Ordinance threatens citizens' constitutional rights, page 2

reply to post by ThaLoccster

Thanks for posting the comment. There are always two sides to every story. This comment is from the original site the OP posted. reman - 7/23/2011 10:15 AM

I have lived in Gould for 1 1/2 years and don't know as much as those who have read the paper and seen the tv news, but there are 2 sides to every story as I have been told. The city council did wrong in passing the ordinance but they are going to resind the orddinance. They were trying to take care of a problem and went about it the wrong way. The poor mayor is the same one who controlled the city council meetings by only allowing the agenda to be made by himself and when the council found out they could control the agenda the mayor would just say that the meeting was over and leave. Once again it was learned that the mayor did not have the power to dismiss the city council meeting since it was not his meeting in the first place. The council definitely did the wrong thing trying to overcome a problem. This same citizens advisory council is not necessarily made up of Gould citizens. I don't guess they told you that some of these same members have a history of 80 tickets, one of these was for fleeing arrest at 100 mph. One of these others has a history of passing hot checks. Probally the one that seems to belong to one of the most vocal has several tickets for having tickets for using stolen plates, no insurance, no driver's license. You ask why this ordinance was passed, you need to know more about the indivuals. I could tell you about the mayor yelling at a state representive, or how he bullied the treasurer. This same city council was upset when the city's gasoline bill was $1500 for a 3 week peroid, Gould is less than 2 mile square. When the police chief's car was asked to be left in Gould, the next day the car engine locked up. There are lots more similar situations and some even worse. Take time to do some research and not just accept what the little the news gives you.

I'm not sure exactly what to make of this. It sounds like the mayor is being power hungry and childish in the meetings. It sounds like the council is trying to battle corruption, but yet at the same time having corruption in the council itself.

Your posted comment about the group the council wants disbanded sounds like this is a corrupt council. This group that has done so much good is the most likely to find out all the skeletons in the council's closet. I'm not going to question the tickets, gasoline bill, or the locked up engine.

I am going to question the mayor's action about leaving the meetings early, and yelling at a state representative. My question is what was on the agenda that made the mayor want to close the meeting early? Was it an honest concern of the council, or was it the council trying to bully something like this ordinance through whether the ordinance is just plain stupidity or unconstitutional? Exactly why was he yelling at the state rep?

Those things need to be answered before making judgment on the mayor's actions.

With this ordinance the council tried to pass speaks volumes about the council itself. It really makes them look like they are manipulative, overbearing, power hungry mini-government. Now they are back peddling their story to save their skins. I hate to tell that they will not be able to get away with at the local level what Congress can get away with at the federal level.

There are more people watching at the local level, and willing to get involved because it is in their back yards. Sometimes I think people perceive what happens at the local level has more of an impact on them than what happens at the federal level. Not to mention it is much easier to keep track of things at the local level.