Ray admits suggesting Elliott’s site for library

Wow — I just received this press release today from the City:

As reported in Friday’s Journal Star, I recently suggested a possible site to the Director of the Library. That suggested site is not a possible site at this time. In presenting my suggestion, I said that maybe the library would gain three votes. I should not have said this. I certainly had no knowledge that any three Councilpersons’ votes would have been swayed by selection of this site. I never intended to create the impression that I knew how any Councilperson would vote. There was no backroom deal being cut.

I regret this error and hope that this error does not detract from the on-going library discussion.

Randy Ray
Corporation Counsel

As you may recall, Gary Sandberg stated in his letter of resignation as library liaison that City Attorney Randy Ray had suggested that three votes would change from “no” to “yes” if the library board would pick Elliott’s strip club as the location for the new library and use their power of eminent domain to take the property. Library board president Mike McKenzie, library director Ed Szynaka, and councilman Jim Montelongo all attested to the truth of this deal being proposed.

Ray admits that he proposed the deal, but now says that he didn’t actually know of three specific council members who would have changed their votes when he made that statement. Evidently he was speculating that if the Elliott’s site were chosen, three council members would be so happy to get rid of Elliott’s (which has been mired in controversy ever since they applied for the adult use license) that they would vote for the $35 million in bonds.

Sorry, I’m not buying it. Read this account from the Journal Star again:

Library Board President Mike McKenzie said Ray asked library director Ed Szynaka to stop by his office May 16. During that meeting, Ray floated the idea about Elliott’s, eminent domain and how the idea would change the minds of three councilmen who intended to vote against the $35 million proposal, McKenzie added….

Szynaka, who would not comment for this story, repeated Ray’s idea at the board’s building committee meeting on May 19, a meeting that Sandberg attended as the council liaison. It was quickly rejected.

“I never heard about it again,” McKenzie said. “First off, the site’s too small for a library. Second, it’s not for sale and third, there’s an active business there. We do have eminent domain capabilities but we didn’t think that it was a reasonable proposal.”

McKenzie said even if three councilmen changed their minds and supported the library project on the Elliott’s site, current supporters might oppose the idea, nullifying the effect of the site change.

Now think about this scenario. Ray asked Szynaka to stop by his office. Ray suggested the Elliott’s site as a possible location for the library. Why this site? For what reason would he be suggesting it and why should the board consider it? It wasn’t chosen based on any objective criteria. Ray wasn’t in on the building committee meetings where site selection was discussed. It certainly couldn’t have been based on parcel size or price. No, Ray gave one reason for suggesting it and one reason only: they could pick up three council votes for the $35 million bond issuance if they chose that site. Then Szynaka presented Ray’s proposal at the next building committee meeting. The proposal was considered, objections were raised, and the committee decided to reject the proposal.

Now Ray is saying that he had “no knowledge that any three Councilpersons’ votes would have been swayed by selection of this site”? That undercuts the whole purpose of his pitching the idea to the board in the first place. If he didn’t really know anyone would change their vote based on that site selection, what was the reason for suggesting it? Because “maybe the library would gain three votes”? Why three? Who did he have in mind? And why is the city attorney trying to influence the site location with the library board by making false claims of council support for his idea?

Ray’s press release raises more questions than it answers. It actually makes the issue more serious. I mean, if you or I were to suggest to Szynaka that maybe he should consider such and such a site, that’s one thing. But for the city attorney to suggest that the choice of a site may be the deciding factor in how the council vote comes out based on his insider knowledge… that’s a serious attempt to influence the outcome of the process — and under false pretenses if what he’s now saying is true.

Methinks Ray has jumped from the frying pan into the fire.

District 150 demonstration tonight

If you believe that the primary school day at District 150 should not be cut by 45 minutes, if you believe that the benefits of a common prep period for teachers and integrated curriculum can be implemented without cutting the school day, if you believe there are better ways to balance the school budget than by cutting the learning time of the most vulnerable of the district’s students, then I urge you to come down to the District 150 Administration Office tonight at 5:00 p.m. to join like-minded parents, teachers, and residents in demonstrating your support for rescinding the 45-minute cut in the school day.

The Board of Education suspects that it’s just a small group (a “vocal minority”) that wants the board to reverse their decision. Help us show them that there is broad public support for restoring the learning time they voted to cut last month.

The demonstration starts at 5:00 and goes until 6:30 p.m., which is when the school board meeting begins. I hope you’ll join us.

Your gluttony can help starving children

I was at Ruby Tuesday the other day, and as I’m perusing the dessert menu, I come across this statement:

???????? ????? ????????When You Buy Our Gourmet Cookies You Help Us Feed Hungry Children and Families.

That’s right. Ruby Tuesday is offering to donate 10% of the price of those cookies to America’s Second Harvest.

Only in America would someone think of this angle to sell dessert. It’s brilliant, in a calculating cynical sort of way.

There was a time when organizations would show pictures of starving third-world children on TV and in magazines and ask affluent Americans to exercise a small modicum of self-sacrifice by sending $20 a month to help feed them. They’d actually assign you a child and your donation would directly help that boy or girl. You could even write letters to each other while the child was going through school; you could keep tabs on his or her progress. The act of charity and the relationship you fostered would be the blessing.

In contrast, buying cookies at Ruby Tuesday is an exercise in instant gratification. Rather than a long-term commitment to a relationship, you can just buy a dozen delicious cookies, indulge your appetite, and yet still feel a sense of self-satisfaction that somehow, through your transaction to buy yourself food you don’t need, you’ve helped feed one of your less-fortunate fellow citizens.

This has the added bonus of turning the tables of guilt when it comes to dessert. Often, the people who buy dessert feel guilty because of the large portion size, going off their diet, or a host of other reasons, whereas the people who pass on dessert feel virtuous and are perceived (if only to themselves) as paragons of self-control.

Thanks to Ruby Tuesday, it’s the dessert eaters who are the virtuous ones. Their over-indulgence is no longer a vice; it’s an act of mercy that will help poor, starving families. In contrast, non-dessert-eaters are cheap, cold-hearted, and decidedly uncharitable. It’s clear they don’t care about starving families in America since they won’t so much as buy a cookie to help them.

Of course, the real hero here is Ruby Tuesday. This little promotion makes them look like a saintly corporation, putting people before profits and giving back to the community. Plus, they get to keep the other 90% of the proceeds from their increased cookie/charity sales. It’s a win-win!