My Take on Supervisor Race

Why I'm Supporting Kurt Friese (and Rod Sullivan)

Kurt Friese combines a love and knowledge of Johnson County's farms and small towns with the service he provides Iowa City. He applies the same levels of competence and compassion to social programs as to the challenges of running a business. His vision, keen mind, and easy manner will make him a meaningful and welcome addition to our Board of Supervisors."

-- Nicholas Johnson's Kurt Friese endorsement

Next Tuesday, June 7, will be a big one for the Democratic presidential primaries, with six states up for grabs (California, New Jersey, North and South Dakota, New Mexico and Montana).

But as former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Tip O'Neill, used to say, "all politics is local." And for Johnson County voters next Tuesday nothing could be more local than the election of three supervisors for the Johnson County Board of Supervisors.

As the quote with which I led this blog essay indicates, I'm supporting Kurt Friese.

The only reason I highlight, and lead, with him is because two of the other candidates are incumbents already better known to the voters.

Rod Sullivan is one of the best public officials I have ever known in any position anywhere in the United States -- because of many things from his personal values, life, and contributions to his public leadership as a supervisor. If you're unfamiliar with that record, you'll find a little more detail here: Rod Sullivan, "Sullivan Lays Out Qualifications, Record," Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), May 26, 2016, 3:53 p.m.

As the Press-Citizen summed it up in its endorsement, "Sullivan, a 12-year incumbent, has amassed an impressive record in his time as a supervisor." Editorial, "Sullivan, Green-Douglass, Friese Our Picks for Supervisor," Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), June 4, 2016, 9:20 a.m.

There's little more that need be said about Sullivan. If you still have questions, read the items linked above.

Kurt Friese, however, as the Press-Citizen notes in its endorsement of Friese, is a "newcomer."

"The only potential newcomer to the board in our endorsements, restaurant owner Friese would be an essential voice for sustainability and conservation during a time when development is king. As a longtime advocate for local and organic food, Friese has deep roots — pun absolutely intended — with farmers, business owners and activists. Friese is uniquely positioned to represent all these groups in local government and shows a passion for the preservation of farmland unmatched by any other candidate in the race. Johnson County has been blessed with reliable sources of revenue, and in electing a candidate who has so persuasively articulated a need for responsible growth, voters can show their commitment to ensuring a habitable, verdant community for future generations. Though another candidate, Jason Lewis, has agreed with Friese on many of these issues, his direct experience 'in the weeds' makes Friese our pick for the third and final seat."

Editorial, "Sullivan, Green-Douglass, Friese Our Picks for Supervisor," Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), June 4, 2016, 9:20 a.m.

For more about Kurt Friese, here is his own Press-Citizen column about his candidacy, Kurt Friese, "Friese Running on Issues, Not Allegiances," Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), May 25, 2016, 3:36 p.m., his Web page, and his Facebook page.

The Press-Citizen's editorial says of two more candidates: "another candidate, Jason Lewis, has agreed with Friese on many of these issues" and "Green-Douglass [whom the Press-Citizen also endorsed] has taken to her position well, learning the ropes and ably fulfilling her duty through the remainder of Terrence Neuzil's term." The paper expressed the wish that it could endorse both of them, as do I.

# # #

Re-Elect Johnson County Supervisor Janelle Rettig

December 29, 2014, 3:20 p.m.

Looking for the recent blog essays about Sony, North Korea, and the movie, "The Interview"? Here are the links: "Threats and Sensibilities: Presidents Kim, Lynton and Mason," Dec. 20, 2014, and "Sony's 'The Interview': A Film Review," Dec. 26, 2014.

Note: This Letter to the Editor of the Iowa City Press-Citizen, published May 17, 2014, was inadvertently omitted as a blog essay at the time, and is now being published "for the record." -- N.J.

Re-elect Rettig for Supe, She Knows What She’s Doing

Nicholas Johnson and Mary Vasey

Iowa City Press-Citizen, May 17, 2014

Janelle Rettig is worthy of your vote for Johnson County Supervisor on or before June 3.

In our lifetimes of dealing with politicians and officials at the local, county, state and federal governmental level in this country and abroad, she stands out as one of the best.

Rettig has our vote and support because she knows what she’s doing, works hard, does her research, listens, answers questions and concerns and finds satisfaction in serving everyone in Johnson County.

She also happens to be a wonderful person. We could go on and on about Rettig and her joy in living, but it embarrasses her. So we’ll stop now.

Just don’t forget to vote for Rettig for Supervisor on June 3.

Mary Vasey and Nicholas Johnson
Iowa City

# # #

No Surprises: UICCU's Optiva Redemption, ICCSD's Building

July 29, 2010, 3:45 p.m.

The Public's Right to be Fully and Timely Informed
(bought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
A little over three years ago the UICCU credit union leadership suffered, and lost, an unpleasant battle with its membership. See "Optiva; Optiva Voted Down," March 1, 2007. It thought it could unilaterally change the name from "University of Iowa Community Credit Union" to "Optiva" without bothering to fully inform, and involve, the credit union's membership. It found out otherwise.

What a difference three years makes!

The "Dear Member" letter I got the other day from UICCU President and CEO Jeff Disterhoft, along with a two-page, single-spaced "Q&A: UICCU Member Support Center" briefing, is about as full an explanation for a decision as one can find outside of what the old U.S. Supreme Court used to provide the public during its better days.

Yeah, it looks like another unilateral done deal. And, yes, at $25-30 million for this "Support Center," my guess is that's ballpark $500 from every member. (That's on the assumption that "building cost" includes the cost of land; otherwise it will be more.) There hasn't been, and won't be, a membership vote on this substantial expense undertaken by management. There's a promise to use "local contractors," but no mention of local workers ("local contractors" sometimes hire cheaper labor from out of town) or a "project labor agreement" (providing for union-level pay, even if the contractor chooses to use non-union labor). And the letter arrives at a time when a disproportionate number of members are out of town and may mistakenly pitch it as junk mail when they return. Nor is there any mention of what could be another controversial one, if the rumor is true: UICCU's purchase of another credit union.

But as full disclosure and transparency go, this letter and "Q&A" are about as good as it gets: "Why are we building this?" "How much will the building cost?" "Why do we need 25 acres of land for a 100,000 square foot facility?" "How will the UICCU keep Members notified of the progress?" are four examples of the 15 questions answered.

Moreover, there are six public meetings scheduled -- and at times such that virtually all members who want to can attend at least one. There is a human with a name, phone number, and email address one can contact with questions; and there will be updates in the members' newsletter and online at the credit union's Website.

And, not incidentally, the professed rationale for this expensive construction project, and its location, seem to make sense. That always helps with something like this (and seemed to be absent with Optiva).

But the purpose of this blog entry is not just to praise Disterhoft and one of the nation's most successful credit unions.

It's to contrast it with another local decision, one that impacts the public generally, and is not being handled with the same commitment to openness, public participation, transparency, and logical rationale.

Many of the institutional CEOs I've dealt with, when asked what they want, respond, "No surprises." Good news or bad, they want to know about it, and as soon before it's going to happen as possible.

The public is entitled to no less.

I've been impressed with what seems to me a much more common practice now than 30 years ago: informing the customer ahead of time -- whether by a doctor or dentist, or an auto mechanic -- what's about to happen, how and why.

Unfortunately, the practice has not been widely adopted by public officials.

Case in point: the apparent done deal on the ICCSD's sale of its very valuable downtown location/property/building for its central administrative offices ("CAO") to the University of Iowa. Rob Daniel, "District OKs office sale to UI for $4.5M," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 28, 2010.

There are four, count 'em four, categories of public institutions -- with their supporting taxpayers -- involved in (or left out of, as it happens) this decision.

The County Board of Supervisors has long looked to this property in connection with its possible expansion (or replacement) of the current County jail. This public body is supported by County taxpayers.

The City Council of Iowa City, along with the downtown business community, has talked of coordinated planning of the area south of Burlington Street (where the CAO is located). The Council is supported by City taxpayers.

The University of Iowa -- Iowa City's "800-pound gorilla" that takes land wherever it pleases, and has eminent domain power if it can't otherwise destroy family neighborhoods and the downtown area -- is funded, at least still in part, by Iowa's taxpayers generally.

Finally, there is the School District, supported by many of the same taxpayers through property and sales taxes designated for the schools.

Even responsible for-profit corporations feel some obligation to take the feelings of local residents into account -- whether they legally have to or not.

There are more issues here than I care to write or you care to read about.

But here are a couple.

The University is apparently, as has all too often been the case in the past, refusing to say why it wants the property or what it will do with it -- let alone how those desires and uses relate to what it may have in mind for ten, twenty or thirty years from now, that it also has no intention of letting any of us know.

Compare this with the very open and commendable way it handled the Hancher-Voxman-Clapp reconstruction/relocation decisions. "Hancher Relocation Process and Site; University Offers Useful Model for Major Decisions," July 10, 2009.

Not incidentally, it also has it within its power to help the County but refuses to do so (by letting it have the little land required to expand the jail where it is).

The School District (so far as I now know; I may be wrong) has not indicated precisely where it plans to move its administrative functions or what it is going to do with the money from the sale. The same parents who tend to go unrepresented in other District decisions (remember boundaries?) may well be left out of this decision, too. No District Board member, or administrator, is lacking a personal automobile (or at least family car they can use) to travel to meetings at the CAO. That is not true for all of our students' parents. The CAO, at its present location, is a three-block walk from the central, downtown bus stop for all bus lines. Will a CEO at another location be, could it possibly be, equally accessible elsewhere within the District?

It's especially disturbing to read that these four public bodies have not even fully communicated among themselves regarding this decision.

But we, the public, are also involved -- big time -- in this sale. It is, after all, our money these four public bodies are using, not the personal funds of our elected and appointed officials.

We deserve better treatment. We deserve "No Surprises."

At a minimum, we deserve the degree of sensitivity and openness the UICCU credit union has given its members regarding its proposed new construction project.

_______________

* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself.
-- Nicholas Johnson
# # #

Janelle Rettig for Supervisor

January 19, 2010, 7:00 a.m.

The Satisfaction, and Responsibility, of Voting
(brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
It's election day.

Sadly, few of those eligible to vote will do so. Don't you be a stay-at-home. (Want to know more about today's election, including where you go to vote? Check out the Johnson County Auditor's Web site; you'll find it all there.)

There's a satisfaction to voting -- and a responsibility. Besides, there's a prize. Those who participate in the process of nominating and electing our public officials get the right to comment on how well they're doing their job once in office.

But the Johnson County Board of Supervisors positions are somewhat unique and more significant than those of other local, elected officials.

School Board members, who are paid nothing, hand over responsibility for running the school district to a very handsomely paid "superintendent."

The City Council members, who are paid something but not much, work with a "city manager" who is the administrator-in-chief of all the City's functions, offices and employees.

The County Board of Supervisors, by contrast, are the the "superintendents," the "managers," of the county programs -- and are paid as such.

They each have a real job. In fact, if we voters followed the school board's lead we'd be out there trying to find a search firm to select the candidates for supervisor we could then vote for.

What is their $85 million-dollar job? Take a look at the County Web site, the Supervisors' Web page, and especially the Power Point slides for the 2010 budget presentation last March (actually a slight reduction from the prior year).

It is a job that requires familiarity with and the skills to manage an incredible array of programs and projects.

All of which brings me to the reasons for voting for Janelle Rettig today.

Since the Iowa City Press-Citizen Editorial Board happens to agree with my assessment on this one, I'll just quote some passages from its editorial endorsement of Ms. Rettig and then add a comment or two based on my own experience working with her.

Rettig is the right choice for Jan. 19 election
January 13, 2009
Rettig's advantage isn't merely the result of having been appointed to the position in late October and serving as a supervisor for less than three months. It's the result of years of involvement in county politics and an acute understanding of the way local governments do and don't work.

Back in 2008, when Rettig chaired the Land, Water, Future campaign, we were very impressed with her knowledge of county issues. And the résumé she submitted when applying to be appointed to the supervisor position shows a strong amount of government experience working for Democrats and Republicans.

For two decades, in fact, Rettig has shown rare ability for a would-be politician: She examines issues from multiple perspectives. In her work with many local and state boards and commissions, Rettig repeatedly has shown she can seek and actually find compromise and common ground.

Rettig's past experience ranges from land use planning, to civil and human rights, to environmental and conservation issues, to government openness. . . .

Rettig provided the most comprehensive answers [of all those running for the position] for how our budget-tightening county needs to go about:

• reducing expenses by working more cooperatively with local cities and the state to streamline government functions;

• conducting public business in full view of the public and in as professional a manner as possible;

• ensuring that all residents have a voice in county government;

• updating and overseeing the county's land-use plan;

• keeping an eye on the operational expenses for the new joint emergency communication center; as well as

• deciding how best to address the problems needs on by inadequately sized county jail and county courthouse. . . .

I agree. I saw these qualities when working with her on the conservation bond issue.

Janelle Rettig scores about as high as anyone could in terms of the experience, raw intelligence, information, knowledge and wisdom -- the basic competence -- to do a professional job of county management.

That makes her rare enough as a candidate for such a position.

But she's so much more.

I've been involved in politics virtually all my life, as a candidate and as a part of others' campaigns for offices from president of the United States to school board member in Iowa City. As a result of that experience, one of the highest compliments I can pay anyone is that they are "a political person," in the highest sense of that phrase. To me, a political person is someone who really likes people, enjoys being around and getting to know them, who takes satisfaction in helping others to feel good about themselves, who can empathize with their sorrows and needs, and who is constantly looking for ways to help others -- as Robert Kennedy said, to "dream of things that never were, and ask 'why not'?" Moreover, in their governance, they can demonstrate a capacity to balance their idealism with just enough pragmatism to actually get things done -- without simply capitulating to the demands of the wealthiest, and most powerful. It is in these positive ways that I say Janelle Rettig is "a political person."

Ah, but there's more.

Anyone who can bike across Iowa for fun, as Janelle does during the RAGBRAI ride (that I used to do and report on for National Public Radio, but no longer) obviously has the energy needed for public office.

Put it all together and she's just fun to be around, smiling, enthusiastic, fun loving, energized. How many public officials do you feel about in that way?

Janelle Rettig is clearly someone you need to get out on a cold Iowa January day and vote for. Just do it. You'll feel good about yourself. I promise.
_______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source, even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson

Voting for Our Great-Grandchildren

March 7, 2008, 8:25 a.m.

This morning there's a lot more at stake on the forthcoming November 4, 2008, election day -- less than eight months from now -- than there was yesterday morning.

No, I'm not talking about the three senators, Obama, McCain and Clinton.

I'm talking about something that is going to have a lot longer-lasting impact on eastern Iowans than the good (or harm) caused by a one or two-term U.S. president.

Yesterday morning the Johnson County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to pursue the preparation of a ballot proposition that would authorize a $20 million bond issue to be used for the acquisition of additional land for natural resource preservation.

To pass, it will require not just a 50% approval, but a 60% approval.

So that means that those who care about what they will be leaving their great-grandchildren have very little time to get organized and begin the process of community education and dialog regarding what's at stake.

Fortunately, that process has begun.

Here are links to this morning's [March 7] stories about yesterday's Board action, and early stirrings of organized support: Rachel Gallegos, "Supes OK $20 million bond issue," Iowa City Press-Citizen, March 7, 2008, p. A3; Gregg Hennigan, "Johnson sends $20 million bond to voters; Funds would be used to buy undeveloped land for preservation," The Gazette, March 7, 2008, p. B1.

In a recent Press-Citizen op ed column I wrote:

Is it too late? Is our land already too expensive to save?

That was the question confronting some New York legislators in 1853. New York City's population had nearly quadrupled since 1821. It was a terrible time to buy land with prices at an all-time high. The 700 acres they wanted would cost $5 million -- then an extraordinary amount of public money. But in a triumph of foresight over political fear they did it. Today we call it "Central Park," and this gem of Manhattan has increased 100,000 times in value to something over $500 billion -- a half-trillion dollars!

The opportunities confronting Johnson and Linn Counties today are no less politically challenging --and potentially rewarding.

Nicholas Johnson, "Preserving for Our Grandchildren," Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 20, 2008, p. A13, reproduced in the blog entry, Nicholas Johnson, "Greenbelts for Grandchildren," February 15/20, 2008.

In an age in which corporate progress is measured in quarterly profit statements and daily stock prices, and members of Congress are forced to focus on re-elections never more than two years into the future, it's difficult to get folks to think 20 or 50 years ahead -- never mind feeling concern for the generations living 150 years from now (such as those New Yorkers now benefiting from the political courage of the New York legislators who gambled $5 million on what has become today's $500 billion Central Park).

But it's that kind of forward thinking that has given us our system of National Parks and Forests, and the few state, county and city parks we have in Iowa. It's those kinds of selfless efforts that benefit today's Britishers, living in a country in which 12% of the land is devoted to "Greenbelts" surrounding the major cities.

To learn more about these issues and opportunities, to find links to the resources provided by dozens of organizations and agencies, excerpts from the local media stories about preservation of our natural resources, news regarding the proposed bond issue, and background information about the Greenbelt movement, we've created the GO IOWA! (for "Great Outdoors of Iowa") Web site for you:

http://www.resourcesforlife.com/goiowa

Check it out!

# # #