First is an -e- in response to my post earlier about Dog Park and then my reply - I promised Council Gulliford I would post his reply to my earlier post here about Dog Parks,

Not sure if it belongs on this web page. There are several exchanges about Ethics stalling and Dog Parks. The exchanges give some insight into several council members. I think you may will find them interesting. if you are interested send me an e-mail and I will send the exchanges to you -tonybates@juno.com->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Message ----------
From: "Gulliford, William"
To: "tonybates@juno.com"
Subject: RE: Not a Dog Park - "PARK for PEOPLE" - with dogs
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 10:50:40 +0000

Tony.

I find you tend to distort my word sometimes in your effort to take a stand against my position. For instance,
The words above are the words of Councilmember Bill Gulliford to justify his vote.
Other words of "wisdom" from Gulliford - "We must preserve Council - congeniality -' "(paraphrased).
In other words -you must vote yes so you will not hurt the feeling of Councilman Bill Bishop who is asking Council to take this money out of your pocket for a place for a dog to take a . . . .

I said COLLEGIALITY not CONGENIALITY. There is a big difference. I am not concerned about Bishop's feelings but instead about the functioning of the council and the past practices as they relate to how we do things. I will be glad to expand on that should you wish. I not only have a problem with your being a little "personal", instead of sticking to the issue, but also your inability to get my statements right.
Lastly, as I asked Joanna, please tell me how you would spend that money and be specific.

I hope you will also forward these comments to the membership.
Bill

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

From: tonybates@juno.com [mailto:tonybates@juno.com]
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 6:34 AM
To: Gulliford, William
Subject: RE: Not a Dog Park - "PARK for PEOPLE" - with dogs

I would not do any new spending on- WANTS- as long as we are having to cut the real functions of government- especially when we know we are facing a big short fall.
The Council Auditor just released a dire report with his Quarterly Audit which he spent nearly a half hour going over with the Finance Committee. I understand the significance of it being a first quarter report- so if you want to discount it - discount it. That doesn't change the whole picture in front of you. Spend money on a "Park for People with Dogs" when we are cutting salaries and laying people off. I'll never understand the choice you have chosen.

Collegiality was the word I meant to us and was referring to. If you recall Schellenburg made a similar reference in committee. You have done it several times in the past with bills. The last I recall was the Martin Luther King Parade. You would not let that man loose to manage $10 of your money. Yet because you told Brown you would - you voted to spend taxpayer money even though it went against your thinking.
To much - as you can see Council has me up all night for the last several days.
I can't change your mind but I sure hope I will get this choice the Council is making between people -vs-dogs / pay cut -vs- dogs / lay offs -vs- dogs etc etc on and on - til it is indelibly printed in their mind.

Have a good day. - if your choice will let you.

Tony Bates