Watch and be amazed at the red tape and bureaucracy city council member Karen Cornwell creates. Unfortunately for us the taxpayers, we continue to support unnecessary encroachments of government.
Admin Note: This was submitted by a reader relating to the upcoming elections in Idaho Falls. Although we’d prefer to have more of an article attached, I believe this information is very worthy of discussion. I’d like to add a HUGE kudos to the creator for becoming involved with current issues in Idaho Falls, and for posting it here in IdahoFallsToday.com. Too many people just sit idol hoping for change. We hope to hear more from you!!!
More information on both of these candidates can be found here: http://www.idahofallstoday.com/2009/10/29/ehardt-cornwell-on-the-radio/
(Updated Nov 3, 2009)
Popularity: 1%
Related posts:
It WAS all he had to say about it!
:@:)
Loading ...
{ 27 comments… read them below or add one }
Great video—I wonder if even evening babysitters would “techinically” have to register. I guess they would, if they are babysitting more than 1 child. These city council bureaucrats, including Mayor Fuhriman, Ida Hardcastle, and Karen Cornwell, say they do all this “for the kids” and with a sweet smile. But in reality they create more government red tape for even the simplest of measures and procedures…like babysitting!!!
Interesting Video. I’m probably spending way too much time here trying to figure out the connection of local daycare ordinaces to the Principle Liberties Our Nation was founded on. Heck I thought the changes to the daycare ordinances were for the safety and security of children in daycare, thats the way I read the ordinance. Yep I’m spending too time with this.
Your question is a good one. Why would a person only watching one kid a few days a week need a license? The lady answers the question at about 3:30 of the video. She says she explained the specifics of her situation and the CITY told her she needed to be licensed. In Idaho Falls you have all three branches of government rolled into one. They write the ordinance, interpret the ordinance and enforce the ordinance. It doesn’t matter what the average citizen thinks it says.
And I just learned what detail she conveniently left out. She is getting paid to watch that child but she never actually says that in the video and makes it sound like she not.
Here is an online link to the ordinance (got there through the city website).
Idaho Falls Code of Ordinances – Chapter 3 – Day Care
After reading the ordinance I’m not seeing how the person in the video would need a license unless she isn’t giving all the details of her situation. The ordinance defines the various types of child care facilities and this woman doesn’t fall under any of them if she is watching one and only one kid.
So if Anonymous is correct I should make sure that my babysitter fills out all of the paperwork that Idaho Falls requires, pay all of the fees, wait the 4-6 weeks for the city to approve. The City needs to look at this and re-wording the ordinance and clearly identify the difference between a 17 year old kid watching your kids while you and the spouse have a date, versus a company that is providing daily daycare for profit. After all we are paying the City Attorney to make sure that these laws and ordinances will not face court challenges down the road??
This is a very poorly written ordinance. It desperatly needs to be reworked. The first problem with it is that is is so complex the average person cannot understand it.
Imagine what a person for whom English is a second language would go through trying to make sense of it?
Don’t take my word for it. Follow the link in comment #3. Read the ordinance for yourself. It is even confusing just trying to find the ordinance.
You would expect an ordinance regulating business to be under “Business Regulations”, but it is not there.
Where is it? I won’t spoil the suprise.
During the time this was being debated while I was on the Council many of the comments I received from small daycare providers were that they would just close their businesses or sign up on welfare if the ordinance was adopted.
When this whole daycare licencing issue was initiated I wondered why if it was so important to Karen she had not campaigned on the issue. I think it is because it was part of her “hidden” agenda.
I believe Karen did everything she could to manipulate the process to pass day care licenceing. She would have meetings on the ordinence in the middle of the day when most Daycare providers could not attend. Karen tried to exclude me from the agenda of the one meeting that was scheduled in the evening that I attended.
When I prevailed over her objections she put me last on the agenda so that nothing I said could make it on the 10 o’clock news. This was a common tactic I saw used many times.
In the comments I made that evening I said that an issue like daycare licensing that had such far reaching effects on so many children and families should not be left to a half dozen politicians. It should be put on the ballot during the next election as a referendum. Let the people decide if they want this or not.
The room literally broke into applause. There was no doubt what the people wanted. They wanted a voice and a choice. Unfortunately with Karen in charge they didn’t get either.
What a waste of city resources. Unfortunately, this code becomes a waste of our time and resources as well. FYI City Council….stick to the core functions of city government and stay out of private matters. I think the potholes and streets would be a nice start. Save all your desires to do good with our tax dollars for your Relief Society and United Way duties. One more example of government gone wild. Vote the bums out, starting with Mayor Fuhriman, followed by Ida and her sidekick Karen Cornwell.
Thanks for letting me know that I “conveniently” left out the fact that I get paid. I find it interesting that the City of Idaho Falls has “conveniently” failed to post the requirements for childcare / daycare licensure off their web site. The only thing that is available online is the ordinance itself, which is on a 3rd party site that is difficult to find from the city site and is hard to understand. My question is, if the city is so interested in protecting children, why are they not communicating the details about the ordinance to the public? The ordinance passed over a year ago, yet the licensing packet is still not available online! I do appreciate whoever pointed out that i “left out” this fact, because I have now annotated the video to indicate that I do get paid, about $70 a month. Thanks!
And I assure you that as soon as I can after this election is over, I will be volunteering my services to set up a web site that the city can link to that will clearly and explain the details about this ordinance, provide all the necessary forms so they can easily be printed, and provide a checklist to help people determine whether or not they need to be licensed. It shouldn’t take more than a couple of days. A second step would be to also provide all the pertinent information on the requirements that the state requires, so that the steps that are redundant can be identified and completed concurrently. If the ordinance is on the books, we might as well help people who have to go through the licensing process, right? Wouldn’t that be a great way to increase efficiency for the ladies at the mayor’s office who have to either mail out the packet or deal with people like me who come in and take up their valuable time? Those are the kinds of creative solutions I know Barbara Ehardt will bring to the table to help our city government operate more efficiently and effectively.
In response to “Anonymous”, who said, “…I just learned what detail she conveniently left out. She is getting paid to watch that child but she never actually says that in the video and makes it sound like she not.”
Wow, you got me there. I apologize for “conveniently” leaving out the detail that I was paid. Isn’t it interesting that the City of Idaho Falls web site “conveniently” fails to provide readily available information on who needs to apply for a day care license? Contrary to Ida Hardcastle’s statement to high schoolers that “we have everything on the web site”, only some of the items from the daycare licensing packet have been posted online. There is no explanation of the step-by-step process that individuals and businesses need to take nor checklist to help people to determine whether or not they need a license. The ordinance itself is difficult to find as it’s on a 3rd party web site.
Regardless of whether you agree with the ordinance or not, wouldn’t it make sense for our elected representatives to make sure we are providing Idaho Falls citizens with the critical information about the ordinance? I understand that these things take time, but the ordinance was passed over a year ago! Certainly in a community as resourceful as ours, we can do better than that.
And I know we the city is working on revamping their outdated web site. But if the goal is truly “protecting children” in our community, and making sure all the citizens adhere to the ordinance is the key to doing that…shouldn’t it be a priority of people like Karen Cornwell to facilitate the process of communication, implementation, and enforcement?
Think about it…having these documents readily available would alleviate the burden on mayor’s office for employees who currently have to answer questions on the phone or explain the packet in person to people like me. I’m sure unlike myself, many of the people who call or come in are extremely frustrated and take it out on the employees. How much time has been wasted in the past year because of this very inefficient process? My own phone call and trips to the mayor’s office would have been unnecessary if these basic details had been available online.
The word transparency has been thrown around a lot, much to the disdain of city officials. I have been thinking about it, and I think its offensive to them because their intention is not to hide things from the public. I believe that many of the transparency issues we have are because of outmoded thinking and practices. Let’s face it, things have changed drastically when it comes to utilizing technology to disseminate information, and Idaho Falls City Officials have not kept up with the times and utilized the resources available to them as well as they could.
That’s another reason we need to elect Barbara Ehardt. Let’s bring a fresh perspective to the council. Barbara has talked repeatedly about maintaining a web presence, if elected, to facilitate a more open and convenient back and forth dialogue so she can get insight from citizens on the complex issues we face. This would be great news for me, and other busy moms and dads with young children, who might not be able to attend a council meeting…but could watch footage of it online and then discuss it on an open forum.
I believe that Barbara Ehardt is someone who will think outside the box and bring solutions that actually work to promote goals like protecting children, rather than red tape and rhetoric.
(By the way, “ANONYMOUS”, I annotated the YouTube videos (both versions) to indicate that I am paid to watch Preslee–about $70/month, just during the school year. I wasn’t trying to misrepresent anything, I just happened to be filming the intro. without a script, with my little Flip camcorder set up on a garbage can. If you find anything else that I need to note in the video please let me know.)
Both Ida and Karen admitted during meetings I attended when this ordinance was originally proposed; that additional city employees would have to be hired to enforce it.
I would like Ida or Karen to respond and tell us how many new employees have been hired because of this ordinance.
When Idaho Falls is twice the size it is now (someday it will be) how many city employees will taxpayers be on the hook for just to “police” city daycares?
I have no problems with child care provider regulations, but was surprised to read the ordinances and it does seem broader than I’d expect.
As for occasional sitters, per someones concern above, it defines that in the ordinance. If someone is watching your kid for a dinner out once a month or something, it isn’t a big deal. (I think the definition was if they watch your child less than 40 days/year, can’t recall exact wording)
Who cares if she is getting paid? It’s ONE CHILD! If I wanted to leave my child with my next door neighbor, who I know well, and trust, and wanted to pay her for her time, She should NOT be required to have a license? What happen to my freedom to choose? This crazy bill is hurting those of us who are trying to work to make ends meet. And it should be MY DECISION if I want to leave my child with someone I trust. And it should be MY DECISION if I want to pay them for their help.
It looks like we’ve got a bunch of idiots who don’t give a darn about us, and only want to play games with regulations and laws that “sound” like a good idea. Just get out of our way and let us live our lives. Exactily who is this law trying to “protect” anyway?!
Anonymous–The YouTube vid is now annotated with the details I “conveniently” left out.
I find it interesting that the City of Idaho Falls web site “conveniently” fails to provide readily available information on who needs to be licensed and the process for licensure.
“In defense of liberty and common sense” over a small local ordinance to encourage taking better care of our kids?
Get some perspective and then get a life. Please.
To Guest…. If it’s not a big deal to you then don’t take the time out of your important life to post. Obviously to others who are going to have to go through needlesss red tape it is an issue. Liberties are usually taken away a little at a time and people sometimes think since it is such a small right taken away it’s no big deal. Read a history book and learn how liberties are slowly taken away that will give you some perspective.
I have read about liberties being taken away worldwide and in America (we don’t hold the monopoly on liberty being taken away you know). The big problems come when liberties are taken away quickly en masse, not in the minor back and forths of life, so keep your perspective on this chicken littles.
I am also disappointed that you cannot find this on the city website. Sure their site is a mess, but they can at least post to front page if so important. They have the ability to post PDFs online so not to waste printing a hundred pages in every child care license packet.
I usually think Karen Cornwell has done a fine job, but I am very disappointed in this. She swore up and down the entire time it would only apply to providers with 3 or more kids that charge, so we need to look through this 29 page ordinance and see if that critical clause really is missing.
If it is missing, then Cornwell is a liar that deserves an election beating. If it is in there, then Ehardt and supporters are the liars and we will never trust this local camp again.
Is election day Tuesday the 3rd or 10th? This issue will guide my voting decision for Cornwell or Ehardt so I want to know facts ASAP.
Who is running against Mayor Fuhriman?
I am glad to hear that Barbara is planning on maintaining a web presence. That would go a long way in keeping people informed of what is really going on at City Hall.
Sharon Parry and Tom Hally both had Campaign web sites two yrs ago; but they both took them down right after the election.
Larry, you make some very good points at times. BUt more often than not, you don’t get it. These city officials are good people, Karen Cornwell included. Barbara has never attacked Karen personally–she has simply stated she has a difference of opinion on many issues. While I do think that it was very irresponsible for Karen to misstate the facts on the day care ordinance, which she should have known, I do NOT believe it was intentional. She truly didn’t know. Larry, when you say things like, “what is really going on” you imply all sorts of corruption. This is not my point at all. In my opinion, the transparency issues we have in Idaho Falls are largely a result of outmoded thinking, not a desire to hide things from the public. Let’s face it–things have changed drastically when it comes to utilizing technology to share information. The Idaho Falls City Officials could do a much better job of keeping up with the times.
Oh wow, I didn’t see that my LONG response to “Anonymous” finally got posted. It wouldn’t every show up after I hit submit and re-submit, so I reposted a much shorter response. So sorry for the redundancy folks. Hope that makes sense.
Why should the number of children, or the frequency of they’re being watched make a difference?
I’m sure not saying that Kaly, or other moms like her are child abusers, but at the same time, I can’t think of anyone who didn’t trust their child care providers. Multiple counts of abuse apply to one kid, not to many at once.
For sure, the ordinance needs to be clarified on this matter. Maybe exemptions need to be made, maybe a smaller, more streamlined application needs to be created, or something else altogether. For a part-time provider watching a single child, I think that as a start for revision would be to take away the costs that come with the application. I also think that some of the requirements, such as fire safety, should remain as is, while others could be modified or dropped.
But the real issue remains- the children of Idaho Falls need to be watched in an environment that has been checked out. Approval, if not a license, needs to be a requirement.
For those who are upset about the day care ordinance lets all take a breath and remember why it came into being. There were several high profile infant deaths here in town at unregulated day cares. There were also several high profile injury and neglect cases. There was the case where a daycare owner was dealing meth right out of the daycare.
I no longer have to use daycare but I can recall about ten years ago when I make the mistake of taking my kid to the 24 hr Safetyland daycare (its the one that has since been closed down because the owners got busted defrauding the state – go figure). There were only six kids when I dropped my son off but when I picked him up three hours later there were suddenly over 40 kids and one adult and my son had a bruise on his face that couldn’t be explained. This is what happens when daycares aren’t regulated.
Now I’d agree that the ordinance shouldn’t affect the sporadic babysitter, the neighbor kid for instance but if your going to be a full time paid babysitter then I see no problem with certain regulations being met.
Kaly said:
“Isn’t it interesting that the City of Idaho Falls web site “conveniently” fails to provide readily available information on who needs to apply for a day care license?”
Boy thats funny because I went right to the city website and found a link to the city ordinance right on their site. I linked it earlier in this thread and then stated I didn’t see how it applied to you since you hadn’t told us you were being paid.
I’m not voting for Cornwell as I can’t stand her or her policies. I just haven’t been convinced to vote for Erhardt yet. Right now I’m not even sure if I’m going to bother voting since none of the candidates have done a thing to impress me by either their record (Cornwell and Hardcastle) or their rhetoric (Erhart and Creek).
I didn’t find the LICENSING information to be “readily available” on the city web site. I never said you couldn’t find the ordinance itself after some searching.
Barbara Ehardt is about solutions, not empty rhetoric. Check out her plan to assist in getting this information out to child care/day care providers and to help alleviate the burdens on the mayor’s office employees: http://barbaraehardt.com/issues/a-common-sense-approach/
This is excellent! Thank-you for clearly articulating the issue. Barbara Ehardt has my vote. I appreciate someone focused on the issues that will be a part of their responsibilities if elected.
I thought this was a very well done, albeit home made advertisement for Mrs. Shippen’s candidate. And while it is indeed an advertisement, it does bring to light one important issue we can address.
The ordinance in question is poorly written and should, from a common sense standpoint (as Mrs. Shippen aptly pointed out) be rectified so that people in situations such as hers need not be bothered. The obvious intent of this ordinance was to protect young children being cared for in group/professional situations, and it should be re-written as such.
Any other assumptions, assertions and comments made by Mrs. Shippen are/were, in my opinion brought up to serve the “advertisement” intent of her video.
As a voting citizen it is neither my concern nor care how long the “mound of paperwork” took to complete. Nor would I be overly concerned, were Mrs. Shippen in a position as a childcare “professional” of the minimal start-up costs for such a business. Were I ever to leave my children in a professional day care facility, you can bet your bottom dollar I would want a FULL background check on all adults in the facility, as well as a full inspection for health and fire safety standards. As for the cost of those items, my (and any children) are worth it.
And finally, I am not particularly worried about how inconvenient Mrs. Shippen found locating the ordinance information (because I found it in about seven seconds).
The bottom line, for me, is there seems to be two main issues to address here and correct.
1. To adjust the Childcare Ordinance to exclude occasional sitters or childcare providers of less than three children (that number is up for discussion, of course).
2. To get a web designer who has a small clue what they are doing in developing a format and framework for the city government website that is user friendly (Mrs. Shippen’s opinions notwithstanding, I have found the IF Government website to be sorely lacking for sometime).
Mrs. Shippen, I applaud your enthusiasm in backing a candidate and excercising your 1st Amendment rights. I believe the consternation you feel about this particular issue is genuine. It is probably equal with what I feel every time I see an actual issue that needs to be addressed turned into a mountain of political rhetoric that ends up serving no purpose, as we can see from the election results, that this one did.