Mark Siettman
–
evening as a concerned citizen to speak
against Item 11 on the published agenda, which is the
amendment of a contract with Gaines Brown
Consulting as a lobbyist for the City of
Mr. Siettman
said that while he understands that the contract is up and that
needs to have a lobbying influence in the
State, he was not sure that this company was the right
company. He stated that he had 3 reasons
for that disagreement. Mr. Siettman stated that
Gaines Brown was hired a little over
a year ago and from at least from what he has heard partly
on the recommendation of the City
Administrator at that time and the City is now looking for a
new City Administrator and since that
person has to work so closely with the lobbying group, he
thinks that at the least a short-term
contract until the
would be more appropriate than a
long-term contract. Mr. Siettman stated that
secondly,
Gaines Brown has not effectively
served
understand that the firm has done a good job
in acquiring some monies, but there is no
guarantee that some other firms could not
have done that as well. He stated that a recent list
from the Municipal League does not even
list anyone, not even Gaines Brown as representing
the City of
Gaines Brown tunnel vision for one
of their clients, The Kansas City Chiefs, really did alienate
some of the legislatures in
representing the City of
porn industry. He stated that he
understands that they may have dropped those contacts, but
still he said that he has article from
late-May of 2005, in which Travis Brown, which is the City’s
main contact, is quoted as supporting
the porn industry against bills that were filed and passed
in last year’s legislature. He stated
that as a citizen and a Christian, he said that he found this
particularly offensive. He stated that for these
reasons, he was submitting that this amendment
is at best, ill timed. He said that
again, he understanding that the City may be without a lobbyist
for right now, but that he thinks that
bids to find another better lobbyist may be in order. Mr.
Siettman asked the Board to either table
this item until a new City Administrator is hired or until
new bids can be placed to see if there
is a better option. He stated that he thinks that either a
simple motion to either postpone
indefinitely or to lay on the table regarding this item would be
in order and should that fail, he
would certainly ask his representatives to vote no against this
when it comes up for a vote at the next Board meeting.