|
| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
Steve Myers
Site Admin
|
I am lost?? Someone fill me in! PLEASE! 
Didn't this guy ask for the job and wasn't he interviewed??
Why didn't he turn down the job before he made a joke of the appointment process??
BTW Toni, you should be pissed off at Mr Croom and the Flint City Council not me, they are responsible for making all of us look like clowns.
Thank God the nation media never pick up on this! |
|
|
Sat Mar 11, 2006 6:14 pm |
|
|
rapunzel
Guest
|
Steve,
I can't tell you anything more than what has already been printed in the journal.
Yes, I am very angry at council for making a joke out of the appointment process. Eric Mays bless his heart for trying to help needs to be Barred from city hall!
I do know Tyrone had high hopes of what he could have accomplished in that office.
Thank you for removing the clown. |
|
|
|
Sat Mar 11, 2006 6:52 pm |
|
|
Adam
Guest
|
Although I think Mays worked out a bad perhaps horrible deal I think it's disappointing the Flint city council or none of us could have been there to broker a better deal. Better yet why can't we find one truly independent candidate that could get the full council's support? Would we have been better off with no ombudsman if Mays hadn't stepped in? I dunno maybe they could have worked it out with another 50 or 100 rounds of voting without Mays getting involved but I spoke to him and he didn't seem to think they would have. Overall I'm happy we get a mulligan on this one and I hope we can do the process right this time.
If we had a better communication system I would have been there had I known the meeting was still going on. I wonder if I could have gotten something worked out. I guarantee I would have been there to try and give Mays some better suggestions. He has a thing for people getting second chances though and doesn't think we should have a problem with a convict like Poplar getting the job if the voters decided we can have a convicted criminal as mayor.
What I really think is crappy though is that for the amount of people we have in this city the council couldn't find a candidate worthy of support. I think it's also unfortunate that Poplar felt her sister in law was the only worthy candidate but I hope thanks to her holding we can have a great process and an even better ombudsman.
Adam Ford |
|
|
|
Sat Mar 11, 2006 9:57 pm |
|
|
Steve Myers
Site Admin
|
Eric Mays had no business broking any deals.
It is up to the council to select the ombudsman not Eric Mays. |
|
|
|
Sat Mar 11, 2006 11:01 pm |
|
|
rapunzel
Guest
|
Steve is right!
Adam you need to choose your friends and information sources more wisely.
Petition gathering, absentee voter fraud ect. look in to these subjects not about the current issue but past reputations of certain people. Nuff said! |
|
|
|
Sun Mar 12, 2006 1:05 am |
|
|
Josh Freeman
F L I N T O I D
|
The deal was that Mr. Croome would hire Poplar for a certain amount of money as the Deputy. If agreed to, Donna Poplar would tell her Sister-in-Law to stop voting for her in order for her vote to be freed. Poplar wanted the deal in writing... but only agreed after she was assured by Buchanan that she would be the Deputy. I was sitting across the aisle from these folks when it was going down. After Donna got the assurance from Darryl she waved to Jackie and Jackie said OK and changed her vote.
My guess is, that some folks weren't too happen that Donna was getting the position and started to raise the issue with Darryl. Darryl could a little jumpy and they came up with this "family conflict" crap that seems to be the talking point. I don't know who those folks were but I have a few ideas.
As I recall, and I was there the until 12:30 am when the final vote took place, Eric Mays didn't have a vote in this matter. So why is everyone down on him?
Frankly, there isn't really any problem in brokering a deal. You may not like who was involved in the deal, but deals are made all the time... its politics. Too, Mr. Croome was well aware of and agreed to the deal prior to the vote taking place. But, had Mr. Croome had any objections to obtaining an office via a deal worked out and agreed to by the Council President, then he should have raised those objections prior to accepting the deal.
Also, I have a problem with those Council people who claim ignorance to a deal, who after voting the entire night for essentially one person, come off a 20 minute recess and suddenly change their vote. I want to know what was said when the 5-6 people were meeting, as Bankert said and I agree, in violation of the Open Meetings Act in the Committee of the Whole room in the back of the Chambers.
The process was a joke. There was absolutely no leadership from anyone on the Council. Why in the world would you go into a meeting without some sort of vetting process taking place prior to narrow the field from 30 some candidates? Why allow a candidate to stay in the mix if they only get 1 vote for 30 consecutive rounds? There has to be some sort of process set-up prior to the meeting.
Not really sure what Buchanan is talking about with this application/background check stuff. Sounds like something the Mayor would say.... Is he implying that someone lied on their resume that was submitted.... Did Mr. Croome? Did Buchanan ask him to step down because of it? Or is this something to distract our attention? |
|
|
|
Sun Mar 12, 2006 7:29 pm |
|
|
Ted Jankowski
F L I N T O I D
|
Smoke and mirrors. This is completely disgusting.
I agree that the vote should have been narrowing. But, the making of Deals stuff. NOT RIGHT!! The Ombudsman is supposed to be Independent! He or She shouldn't have to agree to anything other than what the Charter says.
What was it that everyone complained about with the OLD council. HA!! They didn't have anything on these guys. First they didn't want an Ombudsman! So we fought through the deception of the wording on the ballot and WE WON! So now to pay back the CITIZENS of FLINT. That made them appoint an Ombudsman. They turn the process into a circus, or an extremely bad JOKE! In a feeble attempt to prove their point. They have been taking their lead from DON. This doesn't surprise me in the least! The more I think about it. The more sense it makes,
The Citizens determined that WE The lowly citizens needed an Ombudsman. So they are going to teach us a lesson, and turn the whole process into a joke! Nothing Johnny Coleman ever did in Council meetings, even comes close to this debauchery!
They have turned the Cities watch dog into a political pay off. Appoint the Ombudsman and let them hire who they feel they need. We don’t need someone working in that office that is looking for payoffs, to hide or make evidence disappear!! This Office should be filled by someone with the UTMOST integrity. Only a few people on this Council even have a clue as to what that means. But, I’m sure Don’s students know how to spell it!!
Incase anyone reading this needs a refresher course. Here it is. http://www.cityofflint.net/integrity.htm And I'm not talking about the Tires made by Goodyear either! |
|
|
|
Sun Mar 12, 2006 11:59 pm |
|
|
Ted Jankowski
F L I N T O I D
|
Hey Josh?
If it only takes six votes. WHy did they need Poplars? THere is NINE of them on the council. |
|
|
|
Mon Mar 13, 2006 12:00 am |
|
|
Guest
|
| They needed Poplar because they would only have gotten 5 votes without her.... Buchanan, Nelson, Hill, Ananich and Gonzales. Simms, Neely and Kincaid voted for someone else. |
|
|
|
Mon Mar 13, 2006 8:47 am |
|
|
Ted Jankowski
F L I N T O I D
|
| I thought Gonzales wanted the lady from Ohio? WHo were the rest holding out for? |
|
|
|
Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:05 am |
|
|
EG
Guest
|
I did want Kristina Bell from Ohio. I voted for Bell over 140 times (approx.) out of the 155. She is the most logical choice. Before we even started to vote I let people know where I stood with Bell and let them know I would not deviate from my top three. I will never compromise for something or someone I don't believe in. The way I look at it is if I did not have them top three I would not vote for them. I don't understand how someone could vote for someone if they weren't their top choices, especially when you see some people voting for 10 different people. Therefore, I voted for Croom for five or so rounds and Giguere for five or so rounds. Then voted for Croom again in round 155.
EG |
|
|
|
Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:08 am |
|
|
Ted Jankowski
F L I N T O I D
|
I doubt I’ll make to the meeting tonight. (as much as I'd love to be there and speak my mind) I sure hope someone has some solutions.
I had never thought of myself for this position until later in the Flint Citizen group. I can see where you are doing the same thing here I would.
You personally wanted the office gone. However, Since the People want the office. You want the best person available. If I has the office. I would remove my website. It wouldn't be professional as the Ombudsman to leave it in its current form. And not conductive to good relations with the Mayor or the City Council. Not to mention all the sarcasm I’d have to stop using. But, again, I’m not even on the long list, let alone the short one.
I’m hoping you hold out for Ms. Bell. Although, I’m sure there has got to a few people in that list. That would not knuckle under to political pressure, to be the peoples watch dog.
I just don’t understand some of your peers. And I understand if don’t respond this section. But, this city needs a Ombudsman with a strong sense of fairness and a whole lot of integrity.
To have anyone working in that office.
That has a conviction for RECIEVING bribes. JUST RECEVING THEM, there were other charges that didn’t get proved, but they were all related.
This stemmed from a tape recording of the conversation, while soliciting the bride to loose evidence. Who in their right mind. Would even consider someone like that. If it was one of my own family. And I was in that position, to influence getting them a job. I wouldn’t be trying to get them a job as a janitor. Because or the appearance of impropriety. I just don’t understand. I really don’t. |
|
|
|
Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:54 am |
|
|
Ted J
Guest
|
The original amount received as 50,000 and this is actually what she got.
Poplar was in fact charged with conspiracy to bribe a public officer and obtaining more than
$100 by false pretenses. Her first trial resulted in a hung jury. Poplar’s second trial resulted in
her conviction for obtaining more than $100 by false pretenses and an acquittal on the conspiracy
charge. There were no charges of any kind brought against any other Genesee County employee,
including defendants. |
|
|
|
Mon Mar 13, 2006 12:17 pm |
|
|
Biggie9
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
Josh Freeman schreef:
The deal was that Mr. Croome would hire Poplar for a certain amount of money as the Deputy. If agreed to, Donna Poplar would tell her Sister-in-Law to stop voting for her in order for her vote to be freed. Poplar wanted the deal in writing... but only agreed after she was assured by Buchanan that she would be the Deputy. I was sitting across the aisle from these folks when it was going down. After Donna got the assurance from Darryl she waved to Jackie and Jackie said OK and changed her vote.?
FYI, perhaps I didn't listen attentively enough, or couldn't follow Ms Poplar's through her chest-thumping and bible-quoting on Woody Stanley's broadcast on Supertalk 1570 [ex-dave Barber show, RIP]...but she claimed, she wasn't a part of any deal wrangling....lol. Of course, I noted the way she said it...very careful, how she parsed it, gave her plausible deniability. She also claimed Eric Mays played no part in any deal making that may have going on without her knowledge of course... then Eric Mays called in to dispute that....
quote:
Josh Freeman schreef:
As I recall, and I was there the until 12:30 am when the final vote took place, Eric Mays didn't have a vote in this matter. So why is everyone down on him?
dunno, perhaps because of Mr Mays annoying habit of trying to insinuate himself into all things regarding local Flint government? Just a guess. Since his main meal ticket, Ed Taylor is persona-non grata in the council chambers, what's a local politcal-powerhouse wanna-be to do? Seems to me he is desperate to keep his presence felt in local Flint politics, between shifts at the gas station convenience store that is. I find him terribly entertaining, if not somewhat menacing [but then I am not a female and have no need to file a PPO against him].
quote:
Josh Freeman schreef:
Frankly, there isn't really any problem in brokering a deal. You may not like who was involved in the deal, but deals are made all the time... its politics. Too, Mr. Croome was well aware of and agreed to the deal prior to the vote taking place. But, had Mr. Croome had any objections to obtaining an office via a deal worked out and agreed to by the Council President, then he should have raised those objections prior to accepting the deal.
Right-on Josh, people need to get real...as long as the position is an appointed one its especially going to be vulnerable to the seamy side of political intrigue, pay-offs, deal-making, favor giving/taking etc. IF the position were an elected one, you'd just have the normal politcal scandals but it isn't. It is ripe for special/personal interest abuse. The irony is that citizens expect integrity, autonomous, arms-length, beholden-to-no-one performance from a job that is essentially a political-appointment plum. All the council or the mayor has to do is to refuse support, budget, cooperation with the ombudsman's office etc and the ombudsman would be a castrated powerless, office-holder. Might as well go on extended disability then, oh wait we just did that scene.
quote:
Josh Freeman schreef:
Also, I have a problem with those Council people who claim ignorance to a deal, who after voting the entire night for essentially one person, come off a 20 minute recess and suddenly change their vote. I want to know what was said when the 5-6 people were meeting, as Bankert said and I agree, in violation of the Open Meetings Act in the Committee of the Whole room in the back of the Chambers..
yeah, but the actual effect is no harm, no foul. So someone files a complaint, so what then? ...no minutes taken, no formal decisions taken that could be forced to be rescinded. Does it make the council look good? No, but there will be more egregious failures and faux pas than this. Sorry to say. This council is still trying to find its stride... There are the hold-over factions, and the "in Don's pocket crowd" and the rest that are trying to operate within the gravity created by those two entities and realities.
quote:
Josh Freeman schreef:
The process was a joke. There was absolutely no leadership from anyone on the Council. Why in the world would you go into a meeting without some sort of vetting process taking place prior to narrow the field from 30 some candidates? Why allow a candidate to stay in the mix if they only get 1 vote for 30 consecutive rounds? There has to be some sort of process set-up prior to the meeting.
THERE is the real issue of the situation. A council still trying to define itself, find its rythym. I mentioned that same item earlier...why wasn't there a winnowing process to get to a short list all members could POSSIBLY support. Why not determine some rules for going forward on the short list [like anyone not getting a certain minimum vote gets removed from subsequent consideration]. That is where the Council PRESIDENT should be leading. Otherwise you get the circus that unfolded. So the questions are; ok, Buchanan fumbled the ball..did he learn anything? and does the rest of the council still have confidence in his ability to be an effective council president?
quote:
Josh Freeman schreef:
Not really sure what Buchanan is talking about with this application/background check stuff. Sounds like something the Mayor would say.... Is he implying that someone lied on their resume that was submitted.... Did Mr. Croome? Did Buchanan ask him to step down because of it? Or is this something to distract our attention?
I took it to be a slap at Croom, like "if you really don't want the job, don't waste our time. Like he wanted to see a question "If we offer you the damn position..Will you take it?" Seemed to me he was less than pleased with Croom's response with Buchanan extending himself to make the deal.
BUT, if the candidates had NOT had completed background checks when the the selection was being made...why not? Shouldn't that have been completed before any final vote? Or don't we care if ex-felons and prevaricators hold these offices? Then again there is "the donald".
Oh, Ms Poplar commented that she isn't the only person with a record to apply and or serve in public office. She said its only an issue for the FJ when its a black "sistah" if I recall her exact use of words. Apparently whatever building she reports to for probation is named, according to her, for some other person who also was ran afoul of the judicial system, though apparently some government/court related big-wig. She also invoked Bob Leonard's and "the donald's" names as well. She has a point. If she paid her debt to society is she not made whole? On the other hand, if a person had been found guilty of a certain crime, they should expect prospective employers to think twice about hiring them if the job is impinged at all by the previous offense...the old fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
Great post Josh.
Oh and both Ms Poplar, and Woody had negative things to say regarding the FJ...wow, what a surprise there. Did anyone else catch the last hour of Woodrow's show today?
Biggie |
|
|
|
Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:29 pm |
|
|
Ted J
Guest
|
I'm listening to the Votes right now. You guys actually sat through this??? After about ROUND FIVE. Don’t you think they should have stopped and had some debate? Some discussion? Talked about of the candidates PROS and CONS? Then choose the highest vote getters and gone from there?
This just doesn't make any sense! To just keep going round and round, Only one word comes to mind. “Gerbils”. Running on a wheel that goes round and round.
Can’t hear them? They aren’t getting anywhere?
You that went to this definitely had more patience than I. I’d been heckling them by now. Is this how other Ombudsman were chosen? |
|
|
|
Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:02 pm |
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
