No, is for output only.

Increasingly in official circles no is being removed as an input word. Saying no to a public official has the effect of shutting down all cranial activity. No, coming from the official's direction is usually backed by some obscure law designed to enforce compliance but no from a citizen means absolutely nothing in government talk. Take Cleveland City Manager, Joe Cate's announcement that a 6% increase in the property tax will be necessary to fund the master plan building program. For years, public survey after public survey has indicated that the citizens of Cleveland do not want to pay more in local taxes for any reason. And not by a simple majority either, the trend is overwhelming. You would think that public sentiment would have an effect on the plans for Cleveland's new, exciting and expensive - very expensive future. Not a bit of it. Cate is determined to carry Cleveland's spending to new heights and to heck with what the taxpayer thinks. Cate says the increase is needed to build a new Mayfield school and a bunch of other projects including a new police administration building. What he doesn't say is that these projects have been on the books for years yet no attempt to conserve funds to pay for them has been made. Every year they spend all the funds available. Money has been lavished on niceties like the Greenway system and airport studies and transportation planning and a host of other nice to have projects that weren't absolutely necessary. The reluctance of city government to heed the word no does not transfer when the citizen is told no. If the citizen refuses to obey then the consequences can be life changing. And so it should be for Cate. Taxpayers already pay enough to fund a new Mayfield school and even a new police building if that is a priority but existing revenue can't stretch to include every whim and fancy without ignoring the wishes of the people of Cleveland. When the people of Cleveland say no, it means no. It is as simple as that.
What do you think?

A private life

Everyone deserves some privacy to their lives, even public figures. Some would argue that an elected official should conduct him or her self in a respectable way befitting the trust and honor bestowed on them. Yet others would contend that a person's personal and family life is nobody's business but their own. The personal life of two Bradley County officials has been exposed in the past few weeks. The divorce proceedings of Tennessee State Senator, Jeff Miller and his

"What do you think" Continued

wife Bridgett and the drug bust of Alex Gilley, Bradley County Sheriff, Dan Gilley's son.  In a perfect world happenings like these would not occur but who lives in a perfect world? Not experienced by the ordinary person, the day to day pressure of being a state senator would have to be lived to be appreciated. The temptations of power has corrupted the finest of men, and the lonely nights with a husband away on public business would stress the strongest of marriages, so lets give the Miller's a break. Lets give them time to work through the upheaval without gossip. Likewise, no parent would wish for their child to be involved with drugs. It could be condemned as bad parenting that caused the child to stray but who of us ever received lessons in good parenting. The way your child develops seems largely a matter of luck, add to that the son of a sheriff feeling untouchable by other folks rules, is it surprising that under this unusual circumstance it would challenge the limits of conduct? It seems to me that these are two occasions when people, even those in the political limelight need privacy to ponder the future. If we are to chastise a wayward official then lets concentrate on how they conduct themselves while doing public business. That's just my opinion.
What do you think?

Why would the commies come here?

It brought a smile to my face when I read of the visit of a Rumanian delegation to the City of  Cleveland. I thought it was ironic that Rumanian officials would choose Cleveland as the town in the USA they would most like to visit. What affinity did they feel for this place? Could it be the fact that our newspapers remind them of the state controlled publications in their home country? Could it be the secrecy and back door dealings of government that they found welcoming? Or the double standard of the courts and prosecutor's office they found most appealing. Maybe it was the way business is conducted, benefiting a small social elite and known locally as the good ol boy system that had the communist officials salivating at the mouth? Or the overpriced and shoddy public works projects that caught their attention. Then I realized they probably came all this way to shake Mayor Tom Rowland's hand. Yeah, that must have been the reason.
What do you think?

"What do you think" Continued

More Editorials

Website Survey Results