• strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/glencoenews/www/www/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 906.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_argument::init() should be compatible with views_handler::init(&$view, $options) in /home/glencoenews/www/www/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_argument.inc on line 0.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/glencoenews/www/www/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 0.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home/glencoenews/www/www/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 0.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter_node_status::operator_form() should be compatible with views_handler_filter::operator_form(&$form, &$form_state) in /home/glencoenews/www/www/sites/all/modules/views/modules/node/views_handler_filter_node_status.inc on line 0.
  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/glencoenews/www/www/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 906.
  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/glencoenews/www/www/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 906.
  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/glencoenews/www/www/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 906.
  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/glencoenews/www/www/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 906.
  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/glencoenews/www/www/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 906.
  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/glencoenews/www/www/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 906.
  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/glencoenews/www/www/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 906.
  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/glencoenews/www/www/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 906.

Treat people fairly - Our view: Ordinance process seems unjust

Sarah Mallory’s dog, Indy, has been deemed potentially dangerous. Whether it really is dangerous is arguable.
What is certain is Glencoe’s ordinance dealing with potentially dangerous dogs does not provide residents anything remotely resembling a level playing field or due process.
The city does not have a lot of practice dealing with supposedly dangerous dogs. It shows. In recent memory, there have only been two declarations a dog is dangerous. One of the owners did not appeal the declaration.
The owner of a dog the city deems potentially dangerous has the right to appeal the declaration. This is where things get murky, especially in Mallory’s case. The police responded to a call of a dog biting a child. Apparently, the officer did not take a complete report of the incident.
When asked about it, the department’s official response was no comment.
In the first hearing Mallory requested, the city attorney played the role of prosecutor and judge, presenting evidence to a three-person panel of two city councilors and a city-selected resident to hear evidence in favor of and against Mallory’s dog. Reportedly, the city attorney also played the role of judge at the first hearing, deciding who could speak and when they could speak.
When an explanation and clarification of the process was sought, phone calls were not returned.
The city council decided the dog is potentially dangerous. Mallory objected to what appears to be a slanted playing field. Mayor Randy Wilson rightfully granted a second hearing and then had to cajole two other members of the city council to serve on the panel. This time, the mayor replaced the handpicked city resident. The city attorney again played the role of prosecutor and judge.
At the second hearing, Mallory and her boyfriend, Brian Lewis, sought the advice of legal counsel. Without an attorney on retainer as the city enjoys, they asked for a continuance – a delay in the schedule – to consult with counsel. The city attorney/prosecutor/judge rejected her requests for more time or an administrative law judge or some other independent arbiter, saying the couple already had plenty of time to obtain counsel. Lewis told the council the couple did not have the financial resources to take on legal expenses on the city’s timeline.
Mallory again objected to an unfair process. Wilson told Mallory during the hearing the council commonly follows the city attorney’s direction. That evening, the council, as directed by the city attorney, reaffirmed its position Mallory’s dog is potentially dangerous.
Mallory makes a credible complaint the process is inequitable to the typical resident. Unlike the city, citizens don’t have taxpayer-funded legal counsel at their immediate disposal. Most citizens are uncomfortable addressing the city council looking down at them from behind a dais during a televised public meeting, especially when the city attorney is sitting two seats to the right of the mayor.
What’s the solution?
The city should hire a truly independent intermediary to hear both sides of the issue and offer a thoughtful, balanced recommendation to the city council. Mayor Wilson said the city has already spent $2,000 on the matter. Had the process been handled in an equitable fashion, the city might have saved money.
It certainly would appear to be treating the issue in a just way.
Citizens deserve no less.

- jm