KSHB Followup on Dog Parks Story

KSHB did a decent followup on the Waldo-Brookside dog park meeting on Tuesday.  They interviewed Deb Hipp who did a great job with the interview in explaining where most of the WOOF group's concerns lay.

What is amazing is the delusional nature of Park Board Chairman John Fierro.

"When it turned into profanity, I thought it went beyond the issues of transparency," Parks Board chairman John Fierro said. "That, I didn't think was fair to our board, nor our staff to endure that."

So let's get this straight John.  Your board put forth two amendments at the 11th hour, and pushed them through with ZERO public comment, that was agreed upon behind closed doors (the board didn't even discuss the amendments at the meeting, just voted them through -- and the press release was available IMMEDIATELY after the vote took place) and you thought this went beyond the issue of transparency?  And you thought it was unfair to YOU that people were upset about it? 

Keep in mind that Mr. Fierro was so aware that this would cause problems that he had police protection already present.

I don't really want to condone the profanity...but this is a case where the parks board got exactly what it deserved.

"It was very clear there were some ill feelings in the crowd," he said adding board members had heard testimony, pro and con, during three previous meetings. "In my mind, I had given them ample time to present their case."

Then why have promise the group a public hearing?  Then why have a scheduled meeting to discuss the dog park and then change your mind 3 hours  the day before about having the public hearing?  Why not at least offer the professional courtesy to call, or email, the WOOF group's leader to let them know personally, instead of letting them find out for themselves?  Why not just rule against the dog park in Sunnyside Park, instead of pushing through 2 amendments (without any discussion) that will affect 150+ neighborhood parks in the city without them even being involved?

Mr. Fierro is delusional...this whole situation could have EASILY been resolved with a little transparency, and open, adult convesation.  But when you have a parks board that is making back-room deals, and board member Aggie Stackhouse making comments like "I'm loving every minute of this" doesn't exactly ring of fair public hearing and transparency. 

Fessing up to it might be a decent place to start.

Comments

[Michelled]

People are ridiculous...profanity - oh grow up! Because cuss words are the issue here...this reminds me of how guys/husbands like to blame their girlfriends/wives for overreacting when they cheat (I'm sure it happens the other way around too).

[MDog]

This post says it all perfectly. Right on.

And since when - really, since WHEN - do public officials think they don't have to listen to constituents if those constituents happen to be unhappy?! Now only happy people are allowed to talk to the parks board?! Delusional is right.

Also, for Mr. Fierro to say profanity makes this go beyond the issues of transparency is the most bogus thing I have ever heard. He is a political operator who is trying to make WOOF look bad and not doing a very good job of it. (By the way, only two of about 40 people used profanity, so it's not like this was an angry mob screaming cuss words. I heard exactly two.) And WOOF members really only got angry when denied their right to speak - a very bad decision by Mr. Fierro.

This is what happens when a public body kowtows to bullying by one member, Aggie Stackhaus, who wishes to push through the desires of her friend. They know they can't do it above board with adult conversation and debate, so they turn to sneaky - and downright wrong - tactics.

All of the board members who didn't stand up to Ms. Stackhaus and do what was right should really take a good hard look at their own actions and apologize to the public. I expected more of them. And Mr. Fierro is only making himself look bad by allowing himself to be used as a tool to carry out Aggie "I'm loving every minute of this" Stackhaus' agenda, which obviously goes against public wishes or they wouldn't be so afraid of hearing public opinion.