I hope that everyone who reads this blog has not made up their minds. To be honest, I myself have not decided which names I'll finally check on April 17. I am seeking reasons to vote for any candidate who wants my vote.
As to the mayoral campaign. It appears that Sheila wants to put Brad out of a job because she doesn't like the way he does his job as "Carbondale's #1 Salesman." His methods cause her to doubt his integrity. This is what she says - since the day she announced her candidacy (spoken to WJPF's Rick Gregg). But, so far as I know, no specific claim of unethical wrong-doing has been levelled at the mayor. It's all implied. Sheila believes that if a business donates $1000 to the mayor, that he will do (or has done) something unethical as a result. She indicates that she's a lawyer and a politician - two professions with "suspect reputations," she says. She wants to make a show of being open and "above board." This is a good strategy for her to use, although I'd like for her or some supporter of hers to state exactly what evil deed(s) Cole's done. I'm listening.
Currently I'm compiling of a list of good deeds Cole has done during his 4 years as a City Councilman and subsequent term as mayor. (I will compare it to Sheila's record during a comparable term of office, including her votes on controversial matters.)
I'd also like him to indicate the things Cole tried to do, but failed! That too can be the measure of the man.
But Sheila is a far superior grass roots networker than Brad. There can be no doubt of that. If we were looking for someone to run a summer camp or local lawyer think-tank Sheila would get my vote.
But maybe her supporters can tell us why we should vote for a person with one-term of experience on City Council who accomplished nothing tangible.
My own take is, it's personality. She's so darn friendly. And she comes from a well-loved family. She also votes whatever the prevailing opinion is. As her old blog shows, she's a weather-vaner; so many people feel that she represents their wishes (To extend that metaphor, Brad Cole is like the wind itself -- the way he get things done. People don't always like the wind, but it can be harnessed to do good.).
This weekend I will finish up the list of Brad's accomplishments -- and write a letter to my homegirl Sheila, a fellow bicyclist and idealistic citizen.
If you want to join the discussion here, and help this blog make its mark on the local race
then go ahead an post a civil comment.
31 comments:
She also votes whatever the prevailing opinion is. As her old blog shows, she's a weather-vaner; so many people feel that she represents their wishes
I'm sorry, but since when was "listening" and being "representative" of the community a bad thing in a democratic system? Indeed, you make one of the best points against Brad...he doesn't listen and he isn't representative. That's fine in the corporate world I suppose, but its not the way you run a democratically-elected government.
His methods cause her to doubt his integrity. This is what she says - since the day she announced her candidacy (spoken to WJPF's Rick Gregg).
I've listened to that clip twice now, and I don't hear her ever mention anything related to integrity.
She talks about governing 'styles' and she thinks that the current Mayor is less interested in getting public input into many matters that affect the community.
To people like the Mayor, and I presume you and Peter, that is an indication that the Mayor would rather be out 'accomplishing things' than listening to people's opinions on these subjects.
Simon is making the point that she wants more input from people before making decisions that affect the entire community. I don't see how that comes across as questioning Cole's integrity.
Perhaps you could elaborate on what I apparently missed in that WJPF sound bite you linked?
Since you bring up the issue of integrity, I will provide you with two events that shed light on Brad Cole’s integrity. Sheila will not bring these issues up (particularly the first), but I have no such reluctance.
The first occurred when Senator Simon died. While the rest of the state mourned the death of Senator Simon by lowering flags to half mast at various state and local buildings, Mayor Cole refused to lower the flag, and directed City Manager Doherty to keep the flag raised. I know of at least three individuals who called City Hall and spoke with Doherty, and one who spoke directly with Cole about the issue. He refused to lower the flag despite the Governor’s pronouncement the day after Simon’s death that all flags in the state be lowered. It was not until several days later when various state and national dignitaries were in town for Senator Simon’s memorial service that the flag was finally lowered to half mast. It was a callous and unconscionable move on the part of the Mayor.
This past August, Mayor Cole was personally present when Nights over Egypt was served with notice of a violation of the liquor ordinances. That notice was served to management at the bar at approximately 1:00 a.m. At no time have I ever heard of the Mayor personally accompanying authorities to a bar to serve notice of a liquor violation and yet he chose to attend this one – very late at night – at the only bar in town that caters predominantly to African-American students. The Mayor spends a good deal of time at Pinch Penny Pub, and it is well known that he is good friends of the owner. How many other establishments has Cole personally presented a notice of a liquor code violation?
Just a quick comment, for now, to sound byte Anonymous: You are correct, she says that as an elected official and a lawyer, her reputation may be 'suspect'. That she wants to be 'above board' and 'up front'. Since the first thing on her campaign website is "Integrity" I conflated the two claims.
Beyond that, I'm working on a lengthier comment on a group of comments that should be done before Sunday's Old Fashioned Debate.
See you there, maybe.
FROM THE WHITE HOUSE:
Only the President and state Governors can decide when and how long the flag should be flown at half-staff.
From the White House:
Only the President and state Governors can decide when and how long the flag should be flown at half-staff.
From the White House:
Only the President and state Governors can decide when and how long the flag should be flown at half-staff.
Did you read my comment? Cole refused to lower the flag, even after Blagojevich ordered flags lowered.
He is going to claim that this was Doherty's doing, but Cole was behind the decision.
new anonomus:
The flag issue - if true - is tacky to say the least. But neither it or the bar citation issue was any impact on me as a citizen of Carbondale.
The biggest mistake Bard made as city council member was the vote to keep the bars open during Halloween week in 2000. But his opponent for major, Maggie Flanagan (sp?) voted the same way. I think both lated adimtted they had made a mistake - costly one.
http://www.dailyegyptian.com/fall00/10-27-00/hupdate.html
The flag issue - if true - is tacky to say the least. But neither it or the bar citation was any impact on me as a citizen of Carbondale.
I believe A's point was that it spoke to Brad's character. So the bar citation may not affect you directly, but if you believe it reflects on his character and he's making the decisions around town that do affect you...well, you see my point.
Here's what Cole says on the flag-lowering issue and the Nights Over Issue, two issues bother Gadfly:
"With regard to the first, no one other than the president and governor can order a flag lowered. No one. If I were to do so, as mayor, I would be violating the law. The governor did not, to my knowledge, issue such a blanket order. We wanted to lower the flag but had to wait until we received permission to do so (I think that did come from the governor eventually). Actually, it was approved by the president due to Simon's past service as a congressman, which stipulates that a flag is to be lowered for a fixed period of time. We followed the protocol to the book on this issue.
On the second issue, the mayor, as chairman of the local liquor control commission, is the only person who has the authority to issue such an order. I was advised of the police activity that resulted in the closure in advance and I directed that they conduct their operation and personally advise me prior to a suspension order being served. In the past, the mayor would write blanket orders and let the cops do as they pleased, I don't. I want to know the evidence and be briefed before we take such action. That
is what happened here. The record will show that the city council accepted the findings of fact in the case and declared that the licensee violated the law, therefore upholding the suspension order."
It does not appear that any legal or ethical violations were committed in these two cases, so Gadfly's attempted smear of Cole misses its the mark. (Unless the target is changed to Brad's nit-pickiness for doing things 'by the book'.)
Well, this is the third post stating that only the President or the Governor can order the flag to be lowered. That is understood.
The point is that Cole did not immediately lower the flag after Blagojevich ordered them lowered. That is fact. He claims that the Governor did not 'to [his] knowledge, issue such a blanket order.' That's a cop out by Cole. The Governor announced that flags be lowered immediately after Simon's death, not three days later.
As to the second issue, is Cole suggesting that the Nights Over Egypt liquor code violation is the only one - by any establishment - that has occurred in this town in the last 4 years?
One more thing about the Nights of Egypt flap.
According to official records, Pinch Penny Pub has never had an armed guard at their door when operating as a "restaurant" so you can't compare the two. The bottom line is Nights of Egypt violated the law and didn't like being caught.
It appears that Ms. Simon or her supporters are friends with the NOE folks. Nothing wrong with that. Is there something wrong with Cole patronizing favorite bars or restaurants?
The DE reports today that Cole linked from the City of Carbondale web site to his personal campaign site - a clear violation of state ethics rules. I understand that Cole is not a state employee, but would someone like to argue that the Mayor should be held to a different standard?
Cole's response?: "If somebody had a question, they should have asked me and this would have been solved a long time ago."
The comment suggests that he either didn't know that this was an ethical issue (highly unlikely), or that he feels that he can do what he likes until someone complains (more likely).
Ethical decisions aren't predicated on whether someone will complain about it, Mayor Cole.
For what it's worth the website link is a none issue, ethically speaking -- at least by my definition of unethical meaning "to choose to benefit yourself at the expense of others". I know for a fact that he simply overlooked it. To make it fairer both his and Sheila's sites should be featured on the City's site. But instead Cole had the link removed as soon as he heard about it. So I guess if you hate Brad then this is another horrible thing he did -- or did ot do. If you are a little more objective, you might consider that it really was inadvertent, and no one has been hurt except Brad, who's too smart to have overlooked the link deliberately knowing that his enemies would pounce on it.
How in the world would the Mayor 'not know' that there is a link on the city site to his campaign site? Who put the link there then? And how is it that the person who put the link there did it without the Mayor's knowledge or consent?
I'm not sure how the link doesn't violate your ethical standard. Linking to the city site makes it a lot easier for people to find out that the Mayor has a campaign reelection web page and learn the Mayor's position on the issues. In addition, the Mayor has an advantage by using the city's web site to promote his campaign while Simon did not. Neither candidate should have their campaign sites linked to the city page.
The city page serves to provide information to residents, businesses, and visitors about the services provided by the city and locations of important city offices and city services. Using that site as a campaign tool is unethical.
For the record, Sheila was aware of the issue and had her blog that was sponsored by public resources removed from the city webpage before anyone said a word to her. Simply for what its worth.
Gadfly, for the record, Sheila's site was not on the City's website, as far as I know.
What Sheila did, for the record, is stop publishing her blog because it was set up by a university employee, and she didn't want any appearance of impropriety -- which is actually psedo-ethical BS. Anyone can set up a blog and Sheila could have very easily "migrated" hers to a "neutral" host.
The fact that she killed her blog at the same time she announced her candidacy made no sense in the real world, imho.
***
Comment to "Anonymous" above:
I think the website link is a non-issue, but I realize that your candidate's stategy is based on attacking Cole's character because his record of achievement is so strong.
I wonder why someone on the city staff pick up on it? Or Sheila or one of her Anonymous supporters? Why didn't I?
I think the answer is NO ONE THOUGHT OF IT! If you want to assume the worst about Brad, that's your privilege. Yet maybe that's a good reason to vote for him -- because his opponent and her staff were asleep at their job of monitoring Cole's web presence, and it took a student reporter - a fine one named Andrea Zimmerman - to uncover the alleged chicanery. ;-)
Now here's a poser for all you Simonites and Ethical Judges: Why doesn't the city GIVE ALL THE CANDIDATES LINKS? Would there something unethical about that? I'd be willing to bet that other cities in the U.S. allow their elected representatives to give their website link. I really see no conflict of interest at all for anyone in that case. (Unless one of your City Council members is a porn star - I'm not pointing any fingers here) who links to a 'risque' personal web site.
Gadfly, for the record, Sheila's site was not on the City's website, as far as I know.
Same deal as the mayor -- linked directly from the website.
As far as you saying this is "pseudo-ethical" b.s....well, maybe. But if you've taken the state's ethics test -- which was foisted on almost the entire community -- you'd see that it is law. Now, I think the legislators have made a mockery of the law in a lot of ways, but it is law nevertheless.
As far as the city giving "all candidate links," it sounds like a good idea until you realize at some point some racist nutjob will run for mayor to spew his/her hatred using public money. This is basically why public funding of political campaigns failed in Missouri six years (or so) ago.
Now here's a poser for all you Simonites and Ethical Judges: Why doesn't the city GIVE ALL THE CANDIDATES LINKS? Would there something unethical about that? I'd be willing to bet that other cities in the U.S. allow their elected representatives to give their website link. I really see no conflict of interest at all for anyone in that case. (Unless one of your City Council members is a porn star - I'm not pointing any fingers here) who links to a 'risque' personal web site.
Yes, it is unethical to give any, or all, candidates links from the city web site.
Who is responsible for maintaining the city's web site? Is it a city employee? If so, then you have tax dollars being spent for individual campaigns. It doesn't matter if you do it for everyone - tax money should not be spent for that purpose. If it is a contract worker, then tax money is being spent to pay that worker to do work for a single individual’s campaign.
I direct you to the State of Illinois Ethics Rules for state employees and contract workers:
http://www.siu.edu/departments/fao/public_html/forms/SE/EthicsTrainingPamphlet.pdf
The relevant section:
Prohibited Political Activities (from Ethics Act, Section 5-15):
"Distribute or prepare campaign literature, campaign signs, or other campaign material [emphasis added] on behalf of any candidate for elective office or for or against any referendum question."
Posting a link to Cole's campaign site is a clear violation of that ethics rules. Even if it was not an employee of the City, but was instead a contract worker maintaining the site for the City, it is still an ethical violation because public money is being used to advance the campaign of a candidate.
You are exactly right - I do believe that Mayor Cole has engaged in numerous instances of unethical behavior, and I am going to point them out when I see them. As far as I’m concerned, 'welcoming new businesses to Reed Station Road' doesn't qualify as a significant enough accomplishment to offset his questionable character issues.
It is unfortunate that a public servant such as the Mayor doesn't care to hold himself to a high standard, and that people like you, apparently don't understand the ethical issues involved in the situation.
Brad acted "unethically" by linking to his campaign website from the city (public) website, as did Sheila by having a personal blog on a university (public) server.
Brad acted "unethically" by linking to his campaign website from the city (public) website, as did Sheila by having a personal blog on a university (public) server.
I don't see it that way. Brad's website was overtly political in the sense that it is a campaign site. Sheila's was overtly governmental in the sense that it was supposed to help her communicate with constitutents. The university can to the best of my knowledge work on the later. Governments are clearly barred from supporting the former. Plus, hers came down once her candidacy was announced.
You're wrong, whoever you are. The domain sheilasimon.com was not obtained until one week before she announced (in April 2006) -- so she would hardly have requested that it be added to the City website at that time, and then immediately request that the link be removed. The fact is her domain was never linked to the City website.
Her blog is another matter. It was set up by a university employee, and hosted on the siu server (apparently) as a public service, I presume.
Sheila quit her blog after she announced in a show of pseudo-ethical nicety. I wrote to tell her that she could host her site somewhere else, that, if anything, she should ramp-up her blogging as a campaign tool, but she didn't see it that way.
Cole's website was not overtly political -- speeches, news releases, photos, although the contents could be construed that way. The fundraising link was not added until after his announcement in November (six months after Sheila made hers). At that time, link should have been removed (to comply with official ethical standards), but it remained for about 90 days, until it was pointed out by a reporter. Since it was an innocent mistake (YES!) it's not a reason to vote for Sheila, imo.
Can't her supporters come up with a more compelling reason to replace a full-time highly competent mayor, with a part-timer? You're arguing that Sheila half the time on the job is better than Brad Cole full-time? That's a stretch, even for the most ardent Cole-hater.
You're arguing that Sheila half the time on the job is better than Brad Cole full-time? That's a stretch, even for the most ardent Cole-hater.
That's spin and you know it, Dave. The argument isn't that she would be "better" half-time. Indeed, probably everyone of her supporters would be OK with her working full-time. But, that's not the form of government we have and Sheila is going to respect that. Period. Brad has a different point of view, obviously, but that's not the point you were making.
Not at the debate last night? (By the by, at least you go to some of these; Peter just throws bombs from the cheap seats before he skates out of town.) She clearly demonstrated why she would be a good mayor.
Yes, anonymous Simonite, I was at the debate.
No. the number of hours the mayor works is not specified in the City's 'form of government' charter or whatever, is it?
Cole has been able to work more hours because he is single, otherwise unemployed, and driven.
I guess the fundamental question is this: has Cole's hard work been worth it? Is the City better off than it was? Most people I speak to say 'yes'.... Sheila's supporters say 'the improvements would have happened anyway'. I disagree.
However, I do agree that Sheila performed better than Brad at the LWVs' debate. She was glowing, among her friends of Leaque of Women Voters; Brad seemed flatter (perhaps thinking in the back of his mind "with this LWV crowd what's the point of trying?") where he clearly dominated, imo.
On the other hand, debate performance is no sure indication of job performance. And Cole has a solid record to run on.
My apologies for not seeing you in the crowd, then. But my point holds - at least you go to the debates and aren't lobbing shots from the bleachers like a drunken Cubs fan.
As to the substantive part of your post, I was referring more to Sheila's stands on the issues presented last night than her debate performance per se.
So the full-time vs. part-time question remains. Is part-time Simon better than full-time Cole?
I think, obviously, a lot of people see the answer as being "yes."
So the full-time vs. part-time question remains. Is part-time Simon better than full-time Cole?
Well, if having Cole full-time means spending $30,000 a year (which is what he spent last year and what he's put in the budget for this year) for him to travel at the city's expense, I say we should go with Simon.
More issues to point out regarding Cole's character:
First, I suppose you know that the Mayor made some advances toward the daughter of local state representative, Mike Bost at a local bar recently. Needless to say, Mike Bost is less than pleased with the Mayor, and Cole has directed staff at City Hall not to forward Bost's repeated phone calls to him.
Second, the owner of Calahan's has footage from his security cameras showing Cole behind the bar serving beers to patrons. I'm sure you know that it is illegal for non-employees to even be behind the bar at a place of business, and that actually serving alcohol without being an employee is an even more serious violation.
But I suppose you have an explanation for both of these events that will convince us that they do not reflect at all poorly on the Mayor's character.
This comment above reflects more on the character of the poster than on Mayor Cole, imo.
Cole categorically denied these these "lies," when asked about them yesterday.
He challenges this accuser to ask Bost's daughter if 'anything like that happened'. He also said Rep. Mike Bost has his cell phone number and calls "frequently" . . .
He said if there was "footage" that shows him serving beer behind a bar, to produce it and "we'll put it on channel 16 for everyone to see."
He says the commenter could not produce the video or conversation with Bost, because "neither even happened."
A reporter could run a fact check, but without any actual evidence to the contrary, I believe Brad.
Post a Comment