3/25/08 Council Meeting

[apatriot]

Brian, that's your opinion and that's fine, but then why issue after issue of the Independent stating Sonny's position wasn't necessary?  I'm sure his position was administrative in nature too.  The bottomline is OC said one thing and then did another.  Don't tell us it's not necessary for your opponent and then do it yourself.

I've been hard on the DCOB of late and just feel we also need to discuss OC and his next run.  Maybe that's where all this is going.

[OakParkSpartan]

Well, it seems as though a lot of things in the Independent weren't exactly as presented.  Still waiting for criminal charges...expect to see them about the time I have grandchildren.

I think questioning OC about his assertions and the follow-up is excellent material. 

My point was that moving beyond the crap from the past and starting to figure out how to better structure the future is a better use of our time.  You can't change what was written about Stillo, and you can't change what has/has not been done the last 3 years.  But you can try to understand what will be done going forward.

[apatriot]

yes, but just as we have discussed at length the past of the BRDO and now the so-called new DCOB, we also need to look at OC's administration, how he got elected (some say the Independent had a lot to do with that), and what his administration has accomplished and the mistakes made.  That's up for discussion too.  I like to be fair when it comes to praise and bashing.

[Bonster]

It's not entirely in the past, OPS, as long as this is hanging over our heads.

I think there are two arguments with the Waguespack situation - one regarding the hire and what he actually did (I conceded to you or scoon that he probably did good work for a time), and the other with regards to his lawsuit.

It's all about the lawsuit at this point, and what it says about him and his supporters (OC, et al).
One wrong begat another, which begat yet another, and we pay.

[Bear]

The lawsuit never would have happened unless SOMEONE
whispered in Scott's ear and encouraged him to do such
to torment his rival.

[Bonster]

Out of order there, Bear.

The fact here is that the lawsuit would not have happened had Phelan not have put out that "Press Release."

Any such whispering would have been after that.  Like I said, one wrong begat another...

[Bear]

You miss the point Bonzie, Scott would have not even of paid attention
to the memo or cared about what was said, unless it was pointed out to him. He had already fried bigger fish than #6. "Insurance pays for it anyway."

[Bonster]

I'm not at all disagreeing that might have happened.  That's why I question just how much those who supported his ass are doing/ have done here. 

If it comes down to Council making a realllllllly bad and costly decision, I sure hope W's "peeps" are going to stick up for the taxpayers and do what they can about this.


From Phelan to W to W's support to Council - they're all doing the wrong things here.


Fkng Stephen Curry from Davidson is making me wretch.  Putting on a serious show here...

[ZORBA]

I highly doubt that a guy who went to law school needs "guidance" in figuring out he has a viable lawsuit.

[ZORBA]

btw, W's only recourse is a lawsuit. And the lawsuit isn't for harm caused to his campaign but rather for defamation of character. Whether he won the election or not shouldn't matter all that much. Maybe it will affect the overall judgment amount, but NOT the action itself.

[apatriot]

But, SILK, what political candidate doesn't take buckshot?  Who gets a free pass?  Look at the presidential candidates.  It's a rockem sockem brawl.  Obama is under fire for "judgment" which opponents want to connect to character.  The accusation against him is that he sat in a racist church for 20 years, which would lead one to think he himself must subscribe to racist thinking.  We can argue that all day long, but nevertheless, this is the nature of politics.  Have you never heard a politician called a "crook"?  I have.  A million times.  Who wants to be called a crook?  No one.  And particularly no one seeking a political post.  That is defaming, yet, it doesn't stop an opponent from putting out literature, or stating so.

[Bear]

I highly doubt that a guy who went to law school needs "guidance" in figuring out he has a viable lawsuit.

Silk, you too miss the point, someone else wanted the lawsuit filed
for their own reasons. An opportune for payback at your enemies expense.

[apatriot]

uh oh.  Scott Wags just signed up as new member.  Hope he doesn't sue us.

[Bonster]

someone else wanted the lawsuit filed
for their own reasons. An opportune for payback at your enemies expense.

Do you know that to be fact?

Regardless, Council is delegating the citizens to be the "enemy" by making us foot the payback for Phelan to make da mare look bad, but they're looking just as bad in the process. 

No one is clean here.

uh oh.  Scott Wags just signed up as new member.  Hope he doesn't sue us.

LOL!

[apatriot]

Right, Bon.  No one is clean here.  And that was the point I was trying to make.  You put it perfectly.

[ZORBA]

@apat,

Yes, but the difference is that neither Hillary nor Obama are "acting in their official capacity" as elected officials. they're acting SOLELY as candidates. And neither has intentionally misstated a fact in a defamatory manner about the other. Lastly, Phelan wasn't running against waugespack for office.

[ZORBA]

@bear,

I think I got YOUR point perfectly-an opportunity to take a shot at your political enemy by skewing the facts a little.

[OakParkSpartan]

The fact that Phelan was a complete jagoff to a city employee (Scott) at public meetings probably didn't encourage Scott to hold back.

Knowing the history, it isn't surprising.  Phelan did everything he could as an alderman to make Scott look bad in public.  Go back and read some of the reports from meetings.  Phelan stepped out of the aldermatic box to private citizen box, and Scott hit back.  Again, had the press release not been issued, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[Bear]

@bear,

I think I got YOUR point perfectly-an opportunity to take a shot at your political enemy by skewing the facts a little.

I skew nothing Silk, and I have no enemies. I can still converse with the mayor despite
our differences. This whole deal is so wrong, it is beyond comprehension. On both sides. The posturing
of the aldermen to protect themselves against frivolous lawsuits caused in the batle of future
elections is the root cause for this ineptitude, and only hurts the city and us as residents.

This is a primo example as to why we need to move to a city managerial form of government, and put a stop to such ineptitude that has been holding the city back.

[OakParkSpartan]

@bear,

I think I got YOUR point perfectly-an opportunity to take a shot at your political enemy by skewing the facts a little.

I skew nothing Silk, and I have no enemies. I can still converse with the mayor despite
our differences. This whole deal is so wrong, it is beyond comprehension. On both sides. The posturing
of the aldermen to protect themselves against frivolous lawsuits caused in the batle of future
elections is the root cause for this ineptitude, and only hurts the city and us as residents.

This is a primo example as to why we need to move to a city managerial form of government, and put a stop to such ineptitude that has been holding the city back.

Are you talking about hiring a city manager, or moving to council/manager form of government?

You are right though, this is just them trying to CYA in case it happens to them.