Municipal elections this fall

I can't wait for the two elections. Sasso this year and Houston the next!

Has anyone heard who might be running?

I am totally with you. Both are idiots!!!

You have got to kidding?! Here you are venting online and I wonder have you contacted either one of them to let them know why you feel they are idiots? I do not see you sitting up on the bench. Put your name on the ballot and run this year instead of whining about it. It is a very hard job.

Still pissing and moaning ,You would be a good city council person. Most idiots just sit and complain.

Yep, if I'm a idiot, I've got what it takes. Maybe I will throw my nappy head in the ring.

You are not an idiot. Just misinformed, misguided and uneducated about the issues.

Get Real wrote:

You are not an idiot. Just misinformed, misguided and uneducated about the issues.

I think misguided is be a good way to describe some of our councilmembers, not members of the public. I think we see more than councilmembers realize.

It seems to me there are block votes based on personalities and not on the issues. That is "misguided". It makes me feel there is something going behind the scenes when when this happens. I sometimes get the impression there is no respect for the maturity and business experience two councilmembers bring to the table.

By the way, who is minding the money? Why is Mr. Jones making so much money? I never got a raise based on my overtime. It was on my base pay. Did Ms. Coty say other employees are making more than approved in the budget? How did that happen? Guess the mayor lets the city manager do what he wants.

Man, I hope someone runs in November that will put the needs of the citizens and community above there misguided attempts to govern.

I find it awful suspect that Ms. Jabaley wants the liquor ordinance changed. She is in violation now by owning and holding 2 liquor licenses within the city limits. The city should shut one down so they follow their own rules.

Ms. Jabaley wants the Admin Committee to recommend to the full council that the ordinance be changed to meet the state's liquor ordinance. That is awful convenient for her...then should will not be in violation. There are MANY ordinances that need to be changed NOT just this ONE and the citizens need to take note that she is doing this for her own benefit. Plain and simple...that is awful shady if you ask me.

Maybe their needs to be an ordinance too against long haired dirty looking pizza man and up in your crack drawers pizza woman. Sounds good to me.

FYI wrote:

I find it awful suspect that Ms. Jabaley wants the liquor ordinance changed. She is in violation now by owning and holding 2 liquor licenses within the city limits. The city should shut one down so they follow their own rules.
Ms. Jabaley wants the Admin Committee to recommend to the full council that the ordinance be changed to meet the state's liquor ordinance. That is awful convenient for her...then should will not be in violation. There are MANY ordinances that need to be changed NOT just this ONE and the citizens need to take note that she is doing this for her own benefit. Plain and simple...that is awful shady if you ask me.

It may be self serving. However, I see no reason why our liquor ordinance should not be the same as the state's. Ours is rather punitive. She made the right move by asking to refer the question to the Administrative Committee for recommendation. Keep in mind two members of that committee are also members of the "Gang of Three". The question may very well die there.

Keep in mind these liquor stores generate money for the city.

That is correct...they do generate business and taxes for the city. However, she should not be the one bringing it to committee since she is the only true one that benefits from it.

By the way...there is no "Gang of Three".

No "Gang of Three". Right! What planet are you from??

FYI wrote:

That is correct...they do generate business and taxes for the city. However, she should not be the one bringing it to committee since she is the only true one that benefits from it.
By the way...there is no "Gang of Three".

I am sure Ms. Jabaley would have preferred that another member of the council take the lead on this issue. However, no one did. She can hardly be blamed for their inaction.

Maybe you have a more descriptive name for the number of 3 to 2 votes made by the council members since the last election.

Rambo,

I'm sure Ms. Jabaley would have preferred this issue brought up by someone else considering she is in violation of the ordinance. I'm not saying I agree with the ordinance, but I find it hypocritical for a person to accuse others of not following rules when they don't. I'm sure there are many ordinances that don't make any sense or are outdated and have been for years. They all need to be looked at and changed where necessary. I just take issue at someone trying to use their postion as a public official to change an ordianance when it's outcome directly affects them. That is plain as day conflict of interest. That is one reason that I'm oppossed to any business owner holding public office at any level of government.

Obvious wrote:

Rambo,
I'm sure Ms. Jabaley would have preferred this issue brought up by someone else considering she is in violation of the ordinance. I'm not saying I agree with the ordinance, but I find it hypocritical for a person to accuse others of not following rules when they don't. I'm sure there are many ordinances that don't make any sense or are outdated and have been for years. They all need to be looked at and changed where necessary. I just take issue at someone trying to use their postion as a public official to change an ordianance when it's outcome directly affects them. That is plain as day conflict of interest. That is one reason that I'm oppossed to any business owner holding public office at any level of government.

Well, I call it being proactive. Keep in mind Ms. Jabaley can not participate in or vote on this issue because it would be a conflict of interest. Furthermore, she did not bring a motion to the floor on amending the Ordinance, simply a motion to refer to the Administrative Committee. In my mind she faced the issue streight on. It will certainly be interesting to see how (at least two) members of the council vote. I will be very surprised if they vote to amend...which will speak volumes.

Proactive only because of self preservation. Don't get me wrong, I like Ms. Jabaley and think the ordinance should be changed. Just don't think the proactiveness would be there if her competitor was in the same boat.

Rambo wrote:

<quoted text> Well, I call it being proactive. Keep in mind Ms. Jabaley can not participate in or vote on this issue because it would be a conflict of interest. Furthermore, she did not bring a motion to the floor on amending the Ordinance, simply a motion to refer to the Administrative Committee. In my mind she faced the issue streight on. It will certainly be interesting to see how (at least two) members of the council vote. I will be very surprised if they vote to amend...which will speak volumes.

Roach-chelle, Roach-chelle, Roach-chelle!

Still working for the better of I instead of we...

Roach-chelle, Roach-chelle, Roach-chelle!

Still working for the betterment of I instead of we...

I have heard that one of the local sidewalk citizens has said he is going to run for one of the council seats. Just what we need , another person wanting to be out for theirselves instead of what is best for the town and citizens.Maybe we should hold an election where the people choose who would be best running and then ask those people to run for the seats. Instead of individuals picking theirselves to run. Sometimes we have had very poor choices to choose from especially the last elections and it has showed.