The Good, the Bad, the Ugly
Has a record on which to run. While he has regularly, but infrequently (and not disruptively), opined and pushed for different outcomes, he has been ineffective in convincing his fellow council members to change their opinion on substantive matters.
Approved council’s action regarding invocations to be open to all.* However, after one round of lottery he exercised his astute political prowess by letting invocations die on the vine. He claims to be a fiscal conservative but has overseen the bulging budget and spends money the city doesn’t have.
He has a temper and vulgar vocabulary which he isn’t afraid to use. As a public official, a little decorum would be nice and inspire the next generation to rise in civil discourse. He has degenerated to Trump-like politics with name calling and demonizing. He isn’t afraid of double standards. Evidence of this occurred when he stated that his “Rants” are his personal life and shouldn’t be considered in his council seat candidacy. However, publicly and privately, he has lambasted his opponent for issues in his “private life.” He also blocked a neighbor from posting to a neighborhood chat after said neignbor invited the neighborhood to meet and greet current candidates for city council.
Having said all that, he is responsive. He understands the city. He cares about the city. He tries to follow the law and work within the structure of the city council. He’s not perfect, but he’s not going to ruin the city. He’ll keep the sewers flowing and the water clean. And, he’ll get back to you. He previously committed to retiring from the city council citing belief in term limits.
CdA News Grade for Dan Gookin: