Attention

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent our advertisers

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Hypocrisy, You Be The Judge




Laura Mitchell's petition drive efforts against the charter amendment (to have the city attorney who drafts the laws report to the council members who make the laws, crazy idea, I know) are being well promoted by the Daily Times, unlike the position they took against the late Bob Caldwell's nearly-successful petition drive against the charter amendment to hike city taxes by double-digits.

Here's what's puzzling me, folks, and I welcome your thoughts on it. Since Mitchell can't make a good logical argument against the substance of the charter amendment on the city attorney (IMHO), she's really been pumping this "decision made in haste" mantra, even though the amendment got discussed, with each and every single member of the council having the opportunity to make their view known right there on TV. Members of the audience gave comment and the reading of Jim Ireton's letter against it was given the last word.

Mitchell has even compared this situation to the health insurance charter amendment where Louise Smith, Gary Comegys and Shanie Shields held a special meeting in the middle of the day with less than 24-hour public notice so they could get the amendment to take effect a couple days before the new council would be sworn in (and after the election).

Louise Smith, you will recall I'm sure, also passed the tax-hike charter amendment Barrie Tilghman wanted without having really read the proposed budget first.

Although Mitchell spoke against the Smith-Comegys-Shields haste and method on the health insurance amendment earlier this year, she wasn't so worried about that haste or the public's rights that she ran a petition drive. She didn't do anything about the tax-hike amendment either, didn't even sign the Bob Caldwell's petition in 2007, as far as I know, to protest on the same lofty principles.

Yet here Laura Mitchell is, teamed up with the same Louise Smith who oversaw passage of two hasty (truly hasty, not just sort-of-quickly, imho) charter amendments, in order to collect signatures on a referendum petition because she says the amendment was done in "haste."

Therefore, I just wanted to ask you, the reading public, if you think these actions by Laura Mitchell seem hypocritical to you or not? I can't wait to read your thoughts.




New Posts to fall below.

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

She hasn't a clue about Jack!

She's running a petition drive to deny herself access to the city attorney! That's how stupid she is, she just does what she is told by her puppet masters who probably told her a lie, that she could be the next mayor lol

Tell me again why the law creating body should have unlimited access to the city attorney? ROFLMAO

That question is so simple, even a caveman could understand that. No offense Bubba.

Anonymous said...

L & M is a known troublemaker from her past, just like Mayor Jim-beau.

Anonymous said...

Yea, they are all pretty hypocritical, they say how broke they are but they got money for expensive attorneys and city managers and fancy lunches and brand new a.c.s...

Anonymous said...

I know seriously 11:23 why wouldn't Mitchell want the same access to the city attorney as the mayor has? Makes no sense.
She's using the haste excuse since there is no sensible explanation to explain her petition.
They talk about hasty decisions and then want to hurry up and approve the Walmart security thing without even having the knowledge if the documents are in order and signed by someone legally allowed to sign it.

Anonymous said...

When Laura was running for office she made a statement that voters hoped she was not another Louise...well look in the mirror. You cant think for yourself, you take guidance from others who have their own adgenda. Laura you were voted into office to represent the taxpayers NOT to follow others...Think for yourself

Anonymous said...

she ran on the platform of cooperation and reconciliation on the council. she stated they should all work together to better the city. this petition sure doesnt look like togetherness to me . thanks sjd

Anonymous said...

I tried to tell everyone not to vote for her. I know who she is lined up with and who is telling her what to say. She makes no decision on anything without being told. She has no clue on what she says or does since she's not making the decisions. I hope when her time is up everyone will remember what this woman is like and who tells her what to do. She's as much of a joke as the so called Mayor is. I refuse to call him Mayor Ireton. I call him Jimbo because he acts just like a child when things don't go his way. If you think you've seen his fits just talk to his brother-in-law Bob. I wouldn't want to be at the table on Thanksgiving with those two. They don't agree on anything Jimbo says and does.

My Word Verfication is Tartlet. Perfect for both her and him.

Anonymous said...

When's the deadline for signatures? Everyone I know is getting tired of hiding from them and going out of their way to avoid them. They're becoming nuisances.

Anonymous said...

Nuts dont fall far from the trees.

Anonymous said...

You'all voted them in. why the crying?
you'all voted obama. you got it.

Anonymous said...

Is this a survey question?

Then my answer is YES !!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

You are comingling ordinances, resolutions and charter. Then you throw in the different enterprise funds. The questions do not fit in the same mold The question being asked is not correct. Get informed.

Anonymous said...

The 19th is the deadline for signatures, isn't it?

Anonymous said...

3;17, who are you talking to?

Anonymous said...

What difference does "comingling" the terms make 3:17? Aren't they all a type of action taken by a governing body thereby fitting "in the same mold?"
You can wax poetic all you want but it doesn't fool the masses.

Anonymous said...

dear editor,
why are all you bloggers cut from the same cloth? you are whiny, arrogant, self-centered, self-gratifying morons. you cannot write something without it being sharply pointed at who you deem "an enemy". most of the time, this enemy has done nothing to you specifically. you feel that if they dont do as you wish, they are intentionally making decisions or doing things "just to tick you off". amazingly enough, the world doesnt revolve around you. their are others out here that feel your enemy (whomever that may be) is doing wonderfully. even when they dont do as we (the people) wish, we can understand that not every decision will go our way. however, if it becomes habit, we simply vote them out.
since your particular enemies have yet to be voted out, maybe that says more about you than them.

signed,
rolling my eyes at you.

Anonymous said...

Oh Geez, as I'm rolling my eyes at 9:10's comment.
Why is it that our "enemies" can not seem to strike back with a valid argument as to why we are wrong?
Please explain to us why we are "morons", 9:10? I see nothing moronic about someone questioning why this is the only issue Mitchell is worried about being done in haste when alot of other council decisons were done in haste.