Save the borough from Arvin, Colver, Ewing, Woods

The letter below is abbreviated from the original sent to the Frontiersman on Dec. 2 regarding the Dec. 7 borough assembly vote on the proposed elimination of the RPAMB. At the meeting, the deputy mayor admitted he has never attended a Real Property Asset Management Board meeting, nor has Mark Ewing, Noel Woods or Jim Colver, who all voted to kill the board.

Assemblyman Warren Keogh has not only attended RPAMB meetings, for all the concerns voiced about cost, he was the only one who bothered to ask what it costs. Turns out the total cost for hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of RPAMB volunteer expertise is $413 a month, while the deputy mayor himself costs taxpayers at least six times that amount. Even the borough Community Development Manager acknowledged the important contribution of the board to the already overburdened four borough staff responsible for borough land management, and recommended to retain the board.

However, why would Ron Arvin, Jim Colver, Mark Ewing, and Noel Woods ignore facts, figures, and staff, to vote for their own debunked cost savings and redundancy arguments? Having mentioned it several times, why would Mark Ewing seem proud of not knowing the purpose of the Office of Administrative Hearings (try MSB Code Chapter 2.29, Mr. Ewing, you’re here to uphold it). These four supported business and special interests, and in the name of development, promised to further gut the public process with the elimination of additional boards and commissions. WHY?

Recently the new deputy borough mayor Ron Arvin wrote an inflamed response to an opinion of borough residents Terry Snyder and David Cheezem. Arvin’s harangue revealed more than he might have wished regarding economics, ethics, code and qualifications.

Regarding economics, Arvin misses the dollar value of the time and expertise contributed. It is the borough assembly that serves at the will of the residents and the borough staff who do the work of the people, not the other way round.

Moving on to ethics, how does the deputy mayor’s harangue demonstrate the strong moral compass and commitment to “personal conduct … befitting a true public servant” that his website says he has? He attacks two citizens, and then he complains about the hundreds of the rest of us who, through donating time and expertise, attempt to help him do a good job for us all. The deputy mayor used name calling, accusation, he insinuated that Snyder and Cheezem don’t pay their taxes (defamation?), and he threatened “more proposed changes along these lines.”

As for the borough code he swore to uphold, what does Arvin know of it? The very thing he demonstrates is his ignorance. He says “A board like [sic] Real Property Asset Management Board is a board that was created by a special interest group. . .” Far from special interests, the RPAMB was created by the assembly, and requires a wide variety of skills specific to its mandate. Arvin’s vicious attack on this board leads me to believe in its effectiveness.

Which raises Arvin’s qualifications for his public position. He apparently remains ignorant of the borough code he swore to uphold. What does this say about his ability and motivation to serve (the same goes for Ewing, see intro above)? His assumption appears to be that the borough rules the residents, and the assembly rules the borough. Might this assumption be based in borough code or state statute? No.

Then why does he voice it? Well, we might ask.

The situation is not hopeless; I have recommendations:

That Arvin publicly apologizes for his personal attack and abuse of the public trust. He might set an example for the borough frugality he seeks by returning his own pay and other costs of thirty or more thousand dollars a year;

That the assembly restores faith in that body through public censure of this instance of the deputy mayor’s abuse of his office;

That the ethics board updates the code with positive standards embraced by other progressive (good term, moving toward better conditions) communities, states, and nations;

That we all remind ourselves of the deputy mayor’s last paragraph, beautifully demonstrated in all his preceding paragraphs, that ‘cries of dishonesty and skullduggery [sic] are most often heard from those who practice the art . . .’ (art, Arvin?)

To not be ruled by bullies, we must get off our collective butts and take seriously our responsibility, as stated in the Alaska constitution, that “all government originates with the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the people as a whole.”

With thanks to the borough staff and elected officials who do understand and embody the meaning of public service.

Patricia Rosnel

Palmer