SULLIVAN'S SALVOS
July 5, 2014
Sullivan’s
Salvos 7/8/14
In this edition:
*No Salvos Next Week!
*Financial Counseling Available
*Democratic Processes Matter!
*Rights of Business Owners
*Did You Know?
*No Salvos Next Week!
There
will be no Salvos next week, as I will be attending the National Association of
Counties (NACO) Conference. Enjoy your break! Please have some stimulating
conversations without me!
*Financial Counseling Available
Iowa
Valley Habitat for Humanity is pleased to announce a new partnership which
brings affordable financial literacy to families in need in Johnson County.
“Iowa
Valley Habitat for Humanity is proud to begin hosting staff from Horizons, a
HUD approved non-profit counseling agency, at our offices so that those needing
unbiased financial counseling can more easily meet. We believe Horizons will
enable families to take charge of their finances so they and their children can
escape the vicious cycle of unending debt and falling credit scores,” said Mark
Patton, Executive Director of Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity.
Horizons,
A Family Service Alliance, has been providing financial and housing counseling
services in Linn, Johnson and the surrounding counties for more than 30 years.
The Iowa City office will offer budget and credit counseling, debt management,
housing counseling, foreclosure counseling and consumer education.
Hours
available for appointments in Iowa City are Tuesdays 1-5, and Thursdays and
Fridays 8AM – Noon. Appointments may be scheduled by calling 800-826-3574. Fees
for services are based on income and family size, and will be provided
regardless of the client’s ability to pay. For additional information, call
Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity at 319.337.8949
*Democratic Processes Matter!
Quick
– what is the most influential group in Johnson County? The Iowa City Council?
Coralville Council? Chamber of Commerce? ICAD? Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong.
There is a group that meets monthly that is much more influential.
It consists of the President and CEO of the Chamber of Commerce, the President
and CEO of the Convention and Visitors Bureau, the President and CEO of the
Iowa City Area Development Group, The President and CEO of the Iowa City
Downtown District, the City Managers of Iowa City and North Liberty, and the
City Administrator of Coralville. (Johnson County’s Executive Assistant may or
may not participate; I’m not certain.)
This group meets monthly to “set the agenda” for our region,
despite the fact that no one in the group is elected to any office.
The group voiced support for the war on the poor in downtown Iowa
City. They wrote a letter to the ICCSD Board encouraging the closure of Hills
Elementary. Now they have written a letter to the Board of Regents. (Some
members abstained from some letters.)
I am very much opposed to two of these initiatives, and very much
in favor of the other. But that is not the issue. Regardless of how any of us
feel about any of these issues, I have some serious problems with this process.
The
Downtown District has a Board. It does not receive public funds (SMID money is
not public). The Chamber has a Board. It does not receive public funds outside
of public sector memberships. The CVB has a Board. It receives lots of public
tax dollars. (I used to serve on both the Chamber and CVB Boards.) ICAD has a
Board. It receives lots of public tax dollars. (I currently serve on it.) The
cities have democratically elected councils. Obviously, they operate on tax
dollars.
So
many of the people sitting around this table are in jobs that are largely
taxpayer funded. Now consider for a moment how taxpayer funded groups are
supposed to operate:
Meetings
are open to the public. Meetings are noticed. Agendas are posted. Minutes are
kept and made public. Votes are recorded and made public. Typically public
comment is allowed. None of those things occur in this case. Yet it is public
business being discussed.
I
strongly support every individual’s right to speak out on any issue she/he
chooses. Free speech should not depend upon one’s job. If each of these people
independently wrote letters? That would be a very good thing. They are smart
people; personally, I care what they think.
But
in this case, the respective Boards of Directors should warn the participants
about using their titles. Feel free to write a letter as Joe Smith. But sign a
letter as Joe Smith, President and CEO of X organization? I feel that the
authorization to sign such a letter should come from the Board of Directors for
whom the person works. (I know some of the folks I have mentioned will be
certain to operate in exactly that fashion; others may not.)
Another
concern: who at the table speaks for the least among us? The business community
is well represented; about half the people work in that realm. But does that
really reflect who we are as a community? Half the households in Johnson County
earn less than $54,000 per year. HALF. Who comes to this table with that half
our population foremost in mind?
Don’t
get me wrong; there are some DARN good people sitting around this table. Given
the opportunity, I’d hire any of them in a second. Many of them I consider
friends. Having them meet and discuss issues is not a bad thing.
My problems stem from the fact that this is why we elect people,
and it is why we require those elected folks to follow all sorts of laws. We
should never get too hung up on process, but we shouldn’t ignore it, either.
To a great degree, this group is filling a vacuum. Our elected
officials meet, but refuse to discuss anything of substance. If an important
issue does get mentioned, folks are quick to table it or send it back to staff,
lest they be forced to actually address something important in public. So I’m
sure this group, hungry to tackle issues, is simply doing what they see fit.
But this work NEEDS to be done in full public view. Just because
city councils refuse to tackle tough issues in public does not mean we should
change the rules. I say keep the group, but stop the letters. We need more
transparency from public groups, not less.
*Rights of Business Owners
I wrote recently about individual versus collective rights. That
leads me to an interesting discussion that has become a hot topic of late: what
are the rights of business owners versus the rights of their customers?
Can a business owner refuse service to a person because they are
gay? Can a business owner refuse service to a person because they are black? Because
they are drunk? Because they are smoking? Because they are carrying a gun?
There is a very good chance the Supreme Court of the United States
will revisit these issues. And there is a very good chance you will not like
what they decide.
As
I said last week, I am generally a fan of individual rights. But that is
contingent upon the exercise of those rights not causing others harm. Back in
the 1800s a philosopher named John Finch said, “Your right to swing your arm
ends at my nose.” I have always embraced a similar view.
So,
whose rights reign supreme here? The merchant or the customer?
Envision
a situation where a woman owns a flower shop. Most of us would agree that it
should be illegal for her to refuse to serve blacks. Does it matter if there is
a “separate but equal” flower shop across town? What if the other shop is more
expensive, or lacks selection? What if it is ten miles away?
Previous
Supreme Courts have ruled that the creation of “separate but equal” facilities
is illegal when it comes to race. The current SCOTUS may disagree.
So
what if the same florist wants to refuse services to gays? By my way of thinking,
this should be illegal, just as it is illegal to refuse service to blacks.
Some
merchant versus customer dilemmas seem easy; others are more difficult. In
keeping with my Finch theory, a merchant should be able to prohibit smoking –
that affects other people. It seems reasonable that a merchant could refuse
service to someone who is drunk on the grounds of liability. It seems to be
generally accepted that merchants can ban unaccompanied minors; is this right,
though?
What
about breastfeeding? Can a merchant require a breastfeeding woman to leave? Can
a merchant refuse service to someone because of how they are dressed? Can they
forbid you because of a hat? Baggy pants? A tattoo? Where do we draw the line?
What
about firearms? The SCOTUS has ruled that individuals have a right to carry;
does that right trump a merchant’s right to ban firearms in her place of
business?
How
about union shops? Should a business owner be able to decide that his employees
will work with a specific union? Can an employer only hire fellow Muslims? Only
fellow men?
Does
it matter if the business is privately held or publicly traded? What about
nonprofits? Governments?
The
discussions are interesting, and the answers are not necessarily cut and dried.
*DID YOU KNOW?
The National President of NACO is Linn County, Iowa Supervisor Linda
Langston.
Anyone
interested in learning more about County government should take a look at the
County website-
"Sullivan’s
Salvos" is sent once per week to any interested party. It will give a
brief update on issues of interest to Johnson County residents.
These messages
come solely from Rod Sullivan, and neither represents the viewpoints of the
whole Board of Supervisors nor those of groups or individuals otherwise
mentioned.
If you do NOT
want the weekly E-mail, simply reply to this message, and type
"unsubscribe" in the subject line.
If you know
anyone else who might be interested, just forward this message. They can E-mail
me at rodsullivan@mchsi.com with "subscribe" in the subject line.
As always,
feel free to contact me at 354-7199 or rodsullivan@mchsi.com. I look forward to
serving you!
---Rod
posted by Rod Sullivan @ 10:10 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home