Showing posts with label CITY COUNCIL. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CITY COUNCIL. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Lord Save Us From Passive Agressive Politicians

[Updated March 19, 2012, with corrections]

We’re sorry, but we just had to get this off our chests. 

On February 15th, a piece of city council legislation was passed that was one of the worst pieces of legislation we've ever seen.  A councilman (a politician) authored (or was it council president's idea) a piece of legislation under the guise of accountability that looked to be essentially passive aggressive at its core.

The legislation appeared to be targeted at  1 present, and 2 former council members (politicians) who missed the last public council meeting of 2011, … one member who was stuck in traffic or whatever, the others who had given prior notice that they were not going to be at that council meeting because of an important Democratic function. 


There was one other council member missing; however, we think the 3 were the main targets, though we've been told there are some who aren't fond of the other missing council person (and we really don't know if he had said previously that he would not be there).


Anyway, there was no addendum for the meeting,  there were no committee reports, and  of the 7 department reports, 2 of the department reports were to wish everyone a nice holiday;  while most of the other department reports were not an emergency, and didn't need the presence of the missing council members. 


[Big Hint] The 3 people, by the way, had been endorsed by the Democratic Party (in last year’s election) while the others (except for two at the local level) weren’t.


At that last 2011 meeting,  one of the pieces of legislation the council president, and several others wanted  to vote on, was a union contract (collective bargaining agreement) where we noted (in a previous post) … allowed police union members to continue to pay only $20 individual / $40 family a month for their health insurance (that included dental and vision).    Anyway, council needed a quorum to pass the minutes;  and also, due to a lack of a quorum, several pieces of legislation (mainly involving police collective bargaining agreements) were not read or passed. 

This city has 1  or possibly two African American police officers/patrolmen out of about 40,  in a city of about 70% African Americans.

The council president (a politician) at that last 2011 meeting, publicly scolded those 3 people, and the other (in grandstanding style) for not showing up (as if it had never been done before, though one of those she scolded, had only missed [we believe] that one meeting her entire 2 yr term), and the mayor (a politician) in council caucus, etc went on and on about them being sore losers, etc (because two of those same people did not win in last year’s elections).  We think some other words that came out of the mayor’s mouth were  get over it” (you lost).

That last 2011 public council meeting …  well, … seems members of council (politicians) met later on and passed the damn thing (and most of the other things they wanted to vote on) anyway. 

Now get this … what this piece of legislation (at the Feb 15th public council meeting) boiled down to was … if you don’t let us ( council president, or  council secretary) know you are going to miss a council meeting, we’re going to fine you.  [However, … if you get sick, or a relative dies, or for a myriad of other acceptable, arbitrary reasons, you don’t show up without prior notice, … you won’t get fined.]

Didn’t the mayor (last year) do an almost last minute endorsement of a person (a politician) who had been very ill, and could very well have missed many meetings in 2012?  [Oh, … and that mayor endorsed, elected individual, … well, (and this is not funny, or meant to be a “dig”) he died about a month after the November 2011 election, causing all kinds of problems for his district's residents.]   So give us a break.

These members of council (politicians) apparently go to a bunch of closed door meetings all year long.   Suggestion:  Inform and open up all meetings to the public, and have 1 official public council meeting a month (since they all pretty much know how the other is going to vote anyway, and you could save on electricity.)

Instead of all that passive aggressive bullshit legislation, the councilman could have said (one of a number of possible scenarios), "Look, ... I'm pissed off because the Democratic Party endorsed them and not me ... And damn it, we needed a bunch of council members at our last public council meeting in December, so I and a bunch of other politicians (who may or may not have read the union contract) could have "kissed ass" and voted yes, on that collective bargaining agreement, etc. ... and not mess up our Christmas holidays".

Three things we’re tired of, … passive aggressive politicians, passive aggressive (worthless) legislation, and (although we love our unions) police unions who may have bullied their employers with contracts that could potentially cause financial burden on a city (current or further down the road).  The police unions know their members will be the last to be laid off. 

If there is one group of public employees that shouldn’t have a union … it’s the police.  Their leadership can put anything they want into a union contract, … and, who in their right mind would vote “no” on most of the important things (to the union) in that contract … knowing the police could show up at your or your relative’s door, or put you six feet under, or plant false evidence, or throw you in jail, or give you a ticket … and, you’d be almost powerless to do anything about it.   

What's comical ...  even though Republicans hate unions, a lot of union  members lean toward the Republican Pary ... certainly the FOP is conservative leaning (to their credit, they give to good causes).  We'll let you figure out why Republicans tolerate police unions.

Though most police are just doing their job, don’t tell us you have no fear of the police … Don’t tell us you don’t think about abuse of police power.  A big humongous suggestion:  Make sure your city has a civilian review board.

And … while we give a pat on the back to most public employees, ... we’re still watching all you politicians, and a host of other potentially dangerous public employees, ... and most, if not all, large corporations.

[To be further edited, with possible corrections if necessary]

Saturday, January 28, 2012

What the Hell is Going On at City Hall?

Just so you know where we’re coming from:

Ever since a politician decided to tear his African American opponent (in last year’s mayoral race), to shreds in public (and calling her a criminal), we decided to take our focus off national politics, and zero in on a local political scene.  

Please do read our headline … part of which says “we’re progressive, political, controversial, provocative, thought-provoking  ...”   We also “connect the dots” when other folks won’t.

If you’ve been following us for years, you know that Clevelands Secret Club members are predominantly African American.  It now appears that a local politician (and/or his supporters) set his/their sights on finding out just who our members are, and taking close aim at who they think are the members.  It also appears that this politician or politicians (and/or their supporters) took aim, and/or are now taking aim at the African American women who were endorsed by the CC and local Democratic Party, and/or are taking aim at those who stood by his opponent.

The one thing we won’t tolerate is intimidation or being harassed by politicians (elected officials), because (to us) harassment means that the politician, and/or politicians (and/or supporters) doing the harassment, have something to hide, and/or are extremely dangerous and vindictive. 

Especially be leery of any politician who tries to bully people; and politicians who try to intimidate people with threats of lawsuits against them.

Our club has always been critical and leery of politicians, as is most of the worldThese politicians have made the decision to become public servants, and so they’ve opened themselves up (and rightly so) to public scrutiny.  If they don’t like the public scrutiny, then they probably should leave public office.

Outside sources told us, that an African American former councilwoman had two police officers show up at her home to demand that she give them two keys to city hall (?).  Now, correct us if we’re wrong, but we believe that every council member gets one key to city hall(?).  And why was it necessary to have police officers show up at her home, when (we were told) she called ahead of time, and told them she was going to city hall to drop off her key.  This same former councilwoman’s son was beaten before the elections; and then after last year’s elections (she ran for council president) her home was burglarized. 

We don’t know if all these things are just coincidental, or related to the elections, and/or her former position; however, we won't tolerate having her and her family victimized, and we will be paying close attention to all public employees  that may be responsible.  We (their employers) have given them tremendous power over our lives, and all of us should be extremely watchful of what they do

Our suggestion, again, to every resident in any local municipality ... make sure you  have a civilian review board, and report any suspicious activity by politicians and/or police, to federal authorities.  Intimidation is what unscrupulous people use to get what they want, and in  this day and age, there is a plethora of unscrupulous and dangerous people.

Addendum:
Word to the wise.  If after you've criticized a politician, or a member of law enforcement, or some law enforcement agency, ... and police start driving by your house at all times of the day and/or night (and you've never encountered this kind of thing before),  jot down that cars tags and anything else that will help authorities identify who the culprits are.  If you get audited for taxes, or something having to do with a government agency and it happens within a month or two, or three, etc. of the time you've criticized that politician or member of law enforcement or law enforcement agency, you need to contact your lawyer a.s.a.p., your friends, your family, your congress person, the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and anyone else you can think of.  Definitely keep your friends close, because they may go after them too, and a pattern of behavior can be documented.  If you feel you're being followed, turn into a side street to see if they continue following you.

If you contacted that offending law enforcement agency about a prior matter unrelated to your critique of them ... they may see that as a vulnerability and they may prey on that vulnerability.
 

Be aware that GPS devices like cell phones and smart cars can pretty much locate you at any time and any place if you are in the same vicinity as devices and cars w GPS installed.  Because there are a host of unscrupulous politicians, etc.,  get some exercise and start walking w/o these devices, etc. around (smile).  Sorry if that sounded a bit paranoid (again, smile)   


Helpful:  Install some good mobile security software on your cell phone 


Also be aware that these unscrupulous people have no problem with bugging your car, your home, etc. ... and may even use these and other spy tactics under the guise of homeland security (which will allow them to use the local police or GPS tracking or bugging your property).   



Don't let them worry you ... just keep a  journal, and note anything that seems suspicious.  You can't remember everything, so write it down, and have back-up copies online just in case your home is burglarized.  [You may think this is funny; however, if it happens to you in the future, you'll thank us.]

Again, the most important thing is to keep good records and don't keep silent.  Put them on the defensive.  It's a shame, and while most public employees are good people, all it takes are a few bad apples to ruin an entire profession (as we've seen in the past and present).

It would be great if the offending politicians/agencies/departments clean house.

Thursday, December 29, 2011

Who Does John Montello, Law Director for the City of Maple Heights Really Work For?

It's beginning to be a mystery to us as to who John Montello (Maple Heights Law Director) actually works for; considering that the taxpayers of Maple Heights (his employer) pay his salary.  [Remember, this was Mayor Jeffrey Lansky's choice for law director]  He recently put out a legal opinion regarding what he deems a vacancy in city council with the death of Richard Taylor, who just recently won the seat of council person in district 5.  Mr. Taylor who had been ill for quite awhile, never was sworn into office.  

District 5 residents are now becoming aware of Mr. Taylor's passing, and where that leaves them in regards to representation.

NEWS FLASH ... according to the law director, it appears the residents of Maple Heights (district 5) will have literally nothing to say about who will represent them for the next .. what?.. 2 years?.

Is this the attorney who helped negotiate a collective bargaining agreement with the police union, where it looks like police officers in Maple Heights would still only be paying $20 individual/ $40 family for their monthly health insurance premiums (dental and vision care are included in that small premium they are paying)?

In case you forgot what Maple Heights residents are dealing with financially and racially, see our other posts regarding Maple Heights.

Will the law director try to confuse or intimidate the residents of district 5 with legal minutia. (Well,  ... in our "non-legal" opinion, haven't his actions already done that)?   

Regardless of what the law director puts out, it's just his legal opinion (emphasis on "opinion").  Only district 5 residents matter here.  They have to live with the consequences of his actions, and the actions of the Mayor of Maple Heights and Maple Heights City Council.  

What's important is... are the actions [of Maple Heights City Council, and the city law director] ... unconstitutional?  Do their actions violate district 5 residents civil and political rights (constitutional rights) regardless of what's in the city charter?  

Come to think of it, .... are sections of Maple Heights City Charter unconstitutional; or is the whole charter unconstitutional? [Update: Gee Mr. Mayor, have you no sense of humor - lighten up.  Also, just who do you think wrote this post? Do you have ESP or do you have spies lurking around?  Careful, you might be letting the "cat out of the bag".]

What's definitely not funny in any way, shape, or form ... is that this law director, and this city council appear to be using Maple Heights resident's money (yes, that includes the residents of district 5), to disenfranchise them.  We'll say it again, ... use his employer's money to disenfranchise his employers.  Unbelievable!

Bear with us (cause we just thought of this) ... Did this law director go looking (digging) for (1924) case law  ... that (in effect) resulted in the residents of district 5 (his employers) being stripped of their right to vote for their own representative in council? 
-
The employees of Maple Heights government need to tread lightly ... cause their employers (the residents of district 5) are getting very upset.

Let's look at three wiki articles regarding voting rights:

    Under Jurisdictional Differences/United States, paragraph 2
        (note paragraph 5, in Montello's legal opinion - appears to be targeting one individual in particular 
         (but also targets 1 particular group) in that paragraph - this opens up a "whole can of worms".
         Interesting what Ron Paul says about our military and court system (and he's not wrong about that,
         though we don't like his views about the Civil Rights Act of 1964)

    15th Amendment

    Voting Rights Act of 1965

   
    Interesting Wiki article (1) Interesting Wiki article regarding segregation in Ohio (2)
        [The leadership (where the power rests) in Maple Heights is predominantly white -  actually, the heads of almost every department are white - most  high salaried positions are held by whites (who may or may not live in Maple Heights); Maple Heights District 5 is predominantly African American, and 70+% of Maple Heights population are non-white]

History of Maple Heights (population, etc)


Addendum: The use of the 1924 case law by this law director, could be construed by members of council, as an act of intimidation ... that if they do not go along with the leadership and majority rule, they could find their seats declared vacant too.


THE LEGAL OPINION  (CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO VIEW):