Opinion | Running The Meeker Household
Part Two: "I'm Not Going to Spank My Kids."
By V · July 16, 2026 · Opinion & Letters
No, this article isn't actually about parenting.
It's about responsibility.
In Part One, I argued that Meeker has a budget, but I haven't yet seen a family plan—a long-term vision that explains where we're trying to go and why we're asking the family for more money.
Now I'd like to continue Vice Mayor Mike Orman's household analogy by talking about something every family eventually has to decide:
What happens when someone breaks the house rules?
Again, I'm not suggesting that the people of Meeker are children. I'm simply extending the analogy already introduced by Town leadership. If the Board of Trustees is the head of the household, then ordinance enforcement is one of the ways a family reinforces the standards it has already agreed upon.
Ordinance enforcement isn't "the parent."
It's the consequence used to reinforce an established rule.
Imagine walking into your house after your children have ignored every rule you've established.
One child drew on the walls.
Another ignored taking out the trash until it overflowed
Someone left dirty dishes strewn about the house.
Another decided the toilet running wasn't their problem because it wasn't in their bathroom.
When someone asks what you're going to do about it, you shrug and say:
"I'm not going to spanko or discipline my kids.
It takes too much energy.
Besides, they'll probably just do it again."
Most parents would recognize the flaw in that thinking immediately.
The purpose of discipline isn't punishment.
The purpose is teaching.
It's establishing expectations.
It's reinforcing standards.
It's protecting the rest of the family from one person's decisions.
That's exactly how I think about ordinance enforcement.
One of the ideas raised during the town hall was enforcing existing ordinances.
I don't believe anyone raising that issue was talking about generating revenue.
In fact, I think that's where the conversation went off track.
Nobody was suggesting the Town start writing tickets because it needs money.
The point was improving Meeker.
The discussion wasn't really about tall grass or about homeowners. It wasn't about trying to nickel-and-dime residents.
The concern was commercial property.
Buildings with leaking roofs or exposed wiring.
Buildings that continue to deteriorate.
Buildings that sit vacant year after year while becoming less attractive, less safe, and less usable.
Buildings that discourage investment before a prospective business owner ever walks through the front door.
Those conditions don't just affect the property owner.
They affect neighboring businesses, downtown, they affect property values.
They affect sales tax.
They affect whether someone decides to open a business in Meeker—or somewhere else.
That's why ordinance enforcement was brought up.
Not because anyone thought it would become a revenue stream.
Because people want to improve the town we already have.
The response surprised me.
Instead of discussing whether existing commercial-property ordinances should be enforced more consistently, the conversation became about the cost of enforcement.
We heard that investigations take time.
Writing notices takes time.
Court takes time.
Judges sometimes reduce fines.
Sometimes people don't pay.
Sometimes they pay less than the Town spent pursuing the case.
All of that may be true.
But none of it answers the original question.
Why do the ordinances exist?
If Meeker has ordinances requiring commercial buildings to be maintained...
Why?
If Meeker has ordinances addressing unsafe structures...
Why?
If Meeker has ordinances preventing debris from accumulating in alleys because of fire hazards, rodents, or public health concerns...
Why?
The answer isn't revenue.
The answer is because those standards make Meeker a better place to live and do business.
The ticket isn't the goal.
The repaired roof is.
The cleaned-up alley is.
The safe electrical system is.
The occupied storefront is.
The better downtown is.
Compliance is the goal.
Not punishment.
Vice Mayor Mike Orman also commented that if commercial rents are too high, eventually the market will correct itself.
In many cases, that's true. Markets usually do correct themselves. But not every market works the same way.
If one owner controls a significant portion of the available commercial property...
If many of those buildings are already paid for—or financed so inexpensively that vacancy isn't financially painful...
If there are few financial consequences for allowing a building to sit vacant...
Then waiting becomes a perfectly reasonable business decision.
The owner waits.
The community waits.
Potential businesses move on.
Meanwhile, downtown continues to struggle.
That's why I don't believe ordinance enforcement should be viewed as punishment.
It's part of maintaining the community's investment in itself.
Another part of the discussion left me with even more questions.
Years ago, Meeker had a dedicated code enforcement officer.
Today, that position no longer exists.
Years ago, Meeker had an officer who handled animal control.
Today, that responsibility has changed as well.
The explanation offered was that those employees left.
That happens, people retire, move or accept different jobs. But responsibilities shouldn't disappear just because employees do.
If the person responsible for paying the electric bill dies, the lights don't stop needing to be paid.
Someone else takes over.
If Mom always cooked dinner and she gets sick, the family doesn't simply stop eating.
Somebody else cooks.
Responsibilities move.
They don't vanish.
Town Administrator Jeff Wilbourn acknowledged that he has attended code-enforcement training.
He also made it clear that he isn't writing ordinance citations because he is not the designated code enforcement officer.
The Board explained that responsibility now belongs to the Police Department.
The Police Department explained there isn't enough staffing for someone to focus heavily on ordinance enforcement.
So I left with one simple question.
Who owns it?
Not whose title says they should.
Who actually owns it?
Who wakes up every morning knowing that improving Meeker through ordinance enforcement is one of their measurable responsibilities?
Who reports progress to the Board?
Who tracks unresolved cases?
Who follows up?
Who decides what gets prioritized?
Because if everyone says,
"That's really somebody else's job..."
Eventually it becomes nobody's job.
This is where I think the household analogy becomes incredibly important.
The Board doesn't need to write every citation.
The Board doesn't need to inspect every building.
The Board doesn't need to catch every stray dog.
Parents don't personally perform every chore in a healthy household either.
They don't wash every dish.
They don't mow every yard.
They don't take every load of trash to the curb.
But they do make sure somebody owns those responsibilities.
They don't tolerate the answer,
"I thought somebody else was doing it."
They don't allow chores to disappear because one child moved out.
They reassign them.
That's leadership.
And that's different from management.
One more thing struck me during the town hall.
As ideas were raised, the conversation repeatedly shifted from:
"How do we make that happen?"
to
"Whose job is that?"
According to the board,
Business recruitment belongs to the Chamber.
Code enforcement belongs to the Police Department.
Property maintenance belongs to property owners.
Community promotion belongs to residents.
There's truth in every one of those statements.
But leadership asks a different question.
Not,
"Whose job is it?"
Instead,
"Who needs to be at the table to make it happen?"
That's how successful families operate.
Not by pushing responsibility away...
...but by bringing people together.
Because every healthy family argues.
Every marriage has disagreements.
Every business has disagreements.
Every church has disagreements.
Every town government has disagreements.
Conflict isn't failure.
Allowing conflict to become the operating system is.
The head of the household isn't responsible because they caused every disagreement.
They're responsible because they're responsible for the household.
And that means repairing relationships before those relationships begin affecting the family itself.
So far, we've talked about the family budget and the family rules.
The final piece of this series asks the most important question of all:
What kind of family are we trying to become?
Because families that leave a legacy don't simply pay their bills.
They build something worth passing on.