This seems to be a hot topic, more so with the Bettendorf crowd than anyone else. This one took a lot of research, but I think this is a good thing. I tried to break this down into sections of what costs the taxpayers money. There’s personnel, hardware and management.
Personnel seems to be most of the against argument by the Bettendorf crowd since they seem to be pleased with their dispatch as is. According to the articles that address the personnel issue, it seems that there will not be a loss of numbers, or even the people that exist as of right now. How this would affect day to day operations seems to be slim to none, as there are going to be plenty of dispatchers to answer the calls.
Another issue that comes up is that the Bettendorf folks say that there will be a delay in getting services. I think that is a large heap of speculation and really has no merit. As a matter of fact I think it will decrease delays and here’s why. Cell phones. I don’t know if this has happened to any of you but a friend of mine was in the area of 53rd and Elmore and dialed 911 from his cell phone. He got Bettendorf. He wasn’t in Bettendorf. Had that been a consolidated center, it wouldn’t matter, that dispatcher could send him Davenport’s assistance from the same desk. One call, no transferring from place to place.
Hardware was a lot more involved than I thought. After reading the report that is posted as a link from the Sheriff’s Department site, it seems that getting everyone to communicate with each other may not be that difficult, as long as all of the departments involved are willing to work together. The term interoperability keeps surfacing in the sites that I went to and it seems that agencies that develop interoperability are eligible for federal grants. I stumbled into a lot of information at the federal level about national incident management and it’s everywhere. The fed is supporting it, and not only is willing to put funds into it, they already have.
These dispatch centers are working well and interoperability was proven to be very important and successful in the Minneapolis interstate bridge collapse. If interoperability isn’t in place here in the QC I think it should be. I think that all law enforcement, fire departments and ambulances need to be able to talk to each other. If they all had the same dispatch center that can’t hurt. If that center knows where everyone is would they be able to send the closest responder instead of what is now in their limited span of control? I couldn’t find that answer definitively, but it makes sense.
I think the true issue with Bettendorf is the management side. If they lose control of the management, they may seem like the little guy being bullied around by Davenport, just because of mere numbers. I’m not sure how that issue could be resolved, but it sounds like everyone would maintain some control over their portion of the world. I really don’t think that Bettendorf is going to lose the ability to get a police officer in a decent amount of time, unlike Davenport on occasion. It seems the change is limited to changing dispatch, not departments themselves. I doubt after all the crying about the fire department in that city that the citizens there wouldn’t want emergency services to be able to communicate with other agencies in the most efficient manner. It appears that they are the only city that cannot handle a moderate to major emergency without the assistance of other jurisdictions, namely when it comes to fire. (No offense intended.) It seems overall, it’s not going to change emergency response, just save us money and increase the efficiency when someone calls for help.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Sticks and Stones...
If you’ve read the last post comments, Keith Meyer has managed to declare that I am a jerk.
Jerk –noun
1. a quick, sharp pull, thrust, twist, throw, or the like; a sudden movement: The train started with a jerk.
2. a spasmodic, usually involuntary, muscular movement, as the reflex action of pulling the hand away from a flame.
3. any sudden, quick movement of the body, as in dodging something.
4. Slang. a contemptibly naive, fatuous, foolish, or inconsequential person.
There are other definitions, but that is a start, and I ended the list with the one that he likely was referring to. He made this profound conclusion after I responded to a question that I am not going to answer in the same typing format that he did; a reversal of lower case and capital letters. Now if he was going to resort to name calling, and has an IQ over 75 as he claims to in another blog, he could have certainly selected a more accurate term.
In Mr. Meyer’s current state of mind, whatever that may be, it seems he is showing true colors, and to recognize that would not describe someone that is a jerk… foolish and inconsequential. As a matter of fact, in an effort not to be fatuous, I resisted posting anything about Mr. Meyer in the blog since he was not re-elected and does get my respect for his years of public service. I am not naïve in the fact that his behavior should predictably change to lashing out and name-calling since he seems to need to vent his frustration in public forum, for example, at churches being remodeled, at the skate park, from the city council chamber, etc. When I compare his foolish behavior both pre and post election to the president it makes sense when psychological principles are attached to it. Here is an excerpt from a psychiatrist in reference to President Bush:
At this point, the president seems to have entered a place in his psyche where he is discounting all external criticism and unpopularity, and fixing stubbornly on his illusion of vindication, because he's still "The Decider," who can just keep deciding until he gets to success. It's hard not to feel something heroic in this position - but it's a recipe for bad, if not catastrophic, decisions. Psychologically, President Bush has received support for so long because many have thought of him as "one of us." Most of us feel inadequate in some way, and watching him we can feel his inadequacies and sense his uncertainties, so we admire him for "pulling it off." His model tells us, "If you act like you're confident and competent, then you are." We are the culture that values the power of positive thinking and seeks assertiveness training. We believe that the right attitude can sometimes be more important than brains or hard work. He's bullied us, too. We don't dare to really confront the scale of his incompetent behavior, because then we would have to face what it means to have such an incompetent and psychologically disabled decision-maker as our president. It raises everyone's uncertainty. And that is, in fact, happening now. – John Briggs, M.D.
So not only is it explained that Keith doesn’t like not making any progress, it explains why anyone ever voted for him in the first place. When the uncertainty mounts and Keith just wasn’t pulling it off with his antics, he got voted out. Now that he is voted out, he is lashing out in an attempt to not become an inconsequential person which may be inevitable. So after being provoked, I think I have vented in the most prudent and politically correct manner possible. Not only did I submit that I am likely not a jerk, I think that I can justify saying that Keith Meyer is a contemptibly naive, fatuous, foolish, and inconsequential person. A jerk.
Cited Work: Bush and the Psychology of Incompetent Decisions
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011807J.shtml
Jerk –noun
1. a quick, sharp pull, thrust, twist, throw, or the like; a sudden movement: The train started with a jerk.
2. a spasmodic, usually involuntary, muscular movement, as the reflex action of pulling the hand away from a flame.
3. any sudden, quick movement of the body, as in dodging something.
4. Slang. a contemptibly naive, fatuous, foolish, or inconsequential person.
There are other definitions, but that is a start, and I ended the list with the one that he likely was referring to. He made this profound conclusion after I responded to a question that I am not going to answer in the same typing format that he did; a reversal of lower case and capital letters. Now if he was going to resort to name calling, and has an IQ over 75 as he claims to in another blog, he could have certainly selected a more accurate term.
In Mr. Meyer’s current state of mind, whatever that may be, it seems he is showing true colors, and to recognize that would not describe someone that is a jerk… foolish and inconsequential. As a matter of fact, in an effort not to be fatuous, I resisted posting anything about Mr. Meyer in the blog since he was not re-elected and does get my respect for his years of public service. I am not naïve in the fact that his behavior should predictably change to lashing out and name-calling since he seems to need to vent his frustration in public forum, for example, at churches being remodeled, at the skate park, from the city council chamber, etc. When I compare his foolish behavior both pre and post election to the president it makes sense when psychological principles are attached to it. Here is an excerpt from a psychiatrist in reference to President Bush:
At this point, the president seems to have entered a place in his psyche where he is discounting all external criticism and unpopularity, and fixing stubbornly on his illusion of vindication, because he's still "The Decider," who can just keep deciding until he gets to success. It's hard not to feel something heroic in this position - but it's a recipe for bad, if not catastrophic, decisions. Psychologically, President Bush has received support for so long because many have thought of him as "one of us." Most of us feel inadequate in some way, and watching him we can feel his inadequacies and sense his uncertainties, so we admire him for "pulling it off." His model tells us, "If you act like you're confident and competent, then you are." We are the culture that values the power of positive thinking and seeks assertiveness training. We believe that the right attitude can sometimes be more important than brains or hard work. He's bullied us, too. We don't dare to really confront the scale of his incompetent behavior, because then we would have to face what it means to have such an incompetent and psychologically disabled decision-maker as our president. It raises everyone's uncertainty. And that is, in fact, happening now. – John Briggs, M.D.
So not only is it explained that Keith doesn’t like not making any progress, it explains why anyone ever voted for him in the first place. When the uncertainty mounts and Keith just wasn’t pulling it off with his antics, he got voted out. Now that he is voted out, he is lashing out in an attempt to not become an inconsequential person which may be inevitable. So after being provoked, I think I have vented in the most prudent and politically correct manner possible. Not only did I submit that I am likely not a jerk, I think that I can justify saying that Keith Meyer is a contemptibly naive, fatuous, foolish, and inconsequential person. A jerk.
Cited Work: Bush and the Psychology of Incompetent Decisions
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011807J.shtml
Sunday, November 25, 2007
JLCS – Overdoing philanthropy?
I am seeing that the comments on the last thread went there, so here is my two cents for what it’s worth. I am not unhappy with the overall behavior of John Lewis Coffee Shop. I think that there is a genuine need to help the homeless and people who are going through a hard time. I’m just not sure that JLCS is doing this in a way that is best for the community. As my thought process developed on this, I decided to consult with some people that I know… a few Davenport Police officers and a Davenport Firefighter, who also works part time on the ambulance in Davenport.
The accusations always fly about how JLCS attracts crime and the homeless are the cause of it. Though I appreciate the concern of neighbors, the police do not seem to be overly concerned with them, as they have far more issues with rental properties than JLCS could ever dream of. It seems that the overwhelming consensus is that the issue with JLCS residents is that they are frequently intoxicated and sleeping in back yards, alleys, etc. As far as their crime actually having a victim, it doesn’t seem to be overwhelming as it is made out to be. In addition, I wouldn’t attribute this to JLCS alone, it would happen anyway.
The other consensus, which tends to rely on less speculation, is that JLCS is much bigger than it needs to be. The majority of the residents that the police and medical personnel deal with are not from here. The homeless do state on a regular basis to the police that they came here because they heard about the benefits and services that were available.
Of the roughly 3 million that JLCS has spent in their fiscal year ending 2005, half of it was on salaries. A large portion of dollars are involved in development as well. With the closing of the lunch time meal that they served, a seemingly lower expense than the development that they are doing (160K vs. 2.5m in outstanding mortgages), seems to make it look like they are more interested in growing and obtaining property then they are “…work(ing) with the greater community in challenging the root causes of poverty and affecting systemic change through development activities.” It seems to me that if you are going to address the root cause of poverty you should provide food, shelter and programs to get people back to work, and in their own homes. That doesn’t mean to me that you should spend millions in public funds to develop consolidated areas of affordable housing that has the potential to lower property values, i.e. Cobblestone.
To me if JLCS wants the support of the community they need to stop attracting homeless here, working to provide needed services which should focus on providing food and temporary shelter and truly affect systemic change. I am very much into philanthropy and helping the poor, but I do not support taking it so far as to negatively impact our community.
Source: www.guidestar.org, JLCS FYE 2005 IRS 990.
The accusations always fly about how JLCS attracts crime and the homeless are the cause of it. Though I appreciate the concern of neighbors, the police do not seem to be overly concerned with them, as they have far more issues with rental properties than JLCS could ever dream of. It seems that the overwhelming consensus is that the issue with JLCS residents is that they are frequently intoxicated and sleeping in back yards, alleys, etc. As far as their crime actually having a victim, it doesn’t seem to be overwhelming as it is made out to be. In addition, I wouldn’t attribute this to JLCS alone, it would happen anyway.
The other consensus, which tends to rely on less speculation, is that JLCS is much bigger than it needs to be. The majority of the residents that the police and medical personnel deal with are not from here. The homeless do state on a regular basis to the police that they came here because they heard about the benefits and services that were available.
Of the roughly 3 million that JLCS has spent in their fiscal year ending 2005, half of it was on salaries. A large portion of dollars are involved in development as well. With the closing of the lunch time meal that they served, a seemingly lower expense than the development that they are doing (160K vs. 2.5m in outstanding mortgages), seems to make it look like they are more interested in growing and obtaining property then they are “…work(ing) with the greater community in challenging the root causes of poverty and affecting systemic change through development activities.” It seems to me that if you are going to address the root cause of poverty you should provide food, shelter and programs to get people back to work, and in their own homes. That doesn’t mean to me that you should spend millions in public funds to develop consolidated areas of affordable housing that has the potential to lower property values, i.e. Cobblestone.
To me if JLCS wants the support of the community they need to stop attracting homeless here, working to provide needed services which should focus on providing food and temporary shelter and truly affect systemic change. I am very much into philanthropy and helping the poor, but I do not support taking it so far as to negatively impact our community.
Source: www.guidestar.org, JLCS FYE 2005 IRS 990.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Will the Real Shawn Hamerlinck Please Stand Up?
I am confused as to what the last election did to Shawn. It seems the “outspoken critic” of Malin on a regular basis is now giving him a positive review. If you haven’t seen the initial article that just tickled a little here it is…
http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2007/11/16/news/local/doc473d39efd720b997719139.txt
Essentially, Shawn has been browbeating Malin, along with his buddies Lynn, Ambrose and Meyer, and is now blaming it on himself and the council. At least, that is how I read the passage in that article, that the council gives Malin no direction, and it is their fault.
So what is Shawn really saying? He likes Malin and the job he’s doing, even though he voted to fire the guy? In an April 17th article in the QCT, Shawn says: “I will grant that Craig Malin offers institutional knowledge,” he said. “It’s amazing the ability he has to get stuff done. The problem is sometimes in what that stuff is and what direction he wants to move.” Huh? So where does Shawn get this magical “he’s doing a good job” gameface?
It seems to me that Shawn might be a little frustrated. In my view, and I don’t think I’m alone, he is attempting to micromanage the city from his ward. Charlie Brooke tried to explain to Shawn why this was a bad thing when Shawn was fired up about taking responsibilities away from Malin. Here is a snip from the same April 17th article referenced above:
Alderman Charlie Brooke, 6th Ward, said a city with a $180 million budget and 900 employees would be a nightmare to run by a micromanaging elected body.“It needs a professional, a CEO, to run it, not 10 politicians elected every two years,” he said. “Nine of the 10 aldermen of Davenport have no experience running a business. Eight of the 10 have no real job at all. One is in jail. No other city in Iowa runs without an administrator.”Hamerlinck said his idea would be to keep an administrator but give the power to hire and fire department heads to the council and mayor.
Now back to the latest article where Shawn is quoted as saying:
“The biggest issue affecting the city administrator is a City Council that has refused to give him direct policy direction,” he said. “It’s our responsibility to tell him exactly what we want him to do, and too often, we haven’t.” Is that it? Is that the issue? Shawn, remember wanting to eliminate the position all together?? Here’s a clip from an April 14th article from the QCT:
Alderman Keith Meyer, 3rd Ward, who attended Hamerlinck’s meeting, told the Quad-City Times late last week that he will support the alderman’s (Hamerlinck's) efforts to eliminate the position. Aldermen Ray Ambrose, 4th Ward, and Bill Lynn, 5th Ward, also have positioned themselves in support of Hamerlinck.
So what do you want Shawn? Do you want the council to do everything, or do you want to just tell Malin what to do? It seems to me you should leave a significant amount of decision making in the hands of the person, whom you give glowing approval of that has “institutional knowledge” and not in the hands of 9 of 10 aldermen who “have no experience running a business.”
Links to the other cited articles:
April 14, 2007
http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2007/04/14/news/local/doc462197afb7bf0094213189.txt
April 17, 2007
http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2007/04/17/news/local/doc4624548342483807602860.txt
http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2007/11/16/news/local/doc473d39efd720b997719139.txt
Essentially, Shawn has been browbeating Malin, along with his buddies Lynn, Ambrose and Meyer, and is now blaming it on himself and the council. At least, that is how I read the passage in that article, that the council gives Malin no direction, and it is their fault.
So what is Shawn really saying? He likes Malin and the job he’s doing, even though he voted to fire the guy? In an April 17th article in the QCT, Shawn says: “I will grant that Craig Malin offers institutional knowledge,” he said. “It’s amazing the ability he has to get stuff done. The problem is sometimes in what that stuff is and what direction he wants to move.” Huh? So where does Shawn get this magical “he’s doing a good job” gameface?
It seems to me that Shawn might be a little frustrated. In my view, and I don’t think I’m alone, he is attempting to micromanage the city from his ward. Charlie Brooke tried to explain to Shawn why this was a bad thing when Shawn was fired up about taking responsibilities away from Malin. Here is a snip from the same April 17th article referenced above:
Alderman Charlie Brooke, 6th Ward, said a city with a $180 million budget and 900 employees would be a nightmare to run by a micromanaging elected body.“It needs a professional, a CEO, to run it, not 10 politicians elected every two years,” he said. “Nine of the 10 aldermen of Davenport have no experience running a business. Eight of the 10 have no real job at all. One is in jail. No other city in Iowa runs without an administrator.”Hamerlinck said his idea would be to keep an administrator but give the power to hire and fire department heads to the council and mayor.
Now back to the latest article where Shawn is quoted as saying:
“The biggest issue affecting the city administrator is a City Council that has refused to give him direct policy direction,” he said. “It’s our responsibility to tell him exactly what we want him to do, and too often, we haven’t.” Is that it? Is that the issue? Shawn, remember wanting to eliminate the position all together?? Here’s a clip from an April 14th article from the QCT:
Alderman Keith Meyer, 3rd Ward, who attended Hamerlinck’s meeting, told the Quad-City Times late last week that he will support the alderman’s (Hamerlinck's) efforts to eliminate the position. Aldermen Ray Ambrose, 4th Ward, and Bill Lynn, 5th Ward, also have positioned themselves in support of Hamerlinck.
So what do you want Shawn? Do you want the council to do everything, or do you want to just tell Malin what to do? It seems to me you should leave a significant amount of decision making in the hands of the person, whom you give glowing approval of that has “institutional knowledge” and not in the hands of 9 of 10 aldermen who “have no experience running a business.”
Links to the other cited articles:
April 14, 2007
http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2007/04/14/news/local/doc462197afb7bf0094213189.txt
April 17, 2007
http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2007/04/17/news/local/doc4624548342483807602860.txt
The Opener...
I have long been a fan of blogging and have paid an occasional visit to the blogs that deal with the politics and the ongoings in the City of Davenport. I think there is some lively and prudent discussion that occurs, and that this is a way to communicate with not only each other as voters and active citizens in government, but to politicians and city employees that may not always grasp where we stand as citizens who want this city to grow and prosper.
That being said, I would refer you to the rules that were created by the originator of this little hobby, The Fly. Rule #1, I am king.... I will not allow anyone to belittle or defame another person, we all have the ability to be civil and structure arguments that are constructive. Rule #2, Do not get vulgar, I will delete comments. Feel free to insult, but do it like an adult. Rule #3, I too believe that we can all agree to disagree, your comments should be focused toward making our city better, or simply the enlightenment of someone that just doesn't get it. Rule#4, I can change the rules at any time.
As of now I will allow anonymous posts.... This may change if it gets out of hand. One liner jabs will be deleted as well as irrelevant posts from anonymous persons. If you want your comment to stay, I suggest logging in with some sort of identity, or supplying evidence with your anonymous post.
Well, let us begin...
That being said, I would refer you to the rules that were created by the originator of this little hobby, The Fly. Rule #1, I am king.... I will not allow anyone to belittle or defame another person, we all have the ability to be civil and structure arguments that are constructive. Rule #2, Do not get vulgar, I will delete comments. Feel free to insult, but do it like an adult. Rule #3, I too believe that we can all agree to disagree, your comments should be focused toward making our city better, or simply the enlightenment of someone that just doesn't get it. Rule#4, I can change the rules at any time.
As of now I will allow anonymous posts.... This may change if it gets out of hand. One liner jabs will be deleted as well as irrelevant posts from anonymous persons. If you want your comment to stay, I suggest logging in with some sort of identity, or supplying evidence with your anonymous post.
Well, let us begin...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)