bees and wasps. However, the baldfaced hornet has a unique defense in that it can squirt or spray venom from the stinger into the eyes of vertebrate nest intruders. The venom causes immediate watering of the eyes and temporary blindness.[6]

Paige

spanking 2Gadfly admits that the extent of his knowledge is 9 uses of the comma. He admits to impostature here and accepts retributive punishment from the good doctor. He just couldn’t find a suitable picture of the real thing. Are there entomological followers who can help Gadfly set the visual story straight?

Can you say “no” to a developer?

(17th in a series of posts on City Government)

Followers might have noticed Gadfly wrestling a bit about how he should feel about developers.

Let me tell you a story.

Gadfly began shadowing city meetings one year ago, January 2018. He described it as “auditing,” as one might do in college, going from meeting to meeting getting a sense of what was going on in each.

He found the historic commissions most interesting of all. Sometimes bigger projects, but sometimes discussion and decisions were about the color of paint, the height of lettering, the script on a sign. Fascinating in the commissioners’ attention to detail.

Immediately in January he watched Philadephia developer Robin Reshetar pitch renovations for the Grace Mansion, 114 W. 4th. Having worked on the Southside, Gadfly knew the property well. There even used to be a restaurant there at one time.

002

The developer described his knowledge of and substantial portfolio in historical renovation. Conversations with commissioners was always cordial and thoughtful. Reshetar presented plans on January 22, February 26, especially April 16, where you can find great images of his proposed work.

Gadfly watched the commissioners work with national guidelines (the property has an historical designation) and local historical district guidelines.

Each time, Gadfly repeats, the interactions were cordial and thoughtful. The developer listened and came back twice with revised plans. The commission hesitated on his most developed plans, which included town houses. Take a look.

Gadfly wondered about past history with the property. He assumed that there had been other developers who looked promising but eventually disappointed. Here was one who looked very interested, who had invested in several rounds of plans. As I sat there on the sidelines, I worried that the commission was going to chase him away.

But they stuck to their principles.

And, yes, he disappeared.

I felt a sense of loss. I wondered how the commissioners took it. Would, then, the Grace Mansion continue to decay? Perhaps never to be saved. Would it have been better to bend a bit to save the place?

Must have been on some level a tough decision for the commissioners.

But they stuck to their principles.

And six months later another developer – Dallas Basha, only two years out of college — showed up and now renovation is moving along.

Nicole Radzievich, “What’s on tap for Bethlehem’s other Grace mansion?” Morning Call, November 20, 2019.

Historic Conservation Commission November 19

Lehigh University Brown and White

I’d like the moral of my story to be that you can say “no” to developers for the right reasons, and everything will eventually turn out ok.

Gadfly didn’t see a happy ending here.

A wind-fall from Wind Creek

(16th in a series of posts on City Government)

The Sands is changing hands. New Owners Wind Creek coming soon.

To tell the truth, the Sands has been invisible to me.

The Gadfly was aware of the hubbub surrounding its approval and construction. But did not feel especially involved one way or the other in the decision.

And he has not been involved since it opened. Though a regular at ArtsQuest/SteelStacks events, Gadfly has never been to the casino, never been to a show – maybe once or twice to the outlets, never even been caught in a traffic jam in the vicinity.

To tell the truth, Gadfly is hardly aware of the Sands’ existence.

So how should I feel about the fact that so soon after it started, the Sands is getting a new owner?

As I read the news stories yesterday, I could not help but remember CM Callahan’s claim at Council a couple of weeks ago that the Sands brings in more money for the City than the Bethlehem Steel Co did in its heyday.

He made me think that not only is the Sands invisible to me but the “good” it does for the City has been pretty much invisible to me as well – tax dollars that fund public services.

So maybe that’s where his thoughts should go when wondering how he should feel about the entrance of a new owner.

Because some serious money will be generated. One-time, not continuing. But a wind-fall from Wind Creek.

The City stands to gain a yet undetermined but significant amount of money from a “casino transfer tax.”

In fact, the City provisionally included $6m income from the casino transfer tax in the 2019 budget (see p. 278 – 7th column from the left).  Remember that is not a fixed number. It could well be considerably less. But the City will receive one-time income from the casino transfer tax when the sale is consummated.

Read down that 7th column and see what the City tentatively plans to spend that “extra” money on if it gets $6m.

When the exact amount is determined, the City and Council will have another conversation about the exact expenditures. But that list will give you an idea what’s on the radar.

For instance, Gadfly knows there are followers who will be glad to see $40,000 for a pedestrian bridge feasibility study and $50,000 for Rose Garden improvements.

So Gadfly guesses that he should be more aware of and appreciative of the benefit that this developer brings to the City.

Here are some links to bring you up to speed on the Sands/Wind Creek situation. Perhaps you will be amused as he is about speculation that there might be a water park on the old steel property. Now that might get Gadfly to break out some old 60s demonstrator duds and posters and take up a battle station on the Minsi Trail Bridge.

Timeline: “It’s been 10 years since the Sands Bethlehem opened: Here’s a timeline.” Morning Call, January 15, 2019.

Five key takeaways: Nicole Radzievich, “What we know about Sands buyer’s plans for Bethlehem Steel property.” Morning Call, January 16, 2019.

Main story: Nicole Radzievich and Jon Harris, “Sands Bethlehem casino buyer pitches $190 million investment, second hotel on Steel land.” Morning Call, January 15, 2019.

Video interview with new owners: Lehigh Valley Live

Public comment: “What they’re saying about Wind Creek’s plans for Sands Bethlehem casino.” Morning Call, January 15, 2019.

BPA-time again! (74)

(74th in a series of posts on parking)

New year. Girding my loins, as they used to say in the old days, for the first meeting of the Bethlehem Parking Authority.

Look at the number here. Gadfly devoted 73 posts in the old year to the BPA.

And didn’t come away unscathed. He was gruffly told he couldn’t question the Board at one meeting. And after another meeting the ticket machine in the parking garage ate his credit card.

Don’t mess with these guys.

They have powers.

I missed the December meeting. They changed the time twice, and I couldn’t make the 3rd time.

So I’m not up to speed on the latest developments.

But here’s what’s on my list:

  • It looks like the parking meter rates did go from $1.00/hr to $1.50/hr on January 1.  I don’t remember seeing any fanfare. Did anybody? Did I miss? For I understood there was to be a publicity roll-out, including keeping the old rate till June 1 if you used an app. Is anybody griping about the 50% increase? Did it go down smoothly?
  • The Mayor promised that the Redevelopment Authority would provide Council with a timeline of their involvement in the Polk Garage saga. I wonder if that happened.
  • The BPA is to meet with Council about funding options for Polk in the first quarter of this year (January-March). So we’ll be looking for that to happen.
  • Decisions about the fines are to happen at the time of the funding meeting as well.
  • The mayor included several things, like investigating variable rate parking, when he approved the meter rate proposal. So we’ll be looking for the status of those things. See the mayor’s letter to BPA:  Mayor Parking Meter Rate Increase.
  • Gadfly was to investigate when and why the strange system that splits responsibility between rates and fines between the mayor and Council started. Gadfly does have info on that which will be coming soon (shameless tease).

Have I forgotten anything?

Anybody have concerns?

 

 

Welcome candidate for City Council Grace Crampsie Smith

(1st in a series of posts on candidates for election)

press release Jan. 14

GRACE CRAMPSIE SMITH ANNOUNCES CANDIDACY FOR BETHLEHEM CITY COUNCIL

Grace Crampsie Smith, a Democrat and longtime Bethlehem resident, has announced her candidacy for Bethlehem City Council.

Crampsie Smith, who has lived in the city for 28 years, is a school counselor at Easton Area High School.

“I was raised in a family that took its civic responsibilities very seriously,” said Crampsie grace crampsie smithSmith. “I want to continue the legacy of my parents who instilled in me and my six siblings the desire to contribute to the communities where we lived, worked, and played. They fostered in me a strong sense of duty to use my skills and education for the betterment of not only my family but our neighbors.”

Crampsie Smith’s father was a police chief of Summit Hill, PA, and her mother was a nurse. “They taught me early the importance of discipline and compassion,” Crampsie Smith said.

She said she decided to run for office now because her three children, Shannon, Bridget, and Brendan, are in law school, medical school, and college, and she has the time to devote to the many challenges and changes that face the city as it grows and continues to be a vital part of the Lehigh Valley area.

“I want to contribute to the city that I have called home and ensure that smart growth is achieved for the benefit of residents, employees, and visitors,” Crampsie Smith said. “It is important to maintain a balance between preserving the city’s past , honoring the people and businesses that built this city and achieving progress in our diverse community. Bethlehem is a city that has never been stagnant but has constantly re-invented itself in the arts, education, and business while never losing sight of its heritage.”

Crampsie Smith has a masters degree in education and school counseling from Lehigh University and a bachelors degree in sociology and social welfare from Bloomsburg University.

She was a member of the adjunct faculty at Lehigh-Carbon Community College and also worked as an addictions counselor and coordinator of community and early intervention services for the office of Lehigh County Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities.
Crampsie Smith said the advocacy skills she has honed in her job will help her to represent the residents of Bethlehem. “Council members must be mindful that our community is made up of people from all walks of life who have varied incomes, educations, and skills but all want the same things – to provide for their families and have a good quality of life.”

She said her personal and professional experiences taught her to be fiscally responsible, to negotiate with fairness, to be objective and pragmatic, and to have passion for justice. Her top priorities, she said, include the health, safety and welfare of residents and employees, budget efficacy and socially responsible economic development.
Crampsie Smith said it is crucial for City Council members to know the jobs of city employees and the challenges they face for the overall efficiency of city operations. She said that she completed the Bethlehem Police Citizens Academy to get a better understanding of the operations of the Bethlehem Police Department.

Crampsie Smith is a member of the Bethlehem City Democratic Committee and committee person for Precinct 14-1, Northampton County Democratic Committee, Lehigh Valley Democratic Progressive Coalition, Lehigh Valley ROAR, Lehigh Valley 4 ALL, and the University of Pennsylvania and Haverford College Parent Alumni Association.
Her volunteer work has included Ryan’s Tree for Grieving Children, Musikfest, OLPH School, LV Pediatric Cancer Foundation and the American Heart Association. She is a member of Our Lady of Perpetual Help Church.

Attention walkers and bikers: LVPC drafting a Regional Active Transportation Plan (5)

(5th in a series of posts on Walkability and Bikeability)

From the Gadfly’s clipping file from December–

Tom Shortell, “Road Warrior: Is biking or walking to work in the Lehigh Valley’s future?” Morning Call, December 7, 2018.

Work/Roll LV

Next meeting Wednesday, January 23, 3:00 – 4:30 PM, Northampton Community College/Fowler Family Southside Center, 511 E. 3rd Street, Bethlehem, PA 18015

LVPC: Walk/Bike Lehigh Valley wikimap

“If you hate your morning commute, would you consider a walk instead? Or a bike ride? I’m not suggesting you quit your job and enjoy a brisk morning stroll, as pleasant as that might sound. But instead of being secluded in steel box, hurtling down the street at high speeds next to stressed out people doing the exact same thing, would you jump on a bike and pedal?”

“For the first time, the Lehigh Valley is getting serious about promoting walking or biking as a way to get around the region. The Lehigh Valley Planning Commission has created a special committee to draft a Regional Active Transportation Plan. A final report is due in May.”

“One interesting [idea] being pursued by LVPC, local government and some nonprofits is building a better trail and sidewalk system. It’s a radically different way of thinking about how we use the transportation grid.”

“Since World War II, the Lehigh Valley has been designed around cars. Trolley and railroad tracks were dug up to allow smoother car rides, and rural townships surrounding the cities transformed into suburbs where driving is the only reasonable way to get around. But promoting trails and sidewalks has a certain logic to it. The cheapest way to alleviate congestion isn’t to build more roads but to rely less on cars and more on our own feet.”

‘The culture will need to change, too, for this plan to succeed. If we expect people to bike to work, for example, they’ll need training on how to bike in traffic and how to change a flat tire. Motorists need reminders on how to share the road with bikers.’

“Personally, I don’t expect this to be a game-changing plan for most commuters. The 2010 Census found just 0.2 percent of Lehigh Valley workers biked to their jobs every day. People who walk tallied just 2 percent of the workforce. If this strategy doubles that combined total to 4 percent, we’re not exactly redefining transportation here.”

“But the project can still be worthwhile despite those limitations. Creating a more pedestrian friendly environment can have positive effects on our culture, health, quality of life and economy. And that’s worth exploring.”

 

Shout out to President Waldron!

Gadfly not going to City Council tonight

but wants to give a shout-out to President Waldron for instituting videoing the meetings

so that he can catch up tomorrow by going to the Council meetings page on the City site.

He would have conveyed his thanks during public comment tonight.

(If any other follower is making a comment tonight, you might pass along Gadfly’s shout-out and appreciation.)

Gadfly’s making this a LEPOCO day, just returning from their “Tuesdays with Toomey” gathering,

and heading to their MLK event tonight.

Gadfly’s making a concerted effort to get around to events by Bethlehem organizations

and Bethlehem wings of national organizations.

For instance, there’s a Women’s March event at Payrow Plaza, Saturday, 10-1.

Gadfly welcomes notice of events you think he should know about and might want to attend.

 

 

 

And they’re off ‘n runnin’! (15)

(15th in a series of posts on City Government)

Gadfly got a chance to hear some of the candidates for City Council last night making brief 2-minute presentations at the Bethlehem City Democratic Committee meeting.

We hope we will be hearing more from them on the pages of Gadfly as they make their cases.

Gadfly goal: we want to be the most informed voters that we can be!

Running for City Council that we know of so far are:

Incumbent J. William (Willie!) Reynolds (’08)

Running for his 4th term, JWR thanked everybody at BCDC for their great organizational JWReynoldswork and pointed to his Climate Action Plan, Northside 2027, and Open Data initiatives. His campaign kick-off is Feb 21, 5:30-7:30 at the Brew Works – “All Democrats are invited!”

Incumbent Paige Van Wirt (’18)

PVW pointed to the fresh new energy and perspective she has brought to Council, Van Wirtemphasizing accountability and transparency, and ethics reform as her focus for the upcoming year. She too thanked the BCDC, indicated that she learned a lot from JWR, recounted a collegial atmosphere on Council, and sought a voice of challenge and a voice of concern in new candidates.

New candidate Grace Crampsie Smith

GCS comes from a public service background and pointed to current family members in political positions. Her focus is on socially responsible economic development and her strength advocating for all citizens. Gadfly will be publishing her press release soon.

———-

Incumbent Michael Colon was ill and did not attend.

Basilio Bonilla is also running, and he will speak at the next BCDC meeting.

Most charters are a big negative (2)

(2nd in a series of posts on Education)

Gadfly:

The idea of charter schools as a way to pilot new ideas & approaches was a good idea, because they be somewhat experimental and parents could decide whether it was right for their children. If successful, public schools could then adopt that model.

As implemented, charter schools are a mixture of new ideas and things the school district is already doing or wants to do. Children with special needs are routinely excluded. Profiteering through related companies is rampant. Covert segregation is also often a problem. Although many charters pay staff lower, non-union salaries, their cost to the district is very high due to the way payments are calculated.

Charters could have been a valuable addition to the field of education, but as a result of how they were implemented, most charters are a big negative.

Peter Crownfield

(Peter is way ahead of Gadfly here, who sees most of the news he’s come across on charter schools is negative but wants to withhold judgment till he understands the situation more. Sounds like we are going to need some charter school advocates to speak up if we are going to have a balanced view. If the source of the money is the big negative issue, Gadfly wonders if that is fixable. But, again, Gadfly doesn’t know enough to judge yet and is just trying to understand the problem. He believes that an issue regarding athletic teams — basketball — recruiting — has hit the sports pages: that he understands!!!!)

 

First Amendment and Robert’s Rules (14)

(14th in a series of posts on City Government)

Respectfully, again, this gadfly thinks that President Waldron’s comments at the January 2 meeting on the relationship between the First Amendment and Robert’s Rules are tricky.

Here’s the primary source again:

I also want to make a couple general remarks which I’m sure some other members of council will want to jump in on once we get to new business about some of the accusations of some of the rules of Robert’s Rules, and my opinion on that. I spoke to Mr. Spirk about it, and I went back and did some research on some of the minutes and some of the things that were said by members of council and by members of the public, and I just don’t see a lot there as far as violation of Robert’s Rules. Personal attacks, I think, is a term getting thrown around for political reasons. I think there’s a healthy debate, and I think there’s respect for each another on Council. We may not agree with each other, and that’s fine, and that comes down to the vote some times, and I like to think they we can move forward professionally. But I think there is a decorum here, and I don’t think that there has been a lack of professionalism. There’s been calls for me to gavel down other members of Council when they are speaking, and I don’t see myself doing that in 2019. I think that the First Amendment is strong and well in this room, and I have great respect for it to the point that I respect it over Robert’s Rules. I think that people should have the ability to speak their mind as long as they are doing it in a respectful way, and I think that disagreement is good because it shows different points of view and perspectives. Again, you may not agree with that assessment, and you might think that we should follow Robert’s Rules to the “T,” but my view is that we should be able to have a positive conversation in which we respectfully disagree with each other. That is not prone to personal attacks just because we use each other’s names. That doesn’t mean that it is a personal attack. It’s just a differing of opinion. . . . I give great respect to Robert’s Rules, but I think the First Amendment, as Mr. Spirk would agree, in court rulings is that the First Amendment will trump Robert’s Rules any day of the week. So if you want to point to Robert’s Rules and say these are the rules we are supposed to be following, I do respect those, however, I think that a healthy dialog starts with the ability to express yourself, and if you don’t like what someone else is saying, I don’t think censoring their speech is the right thing. I think topping it with better speech, more accurate, or a different point of view is a fine thing to do, just like Mr. Antalics and I did this evening. And we can respectfully disagree on a different point of view, but that’s part of the process, I think. 

Here is the pertinent section from our Rules of Council:

RULE 12. Robert’s Rules of Order shall govern the proceedings of the Council on all matters not specially provided for herein.

President Waldron says, “you might think that we should follow Robert’s Rules to the ‘T’.”

Pause there. Gadfly thinks the default answer from most of us would be “yes.”

President Waldron, though, introduces a “but.”

President Waldron: “but my view is that we should be able to have a positive conversation in which we respectfully disagree with each other.” [my emphasis]

President Waldron introduces a second “but” construction, here founded in authority from the solicitor and court precedent.

President Waldron: “I give great respect to Robert’s Rules, but I think the First Amendment, as Mr. Spirk would agree, in court rulings is that the First Amendment will trump Robert’s Rules any day of the week.”

As an inquisitive, curious, nerdy kind of scholar with too much time on his hands, Gadfly would be interested in reading a few such pertinent court cases. He asked the solicitor for references if there are specific cases involving Robert’s Rules or analogous situations but hasn’t heard back.

But the question is really moot. For President Waldron and I disagree at point one. I don’t see the “clueless” comment compatible with having “a positive conversation in which we respectfully disagree with each other.” He does.

So that’s not the point on which I would focus here.

Gadfly does not doubt the trumping power of the First Amendment, but the thing that’s bothersome to him here is the unilateral assertion by President Waldron of the subordination of “Rules of Council.”

If a rule of Council is to have a qualifier, should it not be explicit and adopted by majority of Council? Is such a judgment for the rest of 2019 as President Waldron is making a permissible part of presidential discretion and authority?

Just asking.

For the question is part of a bigger picture Gadfly has noticed – the valuing of personal viewpoint over, say, the Comprehensive Plan or a Zoning ordinance.

Gadfly never thought of himself as such a strict constructionist as over the last few months watching opinions and decisions in the 2 W. Market and 306 S. New controversies.

Gadfly has said that one of the functions he hopes to serve is helping to form better informed voters. It’s become clear to him that CW’s Negron and Van Wirt start their thinking on – for want of a better term – law, whereas several, but not all, of the other Councilmen, seem to start their thinking on what they feel or believe, even to setting themselves up as authorities on neighborhoods they don’t live in.

Worth noting.  Worth thinking about.

Being civil does not negate healthy, open debate (13)

(13th in a series of posts on City Government)

Peter Crownfield is officially retired but spends most of his time working with students in his role as internship coordinator for the Alliance for Sustainable Communities–Lehigh Valley.

Gadfly:

I agree that

• Being civil does not negate healthy, open debate
• Roberts Rules is mostly about procedure & decorum
• Councilman Callahan was disrespectful and went beyond acceptable decorum when he said “If you think,… you don’t have a clue”

It’s also worth noting that RR can be used to censor content—

• by not placing some topics on the agenda or removing it to accommodate a particular point of view
• when a committee is allowed to sit on a bill for an extended period to avoid the topic

Most importantly, in recent memory, rushing through a vote when new information has been introduced without adequate time for public deliberation.

Peter

Decorum does not negate healthy and controversial debate (12)

(12th in a series of posts on City Government)

Dana Grubb is a lifelong resident of the City of Bethlehem who worked 27 years for the City of Bethlehem in the department of community and economic development, as sealer of weights and measures, housing rehabilitation finance specialist, grants administrator, acting director of community and economic development, and deputy director of community development.

Well put, councilwoman Van Wirt. Over the years I am always willing to hear viewpoints of elected officials, whether I agree with them or not. What has no place on Council is when an elected official touts their own views as the right ones at the expense of others’ views, and then is critical of an opposing view in a derogatory comment. That is an issue of decorum.

As I stated in an earlier post, I’ve been attending Council meetings for a very long time, longer than most most Members of Council are alive. I can state unequivocally that I have never witnessed so many criticisms of others, Councilmembers and public attendees, as have seen forthcoming of late.

Over many decades I’ve witnessed prior Councils exhibit patience, respect, integrity, and adherence to Council’s Rules far better than some on the current City Council. And, there was some very healthy and controversial debate on issues despite that decorum.

Dana

A matter of censorship (11)

(11th in a series of posts on City Government)

To begin:

Two things, not unrelated, as you will see.

1) Socrates died a premature death.

2) President Waldron has a soft gavel.

The second point gives me hope that this gadfly will not suffer the fate of the first point.

President Waldron has a “clement” gavel. “Clement” was the Merriam-Webster “word-of-the-day” on Saturday. I never thought I’d use it. But it’s appropriate here. President Waldron has a clement gavel.

The rules for public comment are made by City Council. And they have been different at different times. The public over the years has been allowed 12 minutes, 2 minutes, unlimited time – and now 5 minutes. There is a timer. Those of you “attending” your first Council meeting via the video now and henceforth available (or the live feed soon) will see a timer in front of President Waldron facing the speaker’s podium. Speakers can see their time dashing to zero. “Like sands through the hourglass, so are the days of our lives.” Sigh. But President Waldron has a soft, clement gavel. He does not gavel the wind demons like me-self precisely at the mark of doom. He prompts conclusion, and most times we obediently gallop to conclusion.

We the public are grateful for President Waldron’s soft gavel.

Apparently, that soft gavel has been criticized lately, and President Waldron felt compelled to clarify his position at the January 2 meeting, transitioning so quickly from his annual report that his clarification almost seemed part of his annual report. The key line in his position statement seemed to be “There’s been calls for me to gavel down other members of Council when they are speaking.”

Some people are asking for a harder gavel.

As always, let’s go to the primary source:

I also want to make a couple general remarks which I’m sure some other members of council will want to jump in on once we get to new business about some of the accusations of some of the rules of Robert’s Rules, and my opinion on that. I spoke to Mr. Spirk about it, and I went back and did some research on some of the minutes and some of the things that were said by members of council and by members of the public, and I just don’t see a lot there as far as violation of Robert’s Rules. Personal attacks, I think, is a term getting thrown around for political reasons. I think there’s a healthy debate, and I think there’s respect for each another on Council. We may not agree with each other, and that’s fine, and that comes down to the vote some times, and I like to think they we can move forward professionally. But I think there is a decorum here, and I don’t think that there has been a lack of professionalism. There’s been calls for me to gavel down other members of Council when they are speaking, and I don’t see myself doing that in 2019. I think that the First Amendment is strong and well in this room, and I have great respect for it to the point that I respect it over Robert’s Rules. I think that people should have the ability to speak their mind as long as they are doing it in a respectful way, and I think that disagreement is good because it shows different points of view and perspectives. Again, you may not agree with that assessment, and you might think that we should follow Robert’s Rules to the “T,” but my view is that we should be able to have a positive conversation in which we respectfully disagree with each other. That is not prone to personal attacks just because we use each other’s names. That doesn’t mean that it is a personal attack. It’s just a differing of opinion. . . . I give great respect to Robert’s Rules, but I think the First Amendment, as Mr. Spirk would agree, in court rulings is that the First Amendment will trump Robert’s Rules any day of the week. So if you want to point to Robert’s Rules and say these are the rules we are supposed to be following, I do respect those, however, I think that a healthy dialog starts with the ability to express yourself, and if you don’t like what someone else is saying, I don’t think censoring their speech is the right thing. I think topping it with better speech, more accurate, or a different point of view is a fine thing to do, just like Mr. Antalics and I did this evening. And we can respectfully disagree on a different point of view, but that’s part of the process, I think.

Respectfully, this gadfly thinks that in this statement President Waldron blurs the distinction between “decorum” and “censorship.”

Gadfly is not a lawyer (just plays one – as the joke goes – on this blog), but censorship relates more to the elimination of content, of material, of ideas, of subject matter, whereas decorum relates to presentation, conduct, style, attitude, civility, propriety, decency, politeness, taste.

If people are asking President Waldron to gavel down others on Council for what they are saying, they are asking for censorship, and that’s a violation of the First Amendment, and they are wrong, and President Waldron should forcefully resist such calls.

But that is not what I and others who have spoken to me had in mind. This gadfly was asking for decorum. To use President Waldron’s own terms, this gadfly felt the instance he used in post 9 as an example was a personal attack, did not advance healthy debate, did not show respect for another, was not professional, was not positive conversation, was not respectful disagreement.

And this gadfly was not suggesting censorship of any individual but was suggesting reviewing the principles of decorum with the entire Council.

This gadfly thought CW Van Wirt got the distinction right when she said, “people are confusing First Amendment rights with an agreement to follow Robert’s Rules of Order in a parliamentary procedure. You can say whatever you want but keep it within Robert’s Rules. It’s not a way of editing speech, it’s a way of containing it so it doesn’t involve personal attacks so that we don’t get bogged down in personalities and stuff like that. The things that I’m asking that we follow are that we keep our speeches at 10 minutes each, we have no personal attacks, saying “you” don’t understand something, or “you” this – that’s what Robert’s Rules of Order are about in terms of conduct.”

Decorum not censorship.

Get your questions ready (10)

(10th in a series of posts on City Government)

We have to look beyond today’s Eagles game.

It’s election season.

So how can we get a handle on candidates who come forth for the seats on City Council?

4 seats up for grabs.

Remember that there is one new opening.

And that there are three incumbents running for re-election: Reynolds (’08), Colon (’16), Van Wirt (’18).

 

Can you identify the incumbents?

Could you recognize their voices?

Do you have some basis on which to judge their qualifications?

Though the other members of Council (Waldron, Negron, Callahan) are not running, they might use their powerful incumbent positions to back candidates.

 

Can you identify the Council members not running?

Could you recognize their voices?

Do you have some basis on which to judge their recommendations?

This last question in each series, of course, is the most important. Gadfly has been trying to provide you with a basis for such judgments and will continue to do so.

Time to do our homework.

What do we want to know to help us make our judgments?

When CM Evans’ seat opened up a year ago, each of the candidates for the unexpired term was asked to provide written answers to a series of 14 questions. Gadfly doesn’t know who put those questions together, but he thought they were good, thought they were very helpful. Here they are (minus two that don’t seem relevant now):

1.What uniquely qualifies you to serve on Bethlehem City Council?
2. List the top three (3) priorities of your campaign platform.
3. As several development projects are considered in the City, do you feel Bethlehem can honor its architectural history while simultaneously promoting economic growth and business?
4. Do you feel that transportation is an important issue for the City of Bethlehem, and if so, how do you envision the City better meeting its transportation needs in the future?
6. What is one issue you believe Bethlehem is currently not properly addressing and if on City Council how would you help in this area?
7. What do you think about the idea of a pedestrian bridge over the Lehigh River, and what are your thoughts for potential funding sources?
8. What can be done to encourage more constituent participation in local Government, particularly in the budget process?
10. What are your thoughts for the long term best solution for the pools in the City?
11. Within the next several years, the Parking Authority will need to replace the Walnut Street garage. How do you think the Authority and the City should plan for the financial and business impact of the construction of a new garage?
12. One of City Council’s most important functions is to pass the yearly budget for Bethlehem. What ideas would you bring to City Council that involve the area of finances?
13. Making decisions on City Council often involves seeking compromises that balance the individual self-interests of multiple groups of people. How do you feel you can contribute to the culture of compromise that is necessary to a functioning legislative branch of government?
14. 2017 saw City Council create several new initiatives relating to municipal climate action, neighborhood investment, open data and efficient city government. How do you feel you can participate in and add to these initiatives?

Does this still look like a good list of questions that we’d like to see candidates tackle? What would we add, what drop off? What priority would we set in our list?

Perhaps a good final question would riff on question 6: “what topic or topic would you like to address that we haven’t asked you about?”

If we had such a list of questions in print or in mind, Gadfly could ask candidates to share their ideas here in the time leading up to the election.

 

Let’s think about our charter schools (1)

(1st in a series on Education)

Jacqueline Palochko, “WATCHDOG: Lehigh Valley arts charter high school looking to receive state money for lease.” Morning Call, December 22, 2018.

The Lehigh Valley Charter High School for the Arts will take advantage of a loophole that allows charter schools to collect lease reimbursements from the state while paying rent to foundations that support them. Under state law, charter schools can apply for partial reimbursement of leasing costs as long as the school does not own the building it’s in.

Carol Burris, “Can charter schools be reformed? Should they be?” Washington Post, December 16, 2018.

The bottom line is this. It is foolish to fund a parallel system of privately managed schools at the expense of the nation’s public schools.

These two recent articles reminded Gadfly that he’s wanted to think more about the fiscal AND educational impact of charter schools in Bethlehem.

On this subject, one rarely sees the name of our superintendent Joseph Roy’s name without “a vocal critic of charter schools” pinned to it.

(I’ve invited Dr. Roy to follow Gadfly, but as far as I can tell, he hasn’t taken me up on that. But school board president Michael Faccinetto has published on the subject of charter schools and does follow. Can somebody nudge Dr. Roy? Tell him this is where the elite meet!)

The fiscal impact seems to dominate the news.

Last year Dr. Roy pointed to charter schools as the reason for our 2.5% tax increase.

In the above “Watchdog” article, Dr. Roy says, “As the auditor general found, this [Lehigh Valley Arts] charter worked around existing laws to avoid the public bidding rules public schools must follow. Now, this taxpayer-funded, privately run school is using another loophole to get their hands on more tax dollars for paying themselves rent.”

Gadfly – whose own memories are stirred when CM Reynolds talks of his “beloved Thomas Jefferson” –would like to know more about charter schools and proposes to explore the subject over the course of several posts.

The local coverage of the above WAPO article referenced an earlier 2017 WAPO article based directly on Bethlehem. Wow! What did WAPO have to say about us? Let’s start our exploration right there.

Carol Burris, “A disturbing look at how charter schools are hurting a traditional school district.” Washington Post, January 9, 2017.

It has not been easy supporting the [Bethlehem] public schools, however, given the financial challenges of the city. In addition, the district suffered a financial crisis in 2008 and then reeled under massive cuts in state aid in the 2011-12 school year. But the worst hit of all has come from the continuing and increasing siphoning of district dollars to charter schools — a whopping $25 million this year alone.

The news always seems bad. Say it isn’t so.

Since you may need a subscription to access this article, Gadfly has copied it here: charter 3.

Read, and we’ll come back in a day or two to begin our conversation.

A matter of decorum (9)

(9th in a series of posts on City Government)

In post #2 in this series, Gadfly announced that the January 2 and all future City Council meetings will be available on video and at some point will be televised live.

Did you see Gadfly’s tease there about the important issue on January 2 beginning min. 32:50? Did you peek?

That issue was Council decorum. Decorum: good taste, polite behavior.

Gadfly raised the issue in his public comment at the beginning of the January 2 meeting, without realizing that President Waldron had evidently prepared to talk about it immediately after his annual report and that Council members were ready to weigh in later as well (CM Callahan twice, CW Van Wirt, CM Reynolds).

Gadfly’s mantra is “Good conversation builds community.” He believes in healthy, vigorous dialogue. He is especially sensitive to violations of common rules and practices for good conversation.

The last several weeks of 2018 were rough. The intersection of 2 W. Market and 306 S. New, covered in detail here on Gadfly, frayed Council and audience alike. There were to Gadfly’s way of thinking several instances when decorum was nearly breached, and one in which Gadfly felt there was definite lack of civility. In his opening public comment January 2, without mentioning names, Gadfly suggested that President Waldron refresh all Council members on guidelines for decorum in Robert’s Rules of Order.

President Waldron did not see violations of Robert’s Rules, said there was healthy debate and mutual respect, did not see himself “gaveling down” Council members, valuing the First Amendment over Robert’s Rules.

There followed in the last part of the January 2 meeting statements by CM Callahan, CW Van Wirt, CM Callahan again, concluding with CM Reynolds. “Elder statesman” Reynolds, as he was delightfully termed by President Waldron, an 11yr veteran of Council, wrapped up the interchanges with a wonderful statement on the need for harmony and respect. Perfect punctuation.

End of story.

I thought.

I wasn’t going to write or speak any more about it, leaving the final apt word with CM Reynolds.

But something kept nagging me. The person whom Gadfly thought demonstrated lack of civility had reviewed the December 4 meeting minutes and saw no wrong and was blameless. That person would later apologize January 2 if anybody took offense without, it seemed, believing there was any offense to apologize for. President Waldron also said he reviewed minutes and didn’t “see a lot there as far as violation of Robert’s Rules.”

What was clearly visible to Gadfly was not visible to others, and, if indeed there was a violation of civility as he felt there was, it would not be avoided in the future without such recognition.

Here’s the specific line that jumped out at me. CM Callahan addressing CW Negron in the 306 S. New portion of the December 4 meeting. The subject: their unfortunate “divide” over the Southside that you have seen Gadfly post about several times now.

CM Callahan: “I grew up here, I spent time on the Southside, way before you [addressing CW Negron, though not mentioning her by name] moved here, ok, and you’re telling me right now that the Southside is worse now than it was 25-30 years ago, you don’t have a clue.”

The line was spoken with some vigor, with some passion. It’s the climactic “you don’t have a clue” that’s the mortal sin for Gadfly. CM Callahan totally invalidates the experience and knowledge of a fellow Council member who is a long-time resident of and acknowledged, respected leader of the Southside in a bluntly insulting way. The effect of and impact of that line is not to engage debate and exchange ideas. And, Gadfly thinks, those words are contrary to the spirit and letter of Robert’s Rules.

In Gadfly’s respectful opinion, Councilman Callahan should not have spoken to Councilwoman Negron in that manner. In Gadfly’s respectful opinion, he committed a breach of decorum. Which neither he nor president Waldron has recognized.

But Gadfly might be all wrong, might be the only one who thinks this way. Perhaps a councilman addressing a councilwoman in that manner is acceptable behavior. As always, Gadfly suggests you go to the primary sources and make up your own minds.

1) The full statement by CM Callahan on December 4 that Gadfly felt was a breach of decorum (2 min. audio):

2) Gadfly’s suggestion to President Waldron January 2 about refreshing Council on Robert’s Rules (takes about a minute, beginning at min. 3:05):

3) The first time he speaks about this issue at the January 2 meeting, CM Callahan “challenges” anybody to go into the minutes and find where he broke decorum; he would never do break decorum (min. 4:30ff out of 7 min. video):

4) The second time he speaks on this issue at the January 2 meeting, CM Callahan indicates if anything was taken personally, he apologizes; if what he said hit someone personal, he apologizes; he didn’t mean it; he’s sorry if you didn’t agree with what he said, but he didn’t agree with what was said; has a right to voice his opinion; won’t be stifled (3 min. video):

Gadfly implies no intent to censor speech. In fact, followers will recognize that CM Callahan’s “who pays the damn bills?” advocating the necessity of developers – also spoken in the heat of his defending improvements in the Southside – has spurred him to personally productive thinking about the relationship between economic and community development.

Gadfly simply points to what seems to him to have been a significant but overlooked instance in which civility lapsed, with hope that such obstacles to good conversation can be avoided.

More on Community and Economic Development (8)

(8th in a series of posts on City Government)

In his Wednesday “Divides” post, Gadfly mused over not fully understanding the difference between economic development and community development.

Thanks to Steve Melnick and Peter Crownfield for very recent posts on the subject.

And – duh! – it finally hit Gadfly that we have a whole city department under that title: “The Department of Community and Economic Development.”

So he went to their web site.

At first glance, the info looked primarily “economic.” But then I saw “community” in the sidebar link to Community Action Committee of the Lehigh Valley.

And that enabled me to work to the Community Action Development Corporation of Bethlehem.

So much Gadfly doesn’t know about city operations. Seriously. He’s only entering his sophomore year.

And that took me to things like Southside vision 20/20 with foci on housing, safety, public spaces, and so forth.

Paydirt!

Gadfly hopes to explore and learn more about this “community development.”

This all started with CM Callahan’s “who pays the damn bills?” as a full-fledged endorsement of “economic development” as a means to improve the quality of life in the city.

Gadfly admits that he knows little about city finances. And needs to know more.

But he is also interested in learning about other metrics in determining the “state of the city.”

Community and economic development are different animals (7)

(7th in a series of posts on city government)

Steve Melnick has had a career in economic development for over 35 years in several states, with the last 20 years here in Bethlehem and the Lehigh Valley.

Gadfly:

Community and economic development are, indeed, different animals. Council people who focus on one without considering the other continue to make the same mistakes that spawned the great urban renewal experiment that decimated many cities across the country. Some have never recovered. Developers want to make money, and that’s their right. What is missing from the equation is just how much they are willing to commit to making their presence in our community of positive force. Be it reconfiguring an intersection to alleviate increased traffic, to providing pocket parks in the neighborhood, or developing an infill sight that blends into the existing neighborhood are all things a municipality can require without jeopardizing a private company’s bottom line. If our community is desirable enough for a developer to want to build here, they should be required to take the extra steps to make sure they preserve what we already have created.

Steve

Election coming . . . May 21

(6th in a series of posts on City Government)

“When nobody runs against the incumbents, democracy dies.”
(Paige Van Wirt, January 9, 2019)

Bethlehem City Council:

— one opening because of CM Martell’s decision not to run again

— three incumbents running: CM Reynolds (’08), CM Colon (’16), CW Van Wirt (’18)

Remember that City Council meetings are now video-recorded and soon may be televised live.

Remember that already there are video and audio clips as well as commentary here on Gadfly, and you can expect more opportunities here to get to know the incumbents.

Remember that Gadly invites candidates to use Gadfly as a vehicle for shaping and sounding out ideas.