Response from the Editor and the Town Council Work Meeting

I am always grateful for input. Thank you so much.

There have now been at least half a dozen citizen comments or articles from different people, none of whom I have coerced or requested they do this, all suggesting we need greater transparency from Town Council.

That transparency is tied largely to two easily changeable methods of operation. I have mentioned them before.

1. Designate more agenda items as public hearing
2. Change the rules of procedure for town council meetings
a. Allow more time for comments
b. Let comment time be more of a dialogue between commenter and council.
c. Allow for questions, comments after council deliberations.
d. Do not be so rigid about whether it’s a comment or a question. Lighten up.

There is one more, probably huge: a mindset adjustment. When Town Council is planning serious actions asking for public input should be standard practice, not the minimal mandated by law. We should have known purchasing the land next to town hall was being considered. We should have known what they wanted it for. We should have known they were planning to purchase by threatening eminent domain. And we should have known it would have to be paid for by floating a loan. We should have known about and been asked our opinion of all those factors.

The other situation that springs to mind is the fancification of the George A Barker River Park. I am still confused that TC felt they had to hire someone to ask us what we wanted. The town could have saved so much money if they had just asked us directly. Especially since what they learned was, for this community, less is better.

At the Town Council work meeting last Wednesday to discuss financial priorities, there was much discussion of the medical clinic, possible post office, new town hall, new council chambers, roads needing attention, main water pipe needing enlarging in the not too distant future, and all that jazz.

It was good to see them working on priorities, discussing, occasionally mentioning public input. I’m thinking how good it will be to have very little to say other than they did their job seriously, I did not agree with everything, but I did appreciate their respectful and responsible discussions.

But, you know, there just always has to be something that cannot be passed over, I guess.

Minor detail: They began by asking whether TC members want a medical clinic. “Do you want a medical clinic?” sets up an easy but misleading answer. That’s like asking if I’d like a Mercedes-Benz — obviously, yes. But wanting something and being able to justify the cost are two very different things. The real discussion should start with affordability and actual need. Who in Springdale wouldn’t say yes when the question is framed that way?

tt was great to see they knew the importance of making sure they had a firm, long-term commitment from Family Health (or similar) with numbers as to what the health group who might run the clinic is willing to pay for the space.

It is important that comments supporting one’s agenda must not be given the weight of truth without some fact-checking. Last meeting the Mayor stated, as fact, that Springdale’s population was 700, stating she had read it in a county document. No such document can be found.

At this last meeting she stated (in order to quell some of Pat Campbell’s concerns) that Family Health pharmacies only fill prescriptions from Family Health doctors. That is news to the Family Health pharmacy in Hurricane. They fill prescriptions from any doctor. She said it with the tone of authority because she was a patient with Family Health I am not but have several times had prescriptions filled there.

These may be undramatic points but there are so many such examples that I no longer trust what she says when it supports her agenda. She also said all the mayors she talked to have used a Utah code allowing the collection of a 0.3% sale tax for a town to use for roads. I could only find 2 municipalities (along the Wasatch front) which have imposed that sales tax. I am awaiting more details from the “tax master.” When municipalities list what their sales tax is divided into, perhaps that one is subsumed in other categories and is, therefore, not listed as a separate category. I’m not totally sure. Neither is she.

When someone asked for more responsiveness, she said she responds to every email. She does not. She just says things to fit the situation prioritizing her point over honesty. We all do a version of that, I suppose, emphasizing the negative if we want change, stressing the good if we want things to stay the same. I just remind, urge, implore us all, town council members, town staff, community members to be wary of comments like these before you are persuaded by information that may sound good but lacks evidence.

With that sort of ringing in my mind, I return to the idea of a Community Oversight Committee. I think as originally described by Mr. McKee, almost omnipotent with subpoena power, etc., it is neither feasible nor desirable. He said he knew of people for whom the redress town formula had not worked but they were afraid to speak out for fear of retaliation. That makes sense. Once burned, twice cautious. Mayor Bruno said she had letters expressing the opposite. I’m wondering. Why wouldn’t they just have sent those letters to be published like citizen comments usually are? They would have no fear of recrimination.

I see this Oversight Committee more like a sort of simplified union where, if the bureaucratic system doesn’t work, there’s a place to go to be heard. It may never be needed. Mayor said it wasn’t the system that failed Mr. McKee; it was his failure to use it properly. “He said; she said” at this point. It was roundly put down by every member of town council and they had me pretty convinced at the time. I think I’m back to my original position of thinking it could be valuable and worth a try — not as the highfaluting one originally envisioned, but simpler, to whom the powers that be would show respect when it might be used by employees if they perceived injustice.

And now, a word from our “no-she-did-not-say-that department. I was gratified that Mayor Bruno thought enough of the sentiments expressed by former Mayor Stan Smith to publish them as the Mayor’s comments in the most recent town newsletter. Mr. Smith’s article appears on the next page for those (hopefully few) who do not read the town newsletter. Thus, imagine my dismay when she said, "I think we need to not (pause) I’m trying to say this carefully, we have a small vocal group in the community who don’t speak for the whole community and yet have a lot to say. I think you know St George just built a new city building and it has a beautiful council chamber. (she did say we didn’t need one like St George) I mean, we’re a nice community and we should have what what other communities have.”

A lot of ugh to unpack. How does she know those who speak do not speak for the “whole community?” It may be because they don’t speak for her, I suppose, but they probably speak for a whole lot of others. Businesses, politicians know that one letter represents a fair contingency. Perhaps Mayor Bruno should reread Stan Smith’s article. Case closed.

At a previous meeting, she mentioned her house in Salt Lake was 5,000 square feet. I think she was using that to suggest a 4,000 square foot clinic was not all that big, but the subtext was she was used to “nice” and she wants “nice” and “we are a nice community.” We should have “nice.” “Nice,” meaning, upscale, I assume. What we have is as “nice” as Alhambra, CA, where we used to live.

She also said how hard the CCC was to schedule, “this building drives the dates instead of the convenience driving the dates.” That is the reality of scheduling. If everyone were able to use the exact room they wanted whenever they wanted it, the building is being completely underutilized.

Overall, the Town Council felt more responsive to input, despite Mayor Bruno’s dismissiveness at that one point. I always believe they are trying to do what they believe is best for the community and for the future of our community. If you wish to enjoy the meeting on your own: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwhY4iZ19MY>