County Commissioner Dave Radford Asleep On the Job?
(submited by user: “Sharpie the Pen”)
Politics is an interesting profession. You campaign to get people to like you and give you free money to get you elected, then you work for the government, which appears to me to be a much less results oriented operation than any place I’ve ever worked for.
With all the work that someone puts into getting elected and all the promises that are made on the campaign trail, you would think that they would be anxious to get to work to get some things done for the people who elected them. Unfortunately that isn’t always the case. Sometimes it looks as though they just want a cushy job with an office and no one looking over their shoulder pushing for the critical deadlines to be met.
Dave Radford is the local county commissioner who doesn’t seem to be around all that much. I’ve even heard he has a problem showing up at some of his own meetings.
This is not always the norm, however. If you stop into the office there, you’ll likely see the other county commissioners, Roger Christensen and Lee Staker, hard at work, however Dave Radford just doesn’t seem to be around all that much.
Then again, could it be Dave is hard at work elsewhere (don’t ask me where) getting the community needs taken care of (on the golf course or the ski hill?)
Should government officials be accountable for the time they spend on the job and in the office?
If you know anything about these three men, their qualifications, and/or work ethics, please share your views.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Somebody should look at the way county employees are allowed to slide. For example, ——- lets his county secretary ———- miss work for several days a week ….. If you call the Commissioners Office, they do nothing about it. As far as I am concerned, the other county employees see nothing is done about it and it gives the rest of them free reign to show up late, or not at all…..and still get paid.
This type of behavior seems to be common among many businesses. If the employee (usually a higher paid, top brass) reports to somebody living in say, Boise, they don’t bother coming to work or at least, show up every now and then for appearances sake. Usually, it catches up to them. Unfortunately, it often takes time. Employers need to examine the work ethic of the individuals they put in these positions. Have them punch a clock. Document excuses and periodically follow up on them. If they repeatedly have “meetings” but you are wondering why so many “meetings” with the same person or group, check it out. But don’t let it go. Many a business has crumbled because the trusted higher ups can’t be trusted. I don’t think that you should micro manage these folks, I do think they too, need supervisors who care about the well being of the business.
I’ve seen a few like that. Bosses who miss their own meetings, late for their meetings (like 1/2 hour to an hour), etc. They need to be held accountable. Unfortunately, it would seem that when someone in a lower rank says something, they are deemed the bad guy/gal. So people tend to keep their mouths shut for fear of losing their jobs or fear that their work environment will become upsetting to a point where they are forced to quit. With the exception of business owners, everyone has a boss. If the bosses can’t watch their employees, regardless of how far up the ladder they are (and I agree, no micro managing), then they shouldn’t hold the position they hold.
MSN recently had an article about the millions of dollars federal employees are spending on personal trips, items, clothing, etc., at the taxpayers expense. So too, are these folks who fail to show up to work. They cost everyone. If they don’t want to work, they shouldn’t get a job.
I’ve seen higher ups fudge on reimbursements to the tune of making several hundred dollars a month.
I could name a list but the reality is, those in lower ranks keep mum for fear their lives will be a living hell. Until those in a position to correct the problem, live up to their job responsibilities, it will continue to be a problem.
Accountability, great term that needs to be used in the work place, particularly where public funds are used. This thread is targeted at Dave Radford but could probably be targeted to any number of city/county/state and federal employees. That’s our tax dollars. We have the right to know our money is spent wisely. Is there too much cover-up taking place?
I find it interesting that some folks are so insecure that they need to bad-mouth employees of Bonneville County, without “putting their money where their mouth is…”.
To the “anonymous” person whom laid out a blatant mistruth concerning - the employee -, you should get your facts straight before lathering at the mouth. If you are so certain that - the employee - is taking advantage of Bonneville County then you should be brave enough to post your name. My father taught me that its better to appear to be a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Miss Anonymous, my guess is that you are also a County employee, or maybe an ex-employee of the County. One thing that no one needs to “guess” at, is the FACT that you are not only a fool, but a coward also…
Ummm…I’m not “anonymous”, I’m merely asking that we refrain from calling names. You’re quoting the bible, and then turning right around and doing the same thing this person is doing.
While I agree that it wasn’t right for anonymous to name names….it’s obvious its this persons “opinion”. There are numerous ways to go about handling this which Geekery mentioned in the chatbox. I also said we should wait for Joe Eagle to come online so we can see what he thinks about deleting the name since it’s his site.
lol….too funny!
Question for you Chicken Little. Is “Chicken Little” your real name, or is it an “anonymous screen name”? You’re asking Anonymous to “come out of the closet” and reveal themselves, when you yourself are “Anonymous” on this site, just as everybody else is. People say things that aren’t true all the time. If it isn’t true, why even bother getting upset about it if you and the people that truly know you, know it isn’t true? I learned a long time ago you can’t worry about what other people think. Why bother? It’s a complete waste of time!
At the request of users, Bumper stickers are NOW AVAILABLE at http://www.cafepress.com/idahofallz
Out of curiosity? If names in this thread are being cleaned out are you going to give the same consideration to blatant accusations against police officers in other threads where there was no proof. I recall a police bashing thread here where a retired cop was accused of all kinds of misconduct by an anonymous poster with no proof. I recall another police bashing thread here where Officer Deede was accused of misconduct with no proof and when Melissa (the person making the accusations) was called on it she disappeared and hasn’t been back since. There was the Helburn thread where three officers were accused of doing everything but raping the family dog and it was allowed to stand even after the transcripts from the audio showed up showing they did nothing wrong except perhaps not use the “interview” techniques some of you might want. There were the lawsuit threads where several officers were accused of misconduct and it took other posters (mainly Mike) to bring out the facts that the people suing were career criminals who had just been arrested again and that the lawsuits had been dropped almost immediately after being filed.
Its a blatant double standard. Granted the site has new ownership now but if your going to remove the woman’s name from this thread who was accused of “brown bottle flu” then in all fairness those old threads need cleaned up too. If there is actual proof of misconduct, say comments about Todd Ericcson who was convicted of misconduct thats fine, but otherwise the accusations are the same as the “brown bottle flu” comment made.
I wouldn’t think so. A cop for example who is just doing his job and someone wants to trash him out here because he got a ticket I don’t think is right, unless it hits the media anyway I guess. By the same token, IMO, a secretary working for a state representative shouldn’t have her name trashed here. She isn’t the public figure, the representative is. She isn’t running for office, the representative, governor, senator, whoever is.
Maybe I don’t always succeed (I hope I do) but I do try to eliminate names when I mention situations that are less than appealing on this site. I guess I try to do that anyways though. I don’t like vicious gossip.
That’s a good question, Mike. What is the definition of “public figure” ?
Wiki mentions a “public official”. I think a police officer fits that, because the officer’s job is interacting with the public in general, in an official capacity.
I think the county commish fits because they are elected by the public.
I’m not sure if the state tax department clerk, or the federal air traffic controller, or the city parks n rec gardener, really qualify as public figures. But who knows?
I always find it interesting the motives behind articles like these. You never, rarely if ever, hear negative about a Commissioner on this site, then election time rolls around and then someone tries to throw dirt. Where was Sharpie the Pen’s concern before the campaigning began?
Makes me wonder, if “Sharpie” is somehow in the camp of a competing wanna be commissioner. I see a canpain sign for Radfors he next day this article is posted Very fishy. Let’s have some full disclosure. By the way I would’nt know Radford if I saw him on the street.
This is probably my last post on this site. My question to Idahofallz.com’s administrators would be, why allow anyone posing as “Anonymous” to post anything? If you attend a public hearing, and you want your 2 cents heard, you have to stand up where folks can see you. Why should this be any different? I’m a member of several blogs and forums not unlike this site, but you have to register to be able to participate. Not only does it make for good communications, but those who spout off can be held accountable for what they say. It adds to the credibility of both the site, its discussions, and to those who choose to participate. Thanks for all the support last week, both on this site, and to those who called.
Darren
I personally know Dave and I’m rather shocked at your assessment.
You begin your article with general disdain for politics in general (which isn’t unheard of in this day and age.) However, to make the claim that because someone isn’t sitting behind his desk, he obviously isn’t working is quite the stretch. I’d be worried if all they did was sit at their desks instead of getting out and talking to people about the issues, finding out what is going on, and actually solving problems.
Do some research and get your facts right before you make libelous claims.
To reply to Darren’s statement as to why not make people “register” in order to post on this site. I ask what’s the difference? You still won’t know who that person is. Most people don’t register their full name like you did mainly because they want to appear anonymous. Personally I don’t want my full name all over the web. I’ve been a part of the online community long enough to know better. And I’m willing to bet that in the other forums you frequent, the majority of people that comment are “anonymous” even though they need to sign in, in order to post a comment. While I agree that most forums ARE like that (make you sign in), that still doesn’t make you “not anonymous”. You’re still anonymous to a certain extent. I appreciate and completely understand the reasoning behind anonymity because it enables you to truly speak your mind without being persecuted by your peers for your beliefs. You can tell people how you really feel (no holds barred if you will) that you would otherwise not be able to say under your real name like you use. For the most part I use my screen name and most regulars on here know who I am and how I feel about certain issues. But they still don’t know who I am personally. When it comes to certain “touchy topics” such as legalization of drugs, and topics such as that, I’d rather not have my friends and family grill me about my personal feelings on the subject. This is why this site remains “anonymous”. It has its good and bad points like every other site, but for the most part, I think it works out rather well. But for you to come on here the other day posting your phone number with your real name, just isn’t very bright in my opinion and shows people that you’re fairly new to the online community.
Leave Your Comment
Our Community's Comment Guidelines:- Please stay polite and on topic.
- Your email will never be published.
- No profanity or euphemisms for profanity.
- No personal attacks, name-calls, put-downs, or baiting other guests, races, genders, or religions.
- Express opinions, facts, logic, and reasoning; just don’t argue for argument’s sake.
- No commercial links (unless absolutely relevant to the discussion) and no religious proselytizing.
- No religious discussions (for or against). Go to http://religiondebates.blogspot.com for religious discussions.
- Use the "I" word as much as possible to demonstrate responsibility.
- If you think a comment is inappropriate, ask Joe to review it.
Loading ...
A lazy politician? Unfortunately that is all too common now a days. Some I’m sure work hard, but I really get steaming when someone is looking for a free ride. Maybe I’m just too old now-a-days expecting someone to work for what the make.
I don’t know much about any of the three individuals, but I like the idea of requiring reporting of how many hours a day they work. Who are they supposed to be working for anyway?
Maybe if they had to report, that’d get them to work. Or at least to where they’re suppose to be working.