Thursday, March 4, 2010

Rumors and Conspiracies

There's a new rumor going around regarding Matt Schwartz and the police. Here is a quote from the police bulletin board

1- Get Commish Frank to threaten the City Manager that he will vote with Commish Kane & Commish Ray and fire him IF he doesn't fire the Chief by Tuesday
2- Roland will cower and resign
3- Put ... in as Acting Puppet ( I mean Chief) till things quiet down a bit.
4- Get ... in as Chief before next election
5- The City Attorney gets PBA support for replacing Pluto as the ninth planet
Ain't happening! The Chief will never resign and the City Manager knows if he does fire the Chief, he's gone 10 sec later. So the Chief called your bluff and your still stuck with them both..Did you bother to tell Matt that this was a bluff from the begining, or did he really think Commish Frank would pull the trigger.

LEO Affairs Here

Now since LEO Affairs is a place for anonymous postings like the above: slanderous, poorly written and personal, I wouldn't normally repeat their stuff but this rumor is one I have heard before and from others.

True or not, I am very concerned that next week's commission meeting will be a repeat of last year when George Kane introduced a resolution to fire Schwartz over the police matters and I believe it's set to happen again.

Look, we can't afford to lose Matt. Like him or not, agree with him or not, he has brought a level of transparency to the city government that we never had before. He's brought in almost $11 million bucks that came right off our bond indebtedness and is aggressively looking to involve the community in getting the police situation fixed. I am very afraid that next week will be the end of that and we will be back to the same old crap and the city will choke.

Please pass this along to anyone and everyone you think might be concerned with this situation. Urge them to attend the commission meeting on Tuesday March 9 and not allow the city to be dragged back to the bad old days.

Kevin Vericker


  1. Matt Schwartz is a great "PLANNER" and in this regards has done wonders for the CITY. He has brought in some great people to work for the City and we have seen some of their results. But as CITY MANAGER he, in my humble opinion, STINKS. We need a CITY MANAGER that knows about Finances, Planning and the daily runnng of a City. We need a City Manager that sorrounds himself with top notch individuals and delegates to them and allows them to perform. We do not need another disenting voice in City Hall. He needs to listen to the wants of the Citizens, bring this information to his bosses (the commission) and perform. Forget the Police Issue that has demoralized the whole city. WHat about the underground electric? What about the mispent funds that continue to be spent on a worthless park? Where are we getting the monies to build a new City Hall? Why have we not moved into the Lexy yet? Why are these delays tactics Matt is using. I guess these blogs are more therapeutic for you than practical, but I must disagree with you and the likes of a Nancy and Ann. Hopefully one day you will wake up and smell the coffee.

  2. I decided to allow this comment even though it breaks an important rule - the gratuitous insults aimed at two people who don't write here. Anonymous, you're out of line. Neither Nancy nor Ann post here. I do.

    The reason I decided to publish it is that it clarifies why I started this blog. My intention is to keep the discussion at a rational and civil level. This comment illustrates the problem.

    First, Schwartz is given credit as a planner then derided for not being one in the next sentence.

    Then questions that have been definitively answered about the finances are raised again. Seriously, if you have any questions about the city finances, just attend one of the Oversight Board meetings. Ask. It's wide open.

    Now there follow complaints about the park, city hall move, etc all voted on by the NBV citizens and approved, but presented as a dark conspiracy. Doesn't make sense.

    As regards each of the questions above, they all have answers, frequently provided although not personally to you, Anonymous. There's a simple way to get them - ask.

    Matt Schwartz is wide open and I would suggest that you try a conversation - his email is and phone number is 305 756 7171.

    But it's not really about these question, is it? It's that you don't like the answers and that's fine. Your viewpoint is welcome but you need to be honest and cut the personal crap.

    If you do, I will allow the comments. If not, why waste your time typing?

    Kevin Vericker

  3. I think what people are trying to tell you is that they want a City Manager who runs the CITY. He needs to stay out of the Police business, let the Chief handle that. Yes, while it is true that the City Manager has power/authority over the entire Police Department, he should not be exercising it, that is what the Chief should be doing. City Manager needs to run the City, collect revenues, allocate revenue expenditure, ect. Redevelop, bring business in here, ect. He needs not worry about the Police Department. He should be a neutral party when it comes to the Police, he needs to stay out of their union battles. As I see it, there is ONE UNION in place right now, FOP, he needs to be working with them on the contract in good faith, not worrying about what the PBA did and for who, they are no longer here and should not even be recognized by anyone during work hours. It seems as though he came to our city with great respect from other cities and community leaders, but as always, the City Manager cannot seem to stay away from the Police issues and choose not to exercise the power over them and let them handle their own issues both political and departmental and concentrate on running the City. He would best serve himself, and this CITY if he worried about the CITY and stay out of the Police Department.

  4. I find it rather ironic that any commissioner would side with a department head, moreover than the city manager. Since city charter gives the city manager the authority to manage the daily operations of the city, it is quite bizarre and highly suspect that commissioners would take such an active interest in matters that belong almost exclusively to the city manager.

    If city commissioners are going to manage the city, then why have a city manager? It seems like some overzealous commissioners like Kane and Trujillo are micro-managing the city manager so as to inadvertently maintain control over daily operations of city matters, and ultimately retain their common personal friend (police chief) employed.

    It’s rather tragic and quite pathetic to see city politics being grossly misappropriated under these circumstances.


Comments are available to all but you must have a name and a contact. If your comment contains either foul language or slanders against individuals, it will be deleted.