|
MALANKA: I don't think a photo has any place in this discussion.
<br />DILL: Yeah, like what 1 said, too, when you had mentioned the size-
<br />MALANKA: - -I feel like we're not dealing with what we're here to be dealing with.
<br />DILL: Yeah, I agree that, you know, going either way, we'd just be opening a can of
<br />worms, we really would.
<br />CHAIR:, Well, I think by voting yes, it would close that can of worms, because then we'd
<br />be sending a message that photographs in these types of taxpayer ads should not be
<br />allowed. And 1 strongly believe that. We should not be supporting elected officials'
<br />photographs in taxpayer ads.
<br />DILL: And vice versa. I respect your opinion, Mr. Chair, and I feel that if we were to
<br />vote yes on this, we would be, first of all, kind of beating a dead horse since this has
<br />already been addressed on the state level and there's a law enacted to address this. And
<br />furthermore, 1 think that we might be risking tying the hands of the elected officials in
<br />communicating in a meaningful manner with their constituents.
<br />LUM: But by —oh, excuse me.
<br />CHAIR: Mr. Yagong has the floor.
<br />YAGONG: Yeah, thank you. Very provoking discussion, thank you very much. I guess
<br />for me, I had a conversation with Mr. Armstrong earlier, and what seems ironic to me is
<br />that in trying to do the duties of a Council person by being out there to the community
<br />and being active in the community and engaging with the community, it would be ironic
<br />that you might want to curtail that. It would seem tome that abetter inquiry would be
<br />whether or not —and it's an ethical one — whether or not a Council member or elected
<br />official is actually doing their job. It would seem to me that's the more important
<br />question that we should ask. You know, you could certainly line us up, and certainly you
<br />could ask yourselves, you know, what is the performance of the Council person of the
<br />district. And it just seemed ironic to me that in the efforts that we have made throughout
<br />the year, and in so many months office, it's just ironic that you know, wait a
<br />second, you could be penalized for doing that, you know. And I guess what I would ask
<br />of you, Mr. Joseph, is that, you know, it's very difficult to do the job that we do. And any
<br />time that you tie the hands of the Council member, you know, you are putting the
<br />community at a disadvantage. It's not so much really an advantage for the incumbent or
<br />for the Council member, but you put your community at a disadvantage, because you take
<br />away the incentive for people to be proactive. You take away the incentive for people to
<br />actually do what they were elected to do, which is to go out and do your job by engaging
<br />with the community. And sometimes that unintended consequence for me, any way, like I
<br />said, for me I feel like it's so ironic that we would be sort of taken to the carpet on this.
<br />Yet at the same time, I know on our end, whether intention is something that should be
<br />considered or not, that there is absolutely no intention at all. So 1 think the suggestion
<br />that's being made makes a lot of sense, whether you follow the state law or whether you
<br />37
<br />
|