This is one of those issues where it seems people are taking sides without knowing all the facts. Personally, I have more questions than answers on this one. That said, if it is true that Sam insisted that it cost the city $30,000 to replace some RapidRide brochures that were out of date even after he knew that was not the case, then it's reasonable to suggest that he not do things like that again, don't you think?Being a watchdog is one thing. Playing "gotcha" and disrupting the workflow of city government for no particularly good reason is another. What's not clear to me even after all this discussion is: which is it?
Sam heard from what he thought were reliable sources that the tossed paper cost $30k. He asked for documentation and got it. The documentation suggested that the tossed paper was worth considerably less. At that point, he thanked the provider for the documentation.I don't think he "insisted that it cost the city $30,000 to replace some RapidRide brochures that were out of date even after he knew that was not the case."The question is, "Why do other Council members and some city employees think Sam's questions are so out of line?"
It is my impression that Sam continued to claim (at least once) that the amount was $30k even after he knew better. The veracity of that claim would be the crux of the matter, wouldn't it?
Bill,He NEVER claimed anything. He said the people who spoke to him insisted on the higher number. Ellis refused to give him a number, so he asked for the invoice, which was provided, sort of.This is a witch hunt, Bill and there is no other name for it. I have read every one of the so-called 1000 pages of emails.There was NO HARRASSMENT.
So the language of the Resolution of Censure is false? Someone is lying about what Sam said?
Ah, Bill, you're getting the picture, I think.
Ok, Bob, I'll bite. So who's the liar?
The whole thing is a lie, Bill. It is an effort to convince Kooiker to not run for re-election. Who is lying? Who knows?!The email record the city was so reluctant to make public shows clearly that there was NO HARRASSMENT.I'm so distrustful now that I don't even believe the complaint was Rich Sagen's idea anymore.This really was a backroom deal to smear Kooiker. I can't be anything else.The language in the resolution is spun. The language that says Kooiker "knew or should have known," is baloney. He STILL doesn't know what the truth is, because nobody at city hall will release the truth.Anybody who thinks this is about a complaint from Rich Sagen, is naive. This is about smearing a good man's good name right before he is to take out petitions for re-election.Hadcock, Hanks, Chapman and LaCroix have all made it clear that it would be much easier for the city to do the city's business secretly if they could just get Kooiker off the council.So they've trumped up this smear campaign, to publicly "punish" an alderman for doing what his constituents elected him to do. You've been around long enough, Bill, to know a smear campaign when you see one. That the public and several attorneys agree that there's no basis for the censure, just indicates to me that the effort backfired.
Pretty heavy charges, Mike. Question for you. If they (members of the Council, the investigative attorney and some city employees) are found to be lying about this, do you think they should be censored?
They should resign.
Censored and censured are two different things. And, no, I do not believe they should be censured. I do not believe the city council has the right to censure anyone, including those who are behind this witch hunt.I believe the voters will take care of them, just fine. Also, if the voting public is angry enough over it, recall petitions can be taken out. And, based on what I'm hearing from some of Kooiker's constituents, some of those petitions are being drafted.If Mr. Sagan was pressured to file the complaint, I believe his punishment should be up to his superior, which in this case is Robert Ellis, whom I also belive was pressured, based on his comments in the Journal.
I'm just touchy in general, Bill. This Kooiker thing caught me off guard. The more I research it, the more disgusted I become with it, and the more it looks like conspiracy.I've never had a beef with the ACLU. I have some fuzzy memories of them getting involved in some peculiar issues in the past, but for the most part, I believe in them and think they do a good thing for our country.ACLU is probably not Sibby's favorite bunch of folks. And, law enforcement in general, are not fond of them, I've found.
Yes, of course, censured, not censored. Interesting viewpoint, Mike. I'm not really big on conspiracy theories, but I suppose anything's possible. Time will tell huh? Keep digging, dude.
Post a Comment