To the editor:
Last week, in a letter to the editor, a current councilman took time out of his busy schedule to call me a liar. His words were that "false statements" were made. If any details were incorrect in my letter, then they must be corrected. However, the core of my letter asked a public question of a public official. Mr. Leetz knows the "truth," and he says I am a liar and demands an apology. I have no idea why the councilman feels so persecuted. IMO, he seemed to be more concerned with making a campaign speech than answering for his public behavior.
The question asked of Councilman Leetz, in my letter, was, why, in the span of the last three years, have you worked against the Request For Proposal process regarding the City's lease with a private company called K-C Riverstop?
It seems there is a petition (we'll come back to this later) with many signatures urging the city to renew its lease with K-C Riverstop, a food business, that services the Yacht Club.
When the city (we, the taxpayers) want services from private business, the City Charter spells out the rules to allow ALL interested businesses a fair and equal chance to compete for the city's business. A time frame to submit proposals is set, then in an open, public Council meeting the proposals are considered in a transparent way and Council votes.
Again, Councilman Leetz has worked diligently to quash the R.F.P. process regarding the lease the City has with K-C Riverstop! Why?
Let's be fair. Here is a "what if" that might help.
Let's say Joe Schmo's Fun Food Haus and Beach Boutique held the current contract with the city, and the K-C Riverstop folks came to Mr. Leetz and said they wanted a chance to present their business plan to the city to be considered for the lease. However, five councilpersons said no, because they wanted the lease given to the Schmo company. Would that be right? Legal, yes, but would that be fair to K-C?
Mr. Leetz said he was not a Road Ahead trooper, did not belong to the Road Ahead Gang, never voted as a R.A.G. member and never voted with the named Road Ahead Group members to give a city contract to the K.C. family, thus circumventing the R.F.P. process. Guess I stand corrected.
A councilperson's first obligation is to the taxpayers. The R.F.P. process is intended to give all businesses a fair chance to present to council their business plan that would best benefit the taxpayers. When a council person blatantly short-circuits this process, twice, that public official owes the voters an explanation. Smoke and mirrors and calling citizens names doesn't hide their betrayal of Cape taxpayers.
Remember that petition mentioned earlier, signed by over a thousand K-C Riverstop supporters. Well here is a new consideration. Perhaps Mr. Leetz wants to be seen as their champion against a cruel, heartless city trying to put this mom-and -pop restaurant out of business. Wow! Thousands of votes would catch any politician's eye!
Keep It Simple Sir:
1. Do you understand that the R.F.P. process is a fair, transparent and ethical way to get the best information to make the best deal for the taxpayers?
2. Why have you voted against the R.F.P. process (twice) in regards to the City's lease with K-C Riverstop group?
3. Are you, or have you ever been a signer or member of the Road Ahead Group? Don't be shy, most folks know.
Perhaps the best place to get some answers would be over a cup of coffee at "citizen's input"?
Mr. Leetz, you are public person, the R.F.P. process is a public issue, and Council chambers is a public place. Voting against an R.F.P. is not illegal, but something smells here.