"This can't be expressed any more plainly"
Perhaps not Mayor Purzner,
but it could certainly be expressed
much more accurately.
but it could certainly be expressed
much more accurately.
Now the Mayor has chosen to call into question Councilman Schneider and whether or not he is a good Marine on her website (is there any wonder why so many do not wish this site to be linked to the City of Overland in any way?). I find this both offensive and a bit ironic. Unlike Mayor Ann Purzner, Councilman Schneider has not claimed to have experience, titles, degrees or licenses that he did not earn. To attempt to discredit his service to this country simply because he does not agree with the Mayor's political opinion is beneath contempt.
The current catch phrase of Mayor Purzner, Councilman Knode, Councilman Owensby and others has been to suggest that Councilman May, Councilman O'Connell, Councilman Corcoran, and Councilman Schneider have consistently voted to:
DENY THE RIGHTS OF FULL & FAIR
REPRESENTATION TO ALL OVERLAND RESIDENTS
REPRESENTATION TO ALL OVERLAND RESIDENTS
It is true that these Councilman have voted consistently against the appointment of George Blonden (AKA George Otterman) to the vacant seat in Ward 3. However, the Mayor and her supporting Council members consistently fail to point out the reason for this.
Councilman May pointed out months ago that he could not vote for George Blonden at that time because he had no information about the man, his qualifications, or his experience. Councilman May also stated that he had not been given an opportunity to speak to the gentleman as well. With no information about George Blonden it seems reasonable that these Council members would vote against his appointment. I would expect all honorable elected officials would do the same, in regard to any appointment.
The Mayor has chosen to consistently re-nominate George Blonden, knowing that his nomination would not pass because she has yet to make any effort to inform the Council about George Blonden's background, qualifications, etc. The Mayor asked the community for applications from residents of Ward 3 to fill the vacant seat. She has received several applications, and has also heard from several more volunteers during residents comments at past Council meetings. However, the Mayor continues to attempt to appoint the same person whom she knows the majority of the Council will not vote for, ignoring all other volunteers and ignoring the Council's repeated requests for more information about this man.
What does the Mayor have to say about why she will not appoint any of those residents who applied or volunteered to fill that seat at her request? Good question. To the best of our knowledge not one person who wrote to the Mayor at her request about filling the vacant seat in Ward 3 has heard back from the Mayor (feel free to email me if you know of someone who has been contacted by the Mayor concerning their offer to fill that seat).
If the Mayor wants to lay blame on someone for the fact that the vacant seat in Ward 3 remains vacant she need only look into the mirror. She is the one who:
- apparently refuses to consider any other applicants
- apparently refuses to give the Council more information
- chose not to vacate that seat when she ran for Mayor
If she would consider other applicants, the seat might be filled. If she would simply provide more information about George Blonden to the City Council and allow them to meet with and speak to the man, the seat might be filled. If she acted like a responsible public official, and vacated her seat when she chose to run for Mayor, that seat would have been filled at the last election (instead she chose to hold on to it, probably because she was not completely confident that she would win the election).
So, who is it that is responsible for:
DENYING THE RIGHTS OF FULL & FAIR
REPRESENTATION TO ALL OVERLAND RESIDENTS
REPRESENTATION TO ALL OVERLAND RESIDENTS
That would be Mayor Ann Purzner.
As for questioning someone's actions as a politician vs. their service in the US Military, I would like to remind the Mayor that all of us who actually served out country in uniform did so by first swearing an oath:
I, _______________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm)that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
We swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. That also means that we swore to uphold the laws of our land. We swore to do so against all enemies both foreign and domestic. That means that we swore to defend of country from all those who would violate her laws. Ask veterans how they feel about the Mayor's frequent attempts to violate Overland Ordinances, State Statutes, and other Laws, including her attempts to violate residents Constitutional right of free speech. If you take the time, I think you will find that the vast majority will respond by saying they did not risk their lives for their country so that elected officials like Mayor Ann Purzner could ignore the laws and rules that govern her job.
Mayor Purzner, it is time for an honest dialog about the vacant seat in Ward 3 and a honest attempt to fill that seat. The question is, are you capable of this?
Please take a moment and contact the Mayor, asking if she is ever going to make an honest effort to fill the vacant seat in Ward 3 instead of purposely keeping it vacant to try to use that vacancy for political gain.
Mayor Ann Purzner
City Hall: Phone: (314) 428-4321
Fax: (314) 428-3515
Mayor's Home phone and address
Email: mayorpurzner@overlandmo.org
City Hall: Phone: (314) 428-4321
Fax: (314) 428-3515
Mayor's Home phone and address
Email: mayorpurzner@overlandmo.org
Perhaps if the Mayor starts to hear from enough Residents of Overland she will start listening to us more than outside interests.
I would like the thank Councilman Schneider for his service to our country in uniform, and his continued service to this community as a Councilman of Ward 4. Honorable people are easy to recognize. They are the ones willing to discuss specifics, and not hide behind sound bites, and misrepresentations of facts.
posted by Overland Sailor @ 10:49 AM 
89 comments
Post Permalink
links to this post
89 Comments:
Overland,
Thank you, a wonderful post.
Thank you OverlandSailor for the great post.
Mayor Purzner's website is a disgrace to all Service Men and Women. The Mayor's website is absolutely disgusting. To down grade Mr. Schneider's duty as a Marine is darn right shameful. For Purzner to make fun of Mr. Schneider's Marine Corps hat, is horrible. Mr. Schneider has a right to wear his hat proud!!!!!
-June 12th, 2006-
Councilman Corcoran
[Councilman Corcoran] ...The reason we are not approving your appointments, everybody up here knows that.... so I'm just going to state the obvious......we're not going to appoint anybody that you bring to us ”NOT BASED ON THE PERSON” your bringing us... inaudible)... ...IT'S A FACT! ,.. I'm not ashamed to say it...
What someone said at the height of frustration when dealing with a Mayor who at the time refused to listen to the opinions of others, reason, or even the law, is hardly a slam dunk case. Remember, is was Councilman Owensby who screamed at the residents in attendance at the July 10th 2006 Council meeting. His statement about not caring what the residents think was also made at a moment of high frustration. As such, I choose not to hold it against him. Our Councilmen are human, sometimes the err.
What I would like to see would be a response from the Mayor or her supporters that actually speaks to why she has chosen not to provide the Council with more information on Mr. Blonden and why she has chosen not to consider any other applicants. A reasonable discussion that actually deals with the problems at hand would be appreciated.
Look at it this way, if the Mayor was to choose to make an effort here she would be on slightly better ground when attempting to argue that the reason we do not have a 2nd Councilman in Ward 3 is the fault of her rivals, rather than herself.
The issue of what Councilman Corcoran said in the past has little or no bearing on what the Mayor has chosen not to do in the past as well as the present.
So, is anyone willing to address the issue of why the Mayor has yet to provide the Council with any information on George Blonden? Or will it just be more sound bites and misdirection tactics?
Anonymous,
Glad to see you're back, what happened to you after you corrected me then I correctrd you.
I at least admitted I was wrong, it would be nice of you do to the same.
Overland Sailor:
My father was a Marine in WW2, My father-in law is a Marine from the Korean War, My brother was in 82nd Airborne and one of my youngest cousins was just deployed to Iraq on Sunday, and I am a member of the Ladies Auxiliary of the VFW Post 3944. We are a large family from Overland, a community who has a strong, rich and proud tradition andmiration and respect for veterans.
Maybe the Mayor should go to the American Legion and see our pride, go to Ritenour High School and see the MIA/POW Veterans Memorial for those who gave their lives for this country, and go to the VFW on Midland to see our Plaques of Courage and Honor and the table set aside in the hall for our MIA's.
We are appauled by the hap hazzard and unpatriotic comments made by the Mayor on her website and we want her personal website removed from our official local government website.
Ann Purzner is a pathetic, feeble minded, uneducated, ignorant, ineffectual, leader who is a consumate liar. She stole this election by fraud and deceit, by lying about her qualifications, credentials and degrees. She is a disgrace to this community and should spare us anymore embarrassment and submit her resignation immediately.
What's up with this George Blondin going by another name: "aka George Otterman"?
One might surmise, from mayor purzner's failure to give more information about Blondin, that the mayor knows little about the man himself.
After all mayor purzner tried to appoint an attorney whose name she was unable to state with any semblance of accuracy.
Mayor Purzner’s link to her website most definitely should be removed from the Overland City’s official website. Her back handed comment/insult to the United States Marine Corps is blasphemous. Purzner has done nothing but cut down the residents of Overland, the Councilmen who will not go along with her shenanigans and now she is making fun of the Marine Corps in a back handed way, on HER website.
Has anybody ever heard back from Purzner, when they have voiced their displeasure with her wretched posts on her website? She just continues to get more and more disgusting with her comments.
Semper Fi, will the VFW put together a letter of sorts to send the Mayor in regard to your displeasure of her website postings? Your post was very well written, Semper Fi, thank you for your input.
I thought it spelled it out pretty clearly.
"It is the business of the U. S. MARINES to PROTECT and DEFEND our rights, NOT TO DENY OUR RIGHTS !!!
This Councilman Schneider has gone off the deep end by denying me and my neighbors all of our my rights.
If he was a good marine he should be saluted for his service. But this is NOT HOW DECENT PEOPLE conduct themselves. Very small minded to deny others their rights and then hide under the Marine corps to cover his butt.
He does not think like any proud Marine I know or have known.
Who the hell does he think he is?
Who made this guy and his little buddies KING?
I dont know of anybody who wants to have their rights denied, do you?
Really what would CHESTY have to say about a marine acting like this guy?
anonymous,
It is obvious you are taking the half truths of the Mayor's site as gospel. That is not very savvy on your part. What the Mayor fails to post is that she keeps nominating this Blonden guy over and over again. The Councilmen know nothing about this Blonden guy and either do the citizen's of Overland. Mr. Schneider is being very wise as to not blindly vote for Blonden, when he knows nothing about this guy. People have submitted their desire to fill the ward 3 seat, yet the Mayor refuses to acknowledge them. Why can't the Mayor present all those that are interested in filling the vacant seat to the Councilmen, so they can all collectivly decide who would be best? Why can't the people of Ward 3 have a say in this? Shouldn't the Ward 3 citizens know who may fill the seat? I would like to know something about the person representing me. I live in Ward 3 and would like to know. I don't trust the Mayor just appointing somebody. Her past behavior, shows she is not trustworthy. She lied about being an RN, she has a phoney diploma from Maryville University....need I say more?
Do you know anything about this Bloden guy, anonymous? Or are you just following blindly?
You are being insulting to Mr. Schneider, without cause or anything to back up your insults. You are just puppeting the voice of the Mayor, without just facts. You too are down grading a Marine without cause.....how very very sad.
About the Corcoran quote:
I've heard the audio clip and it sounds like mr. corcoran was not ashamed to say what he said and and that he felt very comfortable speaking for his other councilmen too and I dont recall hearing any of them distancing themselves from his statements. Sounds to me like all of those councilmenn are singing the same tune.
If they dont like the mayor that's ok, but dont act like kids about everyting. they act like spoiled brats who when they dont get their way they run home to mommy while taking the baseball with them.
really disgusting for grown men to act this way. i hope it does not turn out to be something more devious.
www.stltoday.com/.../news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/4B5857DC40DAAC86862571F70009680E?OpenDocument - 31k -
Check out the above link anonymous. Would you trust an appointment from the Mayor after reading this? This is just a drop in the bucket. How about the Mayor's disregard for the laws and statues?
When you talk about the childish behavior of the Councilmen, are you including Owensby's rants and walkouts? Knodes rants and walkouts?
Talk about spoiled brats taking their ball and going home, who were the first council people to walk out of a meeting? Purzner, Owensby, etc.
For some reason the link got cut off. I have copied and posted the article.
Nurses' group responds to Purzner's claim
By Norm Parish
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
09/28/2006
OVERLAND
A state nursing association wants to crack down on people falsely posing as nurses. The group says it is acting in response to Overland Mayor Ann Purzner's improper claims that she is a nurse.
The Missouri Nurses Association will probably ask the state Legislature early next year to pass a bill allowing penalties for someone who falsely claims to be a nurse even if the person is not practicing as a nurse, said Glen Jett, president of the association. The group represents about 1,700 registered nurses.
It is a Class B misdemeanor to make such false claims, association officials said. But it is hard to prosecute people who violate the law but aren't currently practicing as a nurse, Jett said.Advertisement
"Our group is just looking for the best method to handle these types of problems," said Jett, whose organization released a statement last week criticizing people who falsely claim to be nurses. "Mayor Purzner is certainly the catalyst who has brought this problem to the forefront."
In May, the Post-Dispatch reported that in 2002 the state ordered Purzner to stop referring to herself as a nurse, but she didn't.
Purzner, who retired from the Overland Medical Center in 2000, identified herself as a nurse on her campaign website and in a candidate biography provided to the Post-Dispatch and published in March.
But the state Board of Nursing concluded that Purzner was not certified as a nurse and that she never had attended Maryville University, despite her claims that she did.
Purzner said she would not comment on the controversy.
The association's criticism of Purzner comes as a citizens' group plans to launch a recall effort next month against the mayor.
The Citizens of Overland for Good Government wants Purzner removed over failed attempts to fire the police chief and her difficulties running City Council meetings.
Just earlier this month, the council ended a meeting before it could conduct any business over a dispute about how many residents would be allowed to speak.
Purzner, who has been mayor since April, said she would step down if she was recalled. She said she believed most residents wanted to keep her in office.
madamm,
regarding "You are being insulting to Mr. Schneider
concerning any disrespect to Mr. Schneider,
considering his conduct and votes,
seriously with no disrespect intended,
i would most respectfully suggest you need to start hanging around with a better class of Marines.
over and out.
anonymous, (Sir or Madam)
I would be proud to stand up for Mr. Schneider's service for our Country. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Mr. Schneider's behavior at all. Mr. Schneider is a proud Marine, and rightfully so.
I would question the company YOU keep and defend; they are liars and law breakers. No thank you, YOU can have them.
TO: Anonymous, or whomever is of the opinions that Glenn Corcoran and Michael Schneider are out of bounds, you're more than welcome to review the context from which the matters were taken.
Mr. Corcoran was stating a fact that the mayor may choose to deny. This mayor is batting .1000 when it comes to mismanaging her tasks. This mayor does NOT want "full and fair representation" in Ward 3.
She took a vow when sworn in "to faithfully demean myself", EVERY time she was elected into office. Now as mayor she is NOT in the least bit demeaning herself, much less faithfully doing so. She is placing her ulterior motives in the forefront of every move she makes.
Not only that: she takes deliberate and conscious steps to circumvent proper government channels, such that she has been sued countless times in her first five months at this job.
To some, Mr. Corcoran's candid statement may sound crude but it was rather merciful. Did this mayor build from this input?
Anonymous, the material on the mayor's website is so biased and unbalanced as to be completely deceptive to the untrained observer. I went to see her trial in Clayton, and was amazed at how unrealistic, biased, simplistic, hateful and small-minded ms purzner and her allies have become.
Anonymous, -with all due respect - you could count yourself fortunate if you were passed over to testify on ms purzner's behalf. Your "premises" would be pulverised if they were ever to see the light of day.
A closer look reveals that it is ms purzner who is refusing to conduct her affairs as she is paid to do. Her accusation that the MAJORITY of the council is in error is incredibly meritless.
Anon, let's hear more of your thoughts, but please distinguish yourself from others by voluntarily creating a unique moniker.
We'd get noplace if we all had the same name. I once had to deal with a penny-ante street gang in the 3rd district of St. Louis back when crack cocaine was newer. All the gang called each other "mike". When I wanted a laugh, I'd just holler "HEY MIKE"!! and all the fools heads would turn and see I'd just been messing with them.
I find the argument that Councilman Schneider is somehow not a good Marine because of his votes on the appointments to the Ward 3 vacant seat ridiculous at best.
Councilman Schneider, has an obligation to vote for or against various measures as he feels will best serve the City. He and others on the Council have stated repeatedly that they cannot support Mr. George Blonden as they know nothing about the man. That seems like a pretty reasonable position.
Can anyone here say that Mr. George Blonden (under any of the names he has used in the past) has any education or experience that would show him to be capable of serving as a Council member? I cannot say he does or he does not. That is just it, the Mayor has chosen not to provide ANY information about the man and why he would make a good addition to the Council.
The Mayor continues to refuse to provide any information about this man. That is a choice she is making, as is her choice not to nominate anyone other than Mr. Blonden despite the fact that Mr. Blonden's nomination has failed repeatedly.
So what is Councilman Schneider standing for? He is standing against appointing an unknown to the Council. This is a very reasonable position and one I would have supported should it have been raised by any of the Mayor's supporters on the Council back when the previous administration was in office. It is not a matter of what political side you are on, it is a simple matter of common sense.
If the Mayor would at least present a simple resume from Mr. Blonden then at least she could say she has tried to work with Council on this issue. Instead, she chooses to act in a way that prevents filling the Ward 3 seat, and then tries to turn reasonable opposition into political gain. Her attempt to commandeer the honorable reputation of the Marine Corps for her own political gain is a disgrace, pure and simple.
When the Mayor decides to actually take her attempt to appoint Mr. Blonden seriously, and present the gentleman's credentials to the City Council for review, then perhaps we can have a reasonable debate as to whether or not the man is qualified, and whether or not he should be appointed.
All I know about him thus far is that he has gone by at least 1 different name in the past, and he has driving restrictions that would require he be given a ride to evening Council meetings. Neither of these things would be enough to oppose him if he was qualified for the position. However, we have no idea if he is qualified or not because the Mayor has chosen to not to give our elected officials any information about the gentleman. As a result, I am forced to wonder what might be in his past that she is afraid of. What is so bad in his background that she is afraid to present any information about him?
The core issue here is that the Mayor, knowing that the Majority of the Council will not vote in favor of Mr. Blonden without information about him, continues to attempt to re-appoint him, without discussion and without providing any information to the Council. She has not attempted to resolve the issue raised by the Majority of the Council as their reason for not voting for this appointment, and she has not attempted to nominate anyone else. The Mayor repeats the same failed attempt over and over again, getting the same failure as a result and them tries to blame the Majority of the Council for this failure. That is simply ridiculous.
If you as an elected official do not have the majority of the votes needed to pass a measure then the only way they can successfully pass it is by attempting to work with others on the Council to find a compromise so that they might get the needed votes. The easiest step to take towards that end in this case would be to provide a resume from Mr. Blonden for the Council to consider. The Mayor apparently will not even take that most basic step. Name me any other job where the decision makers do not expect at least a resume, if not an interview or two before considering an applicant?
one question about this Blodin guy and what the councilmen dont know about him
do any of the councilmen who don't know anything about him,ah,
know how to use a telephone?
(besides Corcoran of course)
its been a long time since april or whenever he was nominated. just get his number and call him if you really care. i bet they did'nt even try.
i really don't think the guys who say they dont know enough about him are being honest when they say thats the reason they wont vote him in. again, I hope its not something more devious.
was'nt there some other gal they rejected too? appletree, applebutter, applesome or something like that?
why did they not like her?
I hope this whole thing is not something more devious.
Anon,
You dare bring the word TRUTH into this, first start with asking the mayor, knode, sellers & owensby how much they know about telling the truth.
Just go back and check out the mayors OWN website, oops they mistook over 10% our trash is going up for now they're claiming 4+%. Only after it was proven that they were lying.
Go back to I'M THE MAYOR, or better yet I'M NO LEADER, her words not mine.
thanks for setting me straight
but really, what was their reason at the time for rejecting the apple gal?
wasn't she a person that everybody pretty much knew and has served a # of prev admins?
You will have to enlighten me on this "Apple Girl". There was a young lady who offered to fill the seat during resident comments at a recent meeting, but the Mayor never acted to appoint her and as a result no vote was called for. Other then that I am not sure who you might be referring to. The only votes called to fill the vacant seat that I am aware of were all for Mr. Blonden. If I am mistaken I hope you can enlighten me with some specifics.
As to why have they might not have called the man. Well to start with, you would need the phone number. Secondly, I return to my previous question: Why has he not provided a simple resume if he wants the job? Would you suggested to any other employer that they contact a person they do not know anything about and request a resume for them to consider this person for employment?
The bottom line is that the Council made one request of the Mayor. They asked for more information on the man. The Mayor and Mr. Blonden, for unknown reasons has refused to act on that request. As a result, reasonable people are left wonder what they have to hide.
If you want this man to be considered try calling the Mayor and asking her to put Mr. Blonden in touch with all the Council members and/or send them his resume. At least then the Mayor will have made a legitimate effort to make this appointment's approval possible.
A simple request like a resume does not seem unreasonable. Blaming the Councilmen for the Mayor and Mr. Blonden's failure to provide one however, is quite ridiculous.
Anon, I, and others on this message board, merely have our own insights as outsiders, where an insider might be somebody who worked in city hall, the courts or OPD, or had kin that did.
To answer the question we all would like to know: who was the Applebee lady? The Mayor told us but a few things, but far, far from anything of meaningful insight.
A ward resident campaigning for a job paying $6,000 per year for two years typically runs through a gauntlet of applying for candicacy, learning the laws of campaign finance, and deciding whether or not to form a campaign committee, and name its treasurer, and opens a campaign bank account.
Then said candidate prepares for and appears at debates to be quizzed by the League of Women Voters posing questions submitted by attendees, likely submits position papers to the media for free exposure, takes out perodical print ads costing hundreds of dollars each, spends hundreds more on yard signs, and yet hundreds more on handouts, mailers, address labels and postage. An Overland ward campaign often costs around a thousand dollars. Help from family and friends is invisible and immeasurable, but can be critical.
A few change their mind halfway through.
THEN: the most effective campaign tool, -by far- however, is "face time": knocking on doors, for months on end, introducing ones self, and saying a few things about the campaign, and maybe getting permission to plant a yard sign in March.
All that for a mere CHANCE at at getting enough votes.
As to the first W3 Name, I don't recall a person suggested for ward three appearing and being introduced. I've attended or taped about all the council meetings over the last three or four years, and have lived here about ten. I'm far from an insider. Still, seeing the meetings in person, over the years, gives the audience a sense of who is interested in seeing Overland improve or grow.
Mr Blondin sat in the front row one meeting unintroduced. He did say one useless thing. He'd do "What the people wanted done". (Oh?) Otherwise he has not shown any personal interest in serving the public as far as I know.
Anon... so how else would an ELECTED official respond to a SINGLE Mystery Name being given, with NO BACKGROUND DATA?
I submit they had no choice but to turn him down.
The appointment issue comes down to 2 basic questions.
Would anyone hire someone they did not know without any information about that person, not even a resume or an interview?
Would anyone consider someone who chooses to hire someone they do not know, without even a resume or an interview to be a good hiring executive?
If your answer to both or either of these questions is yes, then I would love to hear the reasoning behind those answers.
While I am only an outsider looking in, how is the Mayor's personal website, that is inflammatory to her opponents, to say the least, still be linked to the official town of Overland website?
Bruce, thats a very relevant question.
Honestly, there's no legitimate reason. This mayor has been trying to stop payments from being made to legitimate payees, while demanding that unauthorized payments be issued to unapproved recipients.
Chances are this mayor is telling people what to do, and how to do things, enough that they daren't cross her and risk having their paycheck unsigned.
There was a tropical nation in the 1970's where bilharzia was so rampant that 70% of the citizens were afflicted with it. Also called schistosoma, it messes with one's mind. It may have explained the behaviour of Idi Amin, whose unrealistic demeanor may have been a result of this river-borne disease in Uganda.
Frankly we've elected a mayor with severe lapses of judgement. I pray that she retires soon voluntarily.
thanks i found that last response interesting.
sorry but that diversionary argument stuff really does not hold water among serious analysis. i really do have more respect for you than that.
they could easily the mayor for his # if they were not sharp enought to find it themselves.
so could you if you were really interested.
you see, this blather really does not hold up among serious reflection.
if as you say our fair councilmen were as honest and as serious as you would have believe about getting to know the guy and they think the BLONDEN guy or
the APPLE GAL -sorry- then why
wouldn't they just call them.
is it that they really do not
know how to use a telephone?
or is this just their ongoing canard you have invested in help them in their attempt to hide behind their own intended ignorance?
by the way, i found out her name
was MRS. BEVERLY APPLBY and she
was denied the position on
April 24th, 2006 without
comment or response by
the 4 same guys who have voted
every time to deny filling the open council seat.
i really do think Corcoran
knew what he was talking about
and that we all caught him
telling the truth....
-June 12th, 2006-
Councilman Corcoran
[Councilman Corcoran]
...The reason we are not approving
your appointments, everybody up
here knows that.... so I'm just
going to state the obvious...
...we're not going to appoint
anybody that you bring to
us ”NOT BASED ON THE PERSON”
your bringing us...
[Councilman Corcoran]
...IT'S A FACT! ...
I'm not ashamed to say it...
Oh, and by the way
i'm starting two lists:
SPECIAL LIST #1
can anybody give me the name
of anybody who wants their
rights DENIED to themselves?
and
SPECIAL LIST #2
can anybody give me the names of any God blessie vereran of any service that has or is willing to fight to DENY basic rights to their fellow citizens? I sure dont know of any?
I expect these lists to be very very short.
and if i recall right i thought
this whole rights to fair
representation thing is what the
60's and the civil rights
battles were all about, but
i might be wrong about that.
Perhaps I'll need to go call
somebody in the KKK or one
of their favorite attorney's
about that stuff.
if i can find a telephone #
opps.
i mis-spelled "God Blessed Veteran". my aplogies, please forgive the opps. certainly no disrespected intended. never.
additionally,
both of my lists are still active and empty.
I'm sorry I didn't get to hear Mr. Corcoran at the June council meeting. I was part of the 50+ people standing on the sidewalk outside of city hall that evening. The mayor had locked us out of the meeting. She denied my right as a resident of Overland and Missouri to attend a public meeting. It required a court order before the mayor would obey a state law.
shame you missed it.
here is the important part of what he said.
-June 12th, 2006-
Councilman Corcoran
[Councilman Corcoran]
...The reason we are not approving
your appointments, everybody up
here knows that.... so I'm just
going to state the obvious...
...we're not going to appoint
anybody that you bring to
us ”NOT BASED ON THE PERSON”
your bringing us...
[Councilman Corcoran]
...IT'S A FACT! ...
I'm not ashamed to say it...
try this link if you dare to care.
http://www.annpurzner.com/Welcome/Contact_Us/library/647.mp3
by the way my special ists are still open but empty.
I hate how this thing truncates.
here is the link if you dare to care.
http://www.annpurzner.com/
Welcome/Contact_Us/
library/1436.mp3
Links to propaganda websites are one thing. But would you care to actually answer the questions asked?
Heres a reminder:
The appointment issue comes down to 2 basic questions.
Would anyone hire someone they did not know without any information about that person, not even a resume or an interview?
Would anyone consider someone who chooses to hire someone they do not know, without even a resume or an interview to be a good hiring executive?
If your answer to both or either of these questions is yes, then I would love to hear the reasoning behind those answers.
To: Unknown Poster, quoted as follows:
"This Councilman Schneider has gone off the deep end by denying me and my neighbors all of our my rights."
[Oct 6, 2006, 8:00am]
Mr. Schneider has not denied you the right to learn both sides of any story. If you waive that right then you are the only one you can blame.
Mr. Schneider is not authorized to provide something the Mayor has not offered.
Mayor purzner has not offered Ward 3 their Basic Rights to "FULL and FAIR REPRESENTATION" as of yet.
Ward 3 has been offered Biased and Unbalanced Representation.
Mayor purzner has offered Ward 3 the ONLY CHOICE of what SHE WANTS THEM to have.
Overland Sailor,
Do you know how to find out or where to look if an attorney has been disbarred?
Heard something very interesting and would like to check it out before I say anything.
again, i really don't think you can blame this on the mayor. i wouldn't suggest wrapping fish in something that thin.
but really, what was their reason at the time for rejecting the apple gal?
wasn't she a person that everybody pretty much knew as respectable and honest and had served a # of different prev admins over many years? that's what i heard.
i still think Corcoran was telling the truth. he is probable sorry he got caught in a truth but to date he has not retracted it has he?
i think you need to tell a lie to retract a truth don't you?
i do know of one reason the two candidates have been found unfit to serve Overland.
both of them have been FOUND GUILTY OF A CRIME.
CONSPIRACY TO HOLD AND DISTRIBUTE ANY PERSONAL OPINIONS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE FOUR LITTLE PRINCES. THE TRIAL WAS HELD IN A DARK BACK ROOM AS A SECRET COURT.
SHOCKING!
there was no evidence.
there were no charges,
there was not testimony,
there were no witnesses
if you disagree with the tactics of this SECRET COURT, go get some evidence before you so quickly discard and diminish people without cause. remember, this is still America and before you condem folks you're supposed to have some evidence or at least SOMETHING. and the personal courtesy to allow people to have their own opinions.
secret back room trials,
isn't that another one of those little things that the Marines have fought to protect us from too? that and to protect us from anybody denying us our basic rights, as i recall.
my special lists are still open and empty.
thanks for all of your opinions and the like. while i really do respect your right to your opinions i feel you are running cover and diversions for the 4 little princes.
i really don't believe the 4 little princes are being straight about their reasons to deny a person to fill that seat and to deny representation.
what again were their reasons for objecting to the apple gal? this seems to be an hard question to answer.
i really need to worry about what i say here and what i dare think or i may see you later in the secret court!
remember to vote.
we still get to do THAT don't we? or has the secret court, well you know.
I can see it now if any of the four in the majority would contact Blondin or Applyby/Applebee. Owensby and Knode would be at the next meeting screaming about how they were "Harassing their nominee with phone calls." Or, better yet, there would be another literary gem put on our doors by the next evening.
The truth: You can't win with the ORT.
Ann did not provide any legitimate information for either of her nominees. If/when she wants to provide information then this whole debate would have legitimacy.
In the meantime, if The Queen continues to appoint stealth nominees and not provide any legitimate information on her nominees, the whole debate is irrelevant. Irrelevant because any votes taken are done with lack of information.
Sailor, You have made a good point.
So, perhaps the better debate question is:
Why are the ORT just checking off on the mayor's nominees when she has refused to provide the entire council with legitimate information about such nominees?
Is this not a deriliction of duties on the part of Owensby, Sellers, and Knode?
anonymous,
Your questions were answered a number of times on this board. You choose not to comprehend what is being said, you only puppet the propaganda, the Mayor posts on her website. Sad to see you don't have your own thoughts on the matter. It reminds me of the pat answers the Mayor and her 3 Councilmen always squawk....."we can't do that until the general budget is passed" and "you are being denied full and fair representation" ......YAWN ! Does anybody that supports the ORT have an original thought or answer? You all sound like a broken record.
The Councilmen should not have to hunt down this candidate to fill the Ward 3 seat, they should be presented with a proper resume, so they can look at ALL the applications then decide. I wouldn't trust somebody the Mayor tries to appoint, she is a known liar and is not trustworthy. Purzner has lied about being an RN and having a diploma from Maryville University, those are very profound lies. Not to mention Purzner breaks the law every chance she gets. She has no regard for laws and statues. Why do you blindly trust a law breaker and liar? I find it odd that people,like you, uphold liars and law breakers, unless you are cut from the same cloth.
thanks for the replies.
but again why did they reject the apple gal?
everybody seemed to know her well from her many many years of service through a number of different administrations.
why? please tell me why so that i may be as informed as you.
what was her crime.
You Keep asking why they rejected the "Apple Girl". As we are just residents and not part of the some conspiracy (which I believe only exists in your head) we do not have that answer. However, the Mayor choose not to pursue this person and instead decided to attempt to appoint Mr. Blonden at every opportunity. Maybe you should ask the Mayor what was wrong with this "Apple Girl" that the Mayor chose not to pursue her appointment.
You also consistently ignore the questions posed to you in regard to Mr. Blonden. Why is it you are more interested in someone even the Mayor has chosen not to continue to attempt to appoint then the person she consistently has tried to appoint since, apparently with no consideration given to anyone one else.
Again, here are the Questions you refuse to answer. Your silence on them speaks volumes about you whether you realize that or not:
Would anyone hire someone they did not know without any information about that person, not even a resume or an interview?
Would anyone consider someone who chooses to hire someone they do not know, without even a resume or an interview to be a good hiring executive?
If your answer to both or either of these questions is yes, then I would love to hear the reasoning behind those answers.
Here's some additional ones for you:
Why did the Mayor reject every applicant that sent her their information when she asked residents of Ward 3 interested in the vacant see to contact her?
Why is it perfectly OK to you that the Mayor choose her appointments based on her personal preferences but not OK with you when the Majority of the Council chooses to vote on those appointments based on their own personal preferences?
You double standard is quite obvious. The bottom line is that our government is still run by Majority rule. The Mayor, knowing that she does not have the votes to successfully appoint Mr. Blonden arrogantly continues to try without making a single effort to convince the Council to vote for him. She has not provide any information about him, she has not scheduled any meetings with him, she has not asked him to speak at any Council meetings. I have only seen Mr. Blonden at one Council meeting. Apparently he doesn't take his own appointment seriously because he does not bother to show up at Council meetings. Of course, that might be simply because he could not find a ride, who knows.
When you decide to seriously consider the questions above, then perhaps we can have a serious discussion about this issue. Until them, I tire of your Kool-Aid Tirades.
thank you for your comments.
yes, you have laid out some very interesting questions alright. Clearly you've put a lot of effort and energy into your questions.
but, good logical questions are like a good building. it requires a solid foundation.
lets have what you clearly consider a reasonable, fair and honest arbiter of intentions be the judge,
whattayousay?
lets have one of the four princes answer to the signifigance and substance of your questions and the strength of their foundations.
-June 12th, 2006-
Councilman Corcoran
[Councilman Corcoran]
...The reason we are not approving
your appointments, everybody up
here knows that.... so I'm just
going to state the obvious...
...we're not going to appoint
ANYBODY that you bring to
us ”NOT BASED ON THE PERSON”
your bringing us...
[Councilman Corcoran]
...IT'S A FACT! ...
I'm not ashamed to say it...
Mr. Corcoran has delivered the ONLY ANSWER of significance I can offer to your posed questions that is based in hard realities as established by his very own words. While you may try to dance on the head of a pin, his position on the matter of full representation and any fair consideration of any person to fill the open council seat is very clear. It is too late to unring this bell.
I'm sorry but the very premise of your questions are flawed as they require that you go OUT OF YOUR WAY to intentionally ignore Mr. Corcoran's very own words and his very own acts. I suppose this really has become a burden.
sorry to keep bringing him up like this BUT YOU ALWAYS SEEM TO FORGET!
we have now traveled a complete loop on a road of logic. This expedition bores me now. Thanks for the trip and for all of the predicable views along the way.
and to close,
why exactly DID ALL OF THEM reject the "apple gal" anyway?
EVERYBODY knew her?
I believe that WAS in fact the problem.
Au revoir
So, lets be real then shall we? You have made it very clear that you have no intention on answering the questions presented to you, or intelligently discussing the issues at hand. Your only intent seems to be to repeat the same non-answers over and over again. It reminds me of how my 5 year old acts when she does not want to admit to something she did wrong.
For your review:
Would anyone hire someone they did not know without any information about that person, not even a resume or an interview?
Would anyone consider someone who chooses to hire someone they do not know, without even a resume or an interview to be a good hiring executive?
Neither of those questions are specific to the situations facing Overland. They are general questions about the general situation. Their intent is to facilitate a discussion about what would be considered reasonable requirements to enable someone to be considered for a job. Your choice not to answer them speaks volumes about you. It is clear, that you do not wish to have an intelligent or reasonable discussion.
One last thing. This blog's purpose is to deal in facts, and discuss issues. It is not here for others to post their SPAM over and over. I am a pretty lenient host but I do not allow SPAM. future instances will be deleted. There are already plenty of sites on the Internet for such propaganda. Also, you could always start your own.
Please only comment here if your intent is to add to the discussion. Of course to add to the discussion would require an honest attempt to "discuss". Adults talk about issues. Children repeat the same thing over and over again in the flawed hope that they will eventually get their way. In the end, they usually get the exact opposite.
Next Relevant Question:
If spam senders can be blocked, can contributors under "anonymous" be labeled from your place?
Giving nameless persons a handle would avoid undue confusion.
Single-character ID's would be great for slow typists.
Mistakes all the way around town. The problems is new to council. Post all day & nite, no solution until April.
I know some reason some of the people who want the empty council seat were not acceptable, I don't want to be sued. I don't want to have to prove some of the facts, which are true, but better left alone. No win situation.
In my eyes right now the only people who would accept this job is crazy. I wouldn't want to be the deciding vote on putting someone out of a job, or cutting salaries.
Mayor should have given up her seat on the council is correct 100%. No matter who would be appointed they couldn't do right by one side or the other. Before it was a 4/4 vote, Former Mayor breaking the tie, that was in some eyes the right thing, and wrong in others.
I want an ordinance saying: You must give up your council seat if you run for Mayor. Think about it, we would not be in this mess right now. I challenge any person on the council to bring this up, if they want to bring peace to the city so this never happens again, they should do this.
This mess has brought me to a point that I did not want to ever happen in my life time. I'm ASHAMED to say that I have let some of these people get to me to the point I felt I could only hate, maybe too strong, but dislike a person I never have met . Not
worth it.
I think your Ordinance idea is a good one. There is no reason to put the City in this position in the future. If you're on the Council and you want to run for Mayor, you should vacate your seat. We would not want the seat vacant because of a run for Mayor though. Perhaps the Ordinance could be written so that the persons seat would have to be added to the ballot of the same election as the Mayor, regardless of if that seat would have been up for election that year or not. The person holding that seat who chose to run for Mayor would then be restricted from running for that or any other Council seat at the same time as their run for Mayor.
does your 5 year old know
why exactly ALL OF THEM rejected the "apple gal"?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Did the mayor provide any creditentials for your so called "Apple gal"? If not, please stop repeating yourself!
I think your Ordinance idea is a good one. There is no reason to put the City in this position in the future. If you're on the Council and you want to run for Mayor, you should vacate your seat. We would not want the seat vacant because of a run for Mayor though. Hry you guys want your cake and eat it too. Ots okay if the Mayors people resign their seat but god forbid if any of the Herman 4 do.
Even My 5 year Old knows how to delete useless SPAM. Be advised, future comment re-runs will be deleted as they are not worth the space. Feel free to actually add to the discussion if you are capable of doing so. I would prefer an adult discussion to this continued repeat of a question that has been answered (is so much as we do not know the answer).
My question to you though is:
Why did the Mayor decide not to continue to try to appoint this person?
The Mayor decided to move on from that appointment to her repeated attempts to appoint Mr. Blonden while provided no information about the man. Maybe you should ask the Mayor why she rejected the lady you are referring too.
What the heck are you talking about with the Ordinance suggestion?
I suggested a ordinance for someone to vacate their seat if they run for Mayor. However, if we require that they immediately vacate the seat once they decide to run for the Mayor's seat we will be stuck with having to fill that seat either through appointment or a special election. This is not necessary.
I suggest that such an ordinance require that if a sitting Council Member enters the race for Mayor, their seat on the Council must be added to the ballot whether it would normally have been up for election or not. I am also suggesting that they not be allowed to run for both that seat and the Mayor's seat.
This way, we avoid a vacancy, as well as the cost of a special election, while still allowing the voters to choose the replacement.
Instead of raving about something, why not simply ask for clarification?
December through January is the window of opportunity to sign on as a candidate, for Mayor or a ward seat. Were a councilman halfway through its term to run for mayor, the announcement could be as early as months ahead or at the last moment.
Such an ordinance is smart. A lot of what-if scenarious need to be considered, but I can't see any cause to refrain from drafting such an ordinance.
You can't run for two seats in the same body at the same time however if you are a councilman whose term is not expired you can keep your seat and run for Mayor which is is ecaxtly what the Mayor did. City ordinances don't trump state and federal laws. Numerous seated reps and senators seek higher office while maintaining there current seat. A proposed ordinance like this would be DOA just like the soon to be recall. They won't have the money to pull it off and the lawsuits will be forthcoming and many.
You may be right about state Law or Statute when it comes to the proposed Ordinance. However, I am not aware of one that would create such a problem. Could you point us to the Law(s) or Statute(s) in question?
As for the recall effort. I find it interesting that you suggest it will fail because they will not have the funding for the Court battle and not because they will not have enough signatures. I guess even the Mayor's supporters feel there are more then enough registered voters in Overland that want a return to elected officials following the laws that govern their positions and who are ready and waiting to sign the recall petitions.
ANONYMOUS #5
In answer to your question John, as to why this lady is not a consideration for the ward three seat, this is only speculation, maybe she doesn't want the job anymore after what has been going on at the meetings, she might not want people bringing up personal things about her or her family.
I did hear the comment about "we will never approve anyone you bring here" not exact words.
If what anonymous is saying is true, then it's a dumb ordinance. So the council person whose term is up on the odd year (the year the Mayor has to run) has to give up his seat, maybe what MBC did, ran and lost and no seat to go back to? This is not fair to the other council person.
NO, No, No, John your good at checking things out, why not see if this is legal to change our ordinance? Others here are welcome to do so also.
Another answer to one of your questions. I was hired to manage a business, never meet the owner, never worked in that field before, I never had a resume and my interview was the day I started to work. If I had a business would I do something like this, never in a lifetime.
No Third or Fourth class City should go through what we are going through.
Look at the horrible meetings we have, residents hating residents, yelling at each other at making fun of one another, the Mayor needing a police escort to her car, this isn't good at all
When someone says as "fact" that something conflicts with Law(s) or Statute(s), they should provide the information on the specific Law(s) or Statute(s) in question themselves. That is of course, only if they want what they have to say to be taken seriously. The Mayor's supporters on the Council love to say this is legal and that is illegal but they nearly never provide a reference to the Law(s) or Statute(s) in question, which is why thinking people rarely take them seriously.
So, you were hired without any interview, resume, or experience. My guess, is that someone working there that the owner respected or someone close to the owner that they trusted recommended you. If the owner choose to operate a business like that then so be it. But you then say you would never do the same, which I take to mean you think that is a bad approach, I agree. Based on that I assume you agree with the Council members currently voting against Mr. Blonden, in that a resume and a meeting with him is needed before they can approve his appointment. A reasonable requirement, don't you agree?
As for the Mayor needing a police escort to her car, that's her paranoia, in reality it is completely unnecessary. When it comes to residents yelling at each other in the parking lot, I agree it is wrong, and I really wish the Mayor's supporters would stop being so mean and insulting to people simply because they disagree politically. I also wish those who oppose the Mayor would stop rising to the bait, and simply ignore the childish insults and threats. However this is all likely to change soon anyway. Inciting people to angry statements only makes good video for the ORT when they have editorial control over the only video sources. They no longer do.
You're right of course. No City should have to go through what we are going through. Which is one of the many reasons why there are those who have decided a recall is necessary. Their only mistake in my opinion is limiting their recall effort to the Mayor.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
anonymous,
Again you just give sound bites from the Mayor's site. The 1436.mp3 sound bite is Owensby spewing. I don't trust that forger. He is dishonest. Did that sound bite of Owensby come from the "Order of the Mayor"? LOL
I wouldn't want to appoint anybody Owensby or Purzner try appointing. They are both liars and dishonest.
One of the above claimed to be an RN with a counterfeit diploma from Maryville University, and one sent out letters claiming them to be by the, Order of the Mayor....forgery. Voting for somebody either one of the above suggest, would be like accepting a cup of Kool-Aid from Jimmy Jones
I thought I made it clear that all future incidents of SPAM on this site would be deleted.
However, one of the "Anonymous" posters must not have understood that.
So this time I will type it real slow so they can keep up.
Any further comments that do not add to the conversation and only serve to advertise a product, service, website, etc will be deleted.
I hope that is plain enough. I would hate to have to try to explain this simple concept in simpler terms. Limiting myself to one syllable words would be difficult. However, if that is the only way to communicate with some, then that is what I will do.
re-"I want an ordinance saying: You must give up your council seat if you run for Mayor."
why would you ever even consider establishing any ordinance to limit or deny peoples opportunities or rights to participate in their government?
Sailor, we need people like you to run for office. Why don't YOU RUN for office. You have a lot of great ideas!
ANONYOUS #5
In answer to anonymous: I guess your question was to OS, but why get the City in this turmoil again.
OS your right, that job was an emergency for the owner of the business. The job was offer to one of my children and he didn't want it so he told them I was looking for a job.
To my knowledge, I don't remember there being a time where a council seat had to be filled. It has always been up to the Mayor's choice in appointments and I assume they did some wheeling and dealing before hand.
So, is there even a procedure established in our ordinance book to cover this?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
In other words, Blonden's mind has been poisoned and brainwashed by the ORT. Provided those sound bites you believe, are in full and not taken out of context. Somebody placed in the ward 3 seat should be unbiased!!!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
What was in the packet presented to the councilmen? I know you are a confused person, but perhaps you know something nobody else does except the Mayor and her 3 yes men.
I was being a bit facetious in my earlier post about the brainwashing stuff. But sometimes many a true word said in jest. Again, I know you are confused and all but, if I were on the council, I would not vote in somebody liars and forger presented to the board. I would be extremely suspect of anybody they (ORT) try to bring in.....birds of a feather syndrome.
The four opposing Councilmen are being cautious. Very wise on their part.
The recall of the Mayor should take care of all these problems. Too bad her yes men won't be recalled too.
Now it appears the Mayor has threatened the employees about the consequences of signing a petition. Voter suppression just another federal lawsuit in the making.
Nice job ORT!!
You really get some great advice from???????????????
One added reason for deletion:
Purposefully misrepresenting my comments.
Nuff said.
Right on OVERLANDSAILOR!!!! Kudos to you Sailor, for ridding of that spam poster. The only real thing he said was "I'm confused". Which was very obvious.
Blue Moon, I hope these employees come forth. Even verbal threats are just cause. Those employees do not need to work under such conditions. The Mayor does not seem to take a hint, some people just need to get hit by a train to know it's coming I guess.
first i lost my dog.
then my mom lost her representation.
now i've lost my right to speak.
ouch.
anonymous,
You lost your right to spam this site with the Mayor's propaganda. If you would speak your own mind, that would have been fine. All you did was spam this site with sound bites (that were taken out of context from Council Meetings), from the Mayor's BS website. You could not put forth a constructive conversation.....nobody likes SPAM. I have SPAM blockers for my email, blogs should have the same feature. Overlandsailor chose to block your SPAM, which is his given right to do that, he is the owner of this site. BEGONE SPAMMER!!!!!!
Nobody lost their right to speak. They just didn't earn the privelege of having their messages published by failing to follow published rules.
(is "privelege" spelled ok?)
Does the commentor above believe that every letter to the editor gets printed?
As for your dog, I hope he or she comes home.
As for your mom, I hope your ward gets TWO fair, honest and unbiased councilmen, despite that woman's repeated failure to support ward 3's right to fair, honest and unbiased representation.
You never lost your "right to speak".
goto http://www.blogger.com/start and start your own blog.
On this blog, everyone starts out with the opportunity to speak, but it is up to them to take advantage of that opportunity in a constructive way.
As you can see from your most recent comment, you can still "speak" here. What you cannot do is abuse that opportunity with SPAM or childish tirades.
Odd as I seem to have been the ONLY DISSENTER on this blog.
By the way, my dog was hit by a trash truck. Vios con dias liberty.
The wealthiest man in the world Bill Gates was quoted as follows:
"our unhappiest customers offer the greatest learning experiences."
or something like that. Only one dissenter is not common. There are only a small number of posters contributing here to start with. On the other hand it may be a realistic ratio as a sample of the larger community.
Not only do the quantity of minds and voices matter, but the quality of their thoughts.
Zero dissenters would worry me.
I'm sure Liberty is at peace.
Actually you are not the only dissenter who posts here. Also, you are not the only poster who uses the Anonymous login.
However, one of the Anonymous posters has the distinction of being the only dissenter who has had their comments deleted. Previous dissenters made real attempts to discuss their differences and did not attempt to use the opportunity to comment here for SPAMming the readers.
I do not restrict comments based on which side of an issue someone might be one. Comments only end up deleted when they have no substance, make no effort to discuss the issue at hand, or are nothing but a SPAM advertisement for a website, product, service, etc.
This post is the first one to have comments deleted by me. That is because this post is the first one where someone chose to try to abuse the privilege. Perhaps someday they will find they are capable of participating in a reasonable, adult discussion. I look forward to that day, as I would prefer to see both sides of the issues debated intelligently.
As an out-of-state observer, I must agree with the tough decision to delete comments (never an easy decision) here. The Anonymous person in question leads with incredibly naive premises (childish really) like "Why doesn't someone call the candidate?" First of all, any information regarding a candidate should be publicly obtained in order to be qualified for public debate. Or "What about this other candidate? (who obviously has nor had little importance on the issue of a vacant seat). More shucking and jiving from Anon..
As an outsider, it's sad that Overland has such turmoil, but even sadder is the quality of those who misuse rhetoric (pathos, logos and ethos) to prop up the existing Mayor. Whoever you are Anon., you're not representing the Mayor in good light, and I hope she has more able spokespeople who can bring true discourse and debate to the issues. (really, get a grip, bringing up your dog and waving good-bye to liberty is an overblown use of pathetic pathos).
ok, you can feel free to delete the question again as the answers ARE self-evident.
====================
but what do you really think he really meant when the unbiased and high principled Mr. Corcoran responded?
->WHY DO YOU NOT LIKE THIS MAN?...
[Councilman Corcoran]
"Because he is on your team."
and
->we're not going to appoint anybody that you bring to us ”NOT BASED ON THE PERSON”
Remember to remember to ignore the damning elephant in the middle of the room. Everbody wants to apologize, give cover to and carry water for Mr. Corcoran and HIS VERY OWN WORDS. Why dont you ask Mr. Corcoran if he really meant his own words during one of your nice interview pieces? I'm sure he would like the opportunity to clear his reputation and clarify his meanings.
You can pretend these quotes did not happen, or as some have claimed, are taken completely out of contect.
But they did happen in the context presented and as such point in direct contradiction to all attempts to ignore such.
Childish, perhaps in the measure that any child can recognize the obvious meanings of his statements.
As ol' Liberty would often bark out
"illegitimus non carborundum"
(Liberty was one very talented canine.) Good bye again, Liberty.
Anon.,
RE: your previous comment, "context presented"
You presented none. I'd like to see the context. Can you present it?
I'm sure you think that your romp trough the Latin dictionary to find terms which make you look smart is working--it's not. Try looking up Affectation!
And, do you not see that when you make childish arguments, it's difficult for others to take you serious when you make adult ones.
Please comment again. Every time you do it lessens yours and the Mayors points.
Questions have been asked of you on this issue and you repeatedly ignore them. Then you suggest that people should not ignore yours. (sigh) Your question was not ignored, it was answered.
As I said before, I believe this is something that was said in anger that may not be what Councilman Corcoran actually believes or meant. I feel the same is likely true in regard to Councilman Owensby's comments at the July 10th meeting regarding not caring what the residents think.
Sometimes, in the heat of the moment people say things. I can give Councilman Owensby the benefit of the doubt when it comes to his statments, made when he was obviously angry, why is it you cannot do the same for Mr. Corcoran?
Now that I have re-answered your question, I will repreat my own to you, that you have yet to answer:
Why did the Mayor reject every applicant that sent her their information when she asked residents of Ward 3 interested in the vacant see to contact her?
Why is it perfectly OK to you that the Mayor choose her appointments based on her personal preferences but not OK with you when the Majority of the Council chooses to vote on those appointments based on their own personal preferences?
Do you have an actual answer to these questions, or you just going to go ignore them again? It is hard to take you seriously when you refuse to participate in an honest discussion.
anonymous,
Again I will answer.
The statement "because he is on your team" is exactly that. Obviously this person would just be another destructive "yes man" for the Mayor. This way Purzner could get a tie vote to pass the horrible General Budget, and have her personal bills paid for by the city!!!!! The Capital Improvement budget was passed just fine amongst the Council Members, because it was reasonable. However the General Budget is full of crap, no person in their right mind would pass that, or vote to pay Purzner's personal bills!!!!!
anonymous, there's no reason that we cannot learn from Mr. Corcorans honest statements. He did not speak in malice:
"We're not going to appoint anybody that you bring to us ”NOT BASED ON THE PERSON.”
Isn't it clear that the mayor and her methods are being questioned there? There are other methods she did not adopt.
She might have presented Blondin in person formally. She did not.
She might have listened to Ms. Pope, Mr. Oakes or other ward 3 citizens who have stepped up and expressed an interest in helping. She did not.
She could have appealed further to the entire ward for more applicants. She did not.
All she did was focus on what SHE wanted: more personal POWER.
anonymous: is this unclear to you?
So thank you finally.
I really do respect you for your HONESTY IN THIS MATTER.
I most respectfully do. Seriously, God as my witness. Thank you.
You openly lay open the fact that this is just small petty politics on behalf of the 4 princes.
They, as Mr. Corcoran admits, intend to reject ANYONE "not based on the person". I was never aware that there was ever a local political loyalty pledge required for membership to a City Council.
The questions as to why the mayor chose to appoint the individuals she did is simple.
She is the MAYOR.
It is her job to appoint people to he position.
The notion she might appoint someone who's politics may be similar should not shock anyone with a firing cranium.
The fact that others might disagree with some individuals politically is one thing; but to purposely deny their fellow citizens their blood bought rights based on some suspicions of "political incorrectness" is unprincipled, contempable and indicates a full fledged DISRESPECT TO THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS.
The very notion of aligning yourself with ANYONE to TO CONTINUE TO DENY THE BASIC RIGHTS
OF REPRESENTATION TO THEIR FELLOW CITIZENS only for the purposes of cheap political motivations is self damning; and perhaps even personally unrecoverable being the deep sin we must all agree it is.
For Gods sakes, the individuals they and you have summarily denied consideration to aren't Commies,
aren't Liberals, or even proud card carrying members of the ACLU as far as I know.
These are just good people people which you suspect harbor something evil in their hearts. Having a political views and thoughts contrary to your own notions.
Lets always remember now, these people WERE found guilty of a crime:
CONSPIRACY TO HOLD AND DISTRIBUTE
PERSONAL OPINIONS NOT ACCEPTABLE
TO THE STANDARDS OF DEVINED
"POLITICAL CORRECTNESS".
This is the ONLY REASON these "gentlemen" have casually rejected ALL appointees.
I among others do believe what Corcoran said.
I do not wish to brand him a liar. Do you?
It's funny that you use the "She is the MAYOR" argument. We have also seen/heard the mayor use the same basis for many of her illegal actions.
These appointments are NOT illegal actions. However, they are representative of the mayor's abuse of power, her stubborness, and her unwillingness to work with the entire council as a whole.
If she truly wanted to work with a spirit of cooperation (which she states, but her actions speak so much louder than her words), she would appoint a new person, provide credentials and background information on that individual, and let the council vote as they see fit (whether up or down).
In the meantime, she and you will just use the "I'm (she's) the MAYOR" line as if that gives her authoritarian rule over our beloved city.
anonymous,
May I ask what rights have been denied to you, because of one vacant seat in ward 3? What specifically was denied to you? Did you have a concern that was not addressed because of the ONE vacant seat in ward 3? What exactly did you want represented for you that were denied?
Again you are skirting the issue here. We have explained why the 4 opposing Councilmen have rejected Blonden. Why is the Mayor so fixated on Blonden? I am very suspect of that, as are the Councilmen. Again, you refuse to answer as to WHY Purzner will not look into the other applicants. Just being MAYOR does not cut the mustard. Being a Mayor does not give one Dictatorship rights.
You are correct that the Mayor has a right to appoint anyone she wishes. What you seem to ignore is that the Council has a right to vote for or against those same appointments as they wish as well.
It is a check and balance system, similar to the system we have between the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch on the federal level in America. This system has worked for our Country for a very long time.
And again you ignore the questions at hand, so I will repost then again in the hope that you will take the opportunity to answer them (allowing the discussion to move forward):
Why did the Mayor reject every applicant that sent her their information when she asked residents of Ward 3 interested in the vacant seat to contact her?
Why is it perfectly OK to you that the Mayor choose her appointments based on her personal preferences but not OK with you when the Majority of the Council chooses to vote on those appointments based on their own personal preferences?
You say that the choices made by the Council to vote against the appointment of Mr. Blonden are just "small petty politics on behalf of the 4 princes." Yet you refuse to even consider the possibility that the choice of the Mayor to not consider any of the other residents that have offered to fill that seat could be easily describe the exact same way.
That, to most reasonable people, telegraphs a severe bias on your part. As a result, most reasonable people can't take your comments seriously. Based on what you have had to say here, you do not seem to have any interest of having an honest debate. You have chosen to blame one side, when both sides (or all sides if you prefer) are so obviously at fault here.
If you want to continue this discussion, feel free to answer the questions above. I see no point in continuing this discussion if you insist on not participating in a productive manner.
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home