REED-HIBLER STORY UPDATE---WATCH YOUR BACK

NEWS/OPINION UPDATES

By Mark McLaughlin

Editor’s note:  Space is at a premium in the print edition, so between publications, news doesn’t stop and items for your consideration don’t stop either.  So we’ll be placing news updates here on developing stories, and provide more opinion on the news of the day.

1—REED-HIBLER STORY UPDATE…AND SOME PITHY QUESTIONS TO GO WITH IT?

UPDATE ON REED-HIBLER STORY—In various forms of other media and with the C-O, Gina Reed-Hibler commented on Councilman John Feighert’s call for her to resign in Monday night’s City Council meeting.

Reed-Hibler is accused of ethics violations for a text stream she initiated between the five member of the City Council, plus City Clerk Shellie Blades and City Manager Steve Rasmussen, attempting to build a consensus for moving forward on her purchase as a private citizen of the 3rd Street Buildings from the Old School/HPS for $8,000.

As the text stream progressed, both Feighert and Mayor Curtis expressed concern about the “group text” constituting an “illegal quorum” in violation of Sunshine Laws on open meetings.

Feighert said he was leaving the stream, and Curtis admonished Reed-Hibler that she could not continue the conversation.

Reed-Hibler was then confronted by private citizens expressing concern about her plans for the Third Street Buildings.  Rumblings last week indicated that the sale was in trouble with the assertion that Reed-Hibler had not been able to secure insurance for the buildings.

Reed-Hibler, and sources in City Government debunked that claim early this week saying that insurance will be in place to take over when the Old School’s policy ends.

Reed-Hibler made a public statement to the effect that she had no intention to resign, and that neither the City Attorney or City Manager had counseled her that her actions constituted an ethics violation.

Local social media blogs and pages criticized Reed-Hibler for her “92-percent discount” on the purchase of the buildings.

So let’s stipulate the following given these facts on the ground:

1—In the strictest definition of the term, the text communication which drew in the other Council members would be considered an illegal quorum, and so Feighert and Curtis were in the ballpark on calling this into account.

2—The criticism Reed-Hibler received in the September 24 Council Meeting placed her in the position of sitting behind the Council dais and responding as…a citizen?  A council-member?  

Or was it both?

The term “conflict of interest” does come into play, and even I found myself confused by the blurring of roles as I listened to the interchange back and forth.

Where that confusion exists, it’s not a good look for Reed-Hibler, or for the City Council beset by a mountain of problems which continued on full display in the Monday night meeting.

Most of the people in the room had one foot out the door when Feighert launched his guided missile at his fellow council person.  Necks snapped around with perceptible cervical distress.

When the Council Meeting ended, intrepid news media were all over that story to get quotes, attribute sources and evidence, and within a very few hours, the text stream appeared on social media …as if by magic.

Tempted to join the feeding frenzy, my Spidey Senses told me this…sleep on it.  Leaving the meeting, I thought to myself that that was quite possibly the dirtiest bit of politicking I had ever seen, designed for massive and immediate public reaction.

The United States Geological Survey reported a magnitude 3.5 earthquake under the Public Safety Building, and somewhere, in a galaxy far far away, there was felt a great disturbance of the Force.

Upon reflection, my understanding of political science, behavioral psychology and “game theory” kicked in.

I had these questions:

1—If the message stream had only seven participants, five council people and two City Officials, then one of those seven people had to leak it.  Come up with your own conclusions on that, but I could instantly eliminate three of the seven participants.  Who was the source?

2—What was the agenda?  Did it indeed have to do with the 3rd Street Buildings, the perception of ethical shortcomings, or competition on the Council on different big issues either in front of the Council or coming up soon?

3—The package appeared quickly on social media…It was prepared, ready to go, and like dropping a toxin in your water supply.  It spread instantly, suggesting some real calculation and desire to inflict harm before the “defendant” could begin to come up with a reasonable response.

If you’re trying to eliminate opposition on big pending votes, what better strategy than to try to decapitate the opposing position.

Whatever the agenda for the action taken, it indicates a deeper issue…It’s hard to say that members of the Council deeply trust each other, and where that lack of trust exists, or is planted by actions like Feighert’s call for Reed-Hibler to resign, it’s hard to see a working coalition emerge when the machinations of individual board members resemble an episode of “Game of Thrones.”

Do I believe Reed-Hibler acted inappropriately?  I think a case is there to be made that steps taken make it very hard for her to be both a council person and a real estate developer…especially for this real estate.

I don’t think she can do both.

I don’t see an intent to defraud people.  I don’t see an intent to wrangle considerations from the Council to benefit her purchase of the 3rd Street Buildings.

When she announced her purchase of the Buildings, my response was “good, someone is trying to do something”, but she was trying to do it in a climate where public sentiment was so tired of the eyesore that it simply wants the buildings gone.

Anything that delayed that desired end result seems, in the eyes of many in the public, to be a waste of time.

When you look at the work that would need to be done, it looks like a Quixotic attempt to raise a Phoenix from the ashes.  

Before she’s criticized for making an $8,000 offer for buildings and property listed at $100,000 for sale, keep in mind that the Old School accepted the offer.

They couldn’t be rid of the buildings in any more short order in their wildest dreams.  Try to keep in mind, also, that the Old School has its own steaming pile of “stuff” to deal with.

That’s not her fault.

I think Gina Reed-Hibler is, at heart, a good person trying to do good things.  I believe she made tactical errors in her approach that provided an opening for her political opponents, and those with other axes to grind to pounce.

So that’s where we’re at.

The take-away has to be that how some things were done here were probably handled incorrectly.  How the concern between Council members came to light could have been done privately, with greater delicacy, unless “scorched earth” was the intent all along.

All City Councils have their own strong points and weaknesses, regardless of the community.  This council has been a “Crap Sandwich Buffet” of nasty problems to deal with, and that can bring out the worst in human nature  The best teams I know circle the wagons, and have each others backs.

In this case, it seems that watching your back is the unspoken rule of the road.

Etu, Brute?