| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
Steve Myers
Site Admin
|
Why the hell would they, the council, even conceder a convicted felon??
Don't point fingers at the Mayor, he was elected by the people of Flint not appointed by the council.
Donna Poplar -Convicted
in 2000 of obtaining money over $100 under false pretenses, a felony. She was sentenced to 2 years' probation, 25 hours of community service and 90 days of house arrest.
Brenda Purifoy - Convicted
in 1985 of two misdemeanor counts of assault and battery, fined $205 and fired. She eventually was reinstated and retired in 1999 as community relations coordinator and she is a retired police officer.
Nadine Roberts - Convicted
of arson and is on probation for an attempted insurance fraud conviction in 2005
This is a bigger joke that the last go a round!! Flint is nothing more that a F-up circus!
http://www.mlive.com/news/fljournal/index.ssf?/base/news-36/1147004482186130.xml&coll=5&thispage=1 |
|
|
Sun May 07, 2006 5:41 pm |
|
|
Ted Jankowski
F L I N T O I D
|
Steve, I cannot say I do not agree. It is so frustrating. That with all the work we put into retaining this position. The City Council (as a whole) has proven it's inability as a body to be independent of the Mayor’s hegemony. Nor as a body have they proven a likeminded intent to find a Ombudsman of character and integrity.
What happened to the “Will of the people?” We wanted the position retained. PERIOD. They took it so seriously, that they scheduled interviews during timeframes in which they had more important city business to be involved in. Such as the announcement, by Patsy Lou Williamson, that she was running for office. While I do not criticize them for going or wanting to go. The problem is that they were the ones that scheduled the interviews and they are paid employees of the city, part time of full doesn’t matter. If they respected the will of the people. They would not have scheduled interviews for a time when they were going to prove their indifference to the will of the people. They set themselves up for the ridicule. Why? They don’t care! Plain and simple! They are elitists. What we desire in government, is of no consequence to them. As long as they have Don’s big money behind them. Our desires, the “will of the people” doesn’t matter.
How else do explain the people that have made the list of finalist? Criminals, criminals and more criminals. All convicted of crimes that an Ombudsman may or will be called upon to investigate.
I’m just amazed, the one person on the council, that took the strongest stand against the Ombudsman office. Seems to the best advocate for appointing the best to the position. I am also frustrated, that can have convicted criminals in serious consideration for the position. Yet, someone who doesn’t lie, doesn’t steal, has no criminal record. Has Character and Integrity. Doesn’t even get an interview. The rest of the council seems to be weak in their resolve, except those voting for family members. They are sure, that nepotism is the only way to go when filling this position. |
|
|
|
Sun May 07, 2006 6:40 pm |
|
|
Adam
Guest
|
To be fair there probably are a lot of criminals living in Flint so statisticly there should have been some appyling for ombudsman and the council saved us money by not doing 133 background checks.
I'm surprised admittied convicted criminals made it along in the process though. It seems the "Good ol Boys" network is alive and well in Flint. I wouldn't be surprised if Poplar ended up working in the ombudsman office. It will be interesting to see if Jackie holds out for her relative again. |
|
|
|
Mon May 08, 2006 11:18 am |
|
|
outsider
Guest
|
Just out of curiousity...
Do any of the remaining candidates have any experience as an Ombud? |
|
|
|
Mon May 08, 2006 12:17 pm |
|
|
Ted J
Guest
|
quote:
Just out of curiousity...
Do any of the remaining candidates have any experience as an Ombud?
Well considering this is an appointed position. Usually of someone from the community, and the position is a one time only appointment. I doubt anyone would have experience. I believe the idea behind this it to have a community leader of character and integrity fill a poistion of community trust. Someone to help cut through and navigate the government red tape. |
|
|
|
Mon May 08, 2006 2:44 pm |
|
|
rapunzel
Guest
|
Ted,
If you have some time will you look up data on Brenda Purifoy? She may not be all bad. Need facts surrounding misdemeanor.
Peace,
RAP |
|
|
|
Mon May 08, 2006 9:02 pm |
|
|
Adam
Guest
|
| It was a 1985 conviction for two counts of assault and battary. Let off with a $205 slap on the wrist so it must not have been too serious. The only strange thing would be how she got reinstated. I think I heard somewhere it was a shaky conviction. |
|
|
|
Mon May 15, 2006 6:38 pm |
|
|
Ted Jankowski
F L I N T O I D
|
Well, I was more upset with her responses that "she was just following procedures" that they were "cracking down on prostitution" it is never procedure to drive anyone anywhere in a police car except to jail or Home. Not out of the city limits or anywhere else in an attempt to intimidate them.
This is the heart of the Flint police departments problem. Instead of Enforcing the Law or investigating Crime. They continually try to intimidate and abuse their authority. rather than just do their jobs.
This was not what I was looking for in a Ombudsman.
She got her job back. But, was the conviction ever overturned?
I've been arrested in North Carolina for sitting in my house minding my own business. I don't blame the police down there. I blame my ex-wife and her friends for making up the story. My attorney got the whole thing thrown out of court. It came out in court that the whole arrest was based on hearsay.
Besides that fact I didn't do any of what I was accused of. they swore out a warrant. I should have counter sued for defamation of Character. However, I was in the USMC and I barely had the money for defense. Let alone going after them for making up the charges and stupid stories they told in Court. Their Star witness. Turned out to have not seen anything they said she did. So I have an arrest record. (ONE TIME) but never convicted of anything. I do not break the law. It's a scary thing to be in court for something you didn't do. You have no idea how to defend yourself until you actually hear what it is you were supposed to have done.
The only thing I can say about the officer that arrested me was he kept trying to get me to confess to something. The Problem was. I had no idea what it was that I was supposed to have done. Until they gave me the paperwork. Even then I couldn’t understand it.
The only people the police can intimidate. Are those that follow the law and don’t have a clue about the system. They already know they cannot intimidate the criminals. They know and understand their “Rights.” If they concentrated on doing their jobs. Many of the attitudes citizens have towards the Police Dept. Wouldn’t exist. I don’t call the department to be talked down to, or be treated as their enemy. Yet, that’s exactly how they treat you when you call.
Now, she may have changed over the last twenty years. That remains to be seen. I hope so. That would be great to have someone in the position that learned from their mistakes. The problem is. She continues to not see a problem with what she was part of. Without seeing that the “POLICY” she was enforcing was not proper. I don’t understand how she will be able to look into those accusations with an unbiased eye. Or to look out for the victim.
The other thing that disturbs me. Is based on what she has said. Four investigators for different quadrants of the city. I believe I have already explained that one. Nobody (even myself) is an expert at everything. Why would you have someone who understands the way city government works investigating police misconduct because it happened in a certain quadrant? Why not have someone who (like herself) was an officer and understands the officers mindset and the victims, to investigate the misconduct. The same as having someone who knows a lot about the water dept, be the one to investigate Water Dept issues. Not someone who is excellent at investigating police Misconduct. The reasoning for the way she wants to structure the office doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. But, again. Who am I? I’m just a guy on the outside. Who understands military thinking and principles. And thinks that can be applied to government and governmental offices. |
|
|
|
Mon May 15, 2006 8:12 pm |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
