I think you guys are not understanding the point they are trying to make. They are not talking about the city transit users at all. They state in the article that they support the "intracity" transit riders. Their concern is with the Greyhound and other "intercity" users that may have a few hours before their bus to the next city leaves. These folks tend to get into trouble and cause problems, and by keeping some space in between the bus station and the library may keep them from creating problems at the library. Don't believe me? Go sit at a Greyhound station and observe the behaviors and look at the bus stops... I vote for a bit of space. The city could plan the routes so that they all go by the library so that the intown riders arent left out in the cold.
Want to know where i am coming from or what my opinion is? Read my posts. Whether my name is Caveman1, or John Doe doesn't make what I say any more or less factual. I do my research to be an informed citizen. I listen to BOS minutes, read blogs, call and ask the right people the right questions. It's almost like I am a reporter. Thanks for the offer of identity disclosure, but I would rather let the facts speak for themselves.
You do realize that the infamous "penthouse" that you are referring to is actually a mechanical penthouse that would house all of the mechanicals of the building, and not actual BOS offices... Guess what? There is a mechanical penthouse at their present location, too!! How come nobody is squaking about that?
maybe you could lend Joel some of your money... He's gonna need it. He is in the wrong here!
Not quite Ann... The BOS has been very public about the fact that they support an internal auditor, however they believe the internal auditing should not be a political appointment. Makes sense. If an internal auditor uncovers fraud involving the elected official that appointed them, how long do you think it will be before that person is fired by that elected official? Not long, and there is nothing anybody can do about it. Now on the other hand, the BOS has no political appointments under them, the folks that report to the BOS are all employees that are protected by collective bargaining unit contracts. So which position do you think would be more willing to call out any fraud?
Ok folks, let me ask a question here... Do you support a complete waste of 20,000 dollars of taxpayer money? If you do not then you may want to question Joel's motives here...
Iowa code 331.903 Appointment of deputies, assistants and clerks.
1. The auditor, treasurer, recorder, sheriff, and county attorney may each appoint, with approval of the board, one or more deputies, assistants, or clerks for whose acts the principal officer is responsible. The number of deputies, assistants, and clerks for each office shall be determined by the board and the number and approval of each appointment shall be adopted by a resolution recorded in the minutes of the board.
This is checks and balances... it exists in every level of goverment in the US.
Secondly, and I think most importantly, is that the BOS has publicly supported the internal auditor position, but feel that that person should report to them and not be a political appointment. Again, Joel refuses to follow accepted practice and is going to cost us taxpayers a lot of money. How much do you think this legal counsel will charge? My bet is tens of thousands if this gets drawn out, which it will. The BOS does not have total control over the other elected officials' departments as Joel says. They simply get to approve the budgets and payroll authorizations. Once that budget is approved each elected can spend it how he/she wants. Government is set up with a system checks and balances, though. So if an elected goes over budget they have to ask for a budget amendment, the BOS can approve/deny that. This is a fundamental concept of government.
I think a couple of clarifications need to be made here.... First, the BOS did not take away a deputy position. There were 3 to start with. The BOS approved a temp position when Joel appointed Tim Box in anticipation of Sue Wold's retirement. After her retirement, the number of deputies would go back to the original three. Unfortunately, that retirement became a firing. Instead of consulting with the BOS on an additional appointment, Joel went ahead and appointed someone, and as Supv Rogers said, "...it was a terrible gamble on a valuable employee’s livelihood.”
Innumerable? Name me 3 consultants that have been hired by the county, not the city...
Lastly, for the last year and a half Joel Miller has scrutinized the board, sometimes unfairly, more than anyone else has, and now he is whining because the board has turned the tables on him? You've made your bed, now lie in it!
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Joint