Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

PUYALLUP: Reconsider city manager decision

Letter by Chanel Leigh Studebaker, Puyallup on July 23, 2012 at 12:46 pm with 10 Comments »
July 23, 2012 5:58 pm

The Puyallup City Council should reconsider the decision to let City Manager Ralph Dannenberg go.

Dannenberg is a huge asset to the City of Puyallup. His work on budget and planning issues has helped to steer our city through a very difficult time. He is a man of enormous integrity and is a constant, calming force amid a contentious time in city government. Even in instances of great friction between the City Council and community members, Dannenberg has been respected by all. Even this current council has praised his work. This sudden “change of direction” leaves the impression that council members’ support of city staff is subject to change at the first instance of discontent. Such rash decision-making does not make for good and effective government.

This council has the power to correct this error. The council should show us that it can put aside personal issues and act in the best interest of the citizens of Puyallup. For the good of our city, it should do so immediately.

Tags:
,
Leave a comment Comments → 10
  1. PuyallupNow says:

    The city manager left on his own, he was not fired. Not sure how the council can “correct the error.”

  2. whatwouldMomsay says:

    It’s a pretty widely accepted fact that Ralph was pushed out. Anyone who knows him is aware he was not planning to retire. And sorry, but if he chose to retire rather than letting those egotistic windbags fire him, he was still fired. There is still a majority that rams things through council, it’s just a new set of names.

  3. Valleychic says:

    Sounds like once again, the Puyallup locals know not of what they speak. One would think the council of seven weighed any decision they made based on the appearance of timing. Knowing what the law says about confidentially of discussions that occur within Executive Session, I wouldn’t expect any great words of revelation to be forthcoming unless they receive a waiver to the law. Oh wait a minute, the council does have one “Tunerite” among them, so maybe a leak will be forthcoming after all.

  4. Oh wait again, Valley Chic being married to the deputy mayor is not a “mole” either and Couch’s Puyallup Now website is not the Deputy Mayor’s propaganda tool for his groupies ? (who have all remained remarkably and obediently quiet on Dannenberg’s firing – Shirts, Schick, Pugh, Lord, Hastings, Shores et al)

    All Puyallup voters need to remember in 2013 is which council member running for re-election told the city manager they wanted a new direction and which did not. Particularly as the one with the big boot less that 4 weeks earlier said on the dais that Dannenberg was doing a great job.

    Looks like we now have Tami 2.0 as Hansen’s ditto-head. We were warned by his last election opponent after all.

    Personally, I did not care for Dannenberg’s management, but to chuck him out for making the mayor’s habits public, was shameful.

  5. whatwouldMomsay says:

    This council ran on a platform of transparency. The curent deputy mayor has been very vocal about the obligation the city has to release information to citizens promptly on request. How much money did it cost the city for him to make that point? That was a major part of their unhappiness with past council members. While there are certainly HR issues the council must respect, if the council has chosen to take a ‘new direction’, they owe it to the citizens of Puyallup to explain their thought process. It seems as though they have different rules when they are on the other side of the issue. If you want better government, you have to want it from all of your representatives, not just the ones you don’t like. And if you are going to ask for better government, then you should be prepared to provide it when you are elected.

  6. An experiment was recently conducted on the subject of transparency and the Puyallup Council as some had made a big deal of it when running last November. The most vocal advocate of transparency was Vermillion. So a Public Records Request was submitted asking for all e-mails sent by and received from fellow council members to Vermillion’s personal e-mail outside of the view of the media and public.

    To nobody’s surprise, Vermillion failed to provide e-mail dialog on upcoming budget issues with a fellow council member (which had been acquired elsewhere). June 21, 2012 if he cares to look it up in his secret file. The Open Public Records Act demands such documents be provided upon request by the media and the public thru the PRR process.

    So now we have yet another metric on this council’s integrity and honesty when it comes to transparency. Well certainly Vermillion’s.

    Dave Churchman, IQof88

  7. citizendoe says:

    So David Churchman IQ88, If you worked for the enquirer, you couldn’t write things with any less accuracy and any more intent to shock, dramatize and attempt to embarrass. Truth be damned is clearly your motto.

    I found this letter to the editor that you wrote some time ago, where you were telling the world that you were voting for Steve Vermillion.
    Clearly you don’t know what you want, other than to attempt to hurt others. Its time for you to develop some integrity yourself. I wonder if your employers would mind knowing how much of your time you spend writing such trash on their dime. They have a name for this…. its BPD.

    From your letter to the editor.
    …………………………………………………………….
    As “Deep Throat” said 40 years ago, when tracing corruption in politics, “follow the money”. In last week’s “Letters”, ex-mayor Mike Deal attacked those who have exposed corruption and reasons for his support of candidate Nicole Martineau.

    That is a bit rich even for Deal. Puyallup City Council has a long history of dubious real estate and development “deals”. Mike Deal and Kathy Turner both enacted a self-benefiting tax abatement for their condos which saves them and each of their neighbors $3000 every year for 10 years. With Turner leaving office, most of the residents at the condos have given financial support to Martineau to continue “favors” for the Puyallup elite. Deal for example enjoys a taxpayer subsidized secure parking place at city hall across the street from his residence. Perks of “special relationships”.

    Martineau earlier this month received the maximum donation allowed by law from a development lobby. Martineau has been a consistent supporter of dense-pack cottage housing on land owned by some of her closest associates. Local developers have damaged the quality of life here in Puyallup over the past decade and Martineau is ensconced “on their payroll” as their agent.

    Citizens need independent representation on their council who are not “bought” by special interests.

    I will be voting for Steve Vermillion in the upcoming election. Steve has a long verified resume and history of valor and ethical conduct which will bring a refreshing change to the council dais.

    Dave Churchman
    Puyallup

  8. Mr Doe;

    My support for candidate Vermillion ceased the day he started bullying his opponent candidate’s infant child during a campaign event. That indicated a trait not acceptable in an individual running for public office. I did not vote for Vermillion, or his opponent.

    As the old saying goes about the devil you don’t know. I should have heeded the advice from the long list of his previous employers.

    The public last year made their choice electing the current council. In 2013 the same public will have another opportunity, perhaps even wiser, to make adjustments.

  9. citizendoe says:

    Try Ms.

    So what your saying is we really shouldn’t trust your judgment at all. Care to write some of your libelous trash about yourself?

    Ha! as expected.

  10. ValleyTown says:

    Churchman continues to earn the title of village idiot…. I’m not buying any of it.

    However, can someone help me understand why Ralph can communicate what he told the council in executive session but the council members cannot? It is the council’s job to hire and fire city managers. I just think they can be a little more up front about why.

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0