edgewatertalkingstick.myfreeforum.org

Register

5 slots · Guest

There are 5 slots available for council this election.
This is how I see it. Which 5 of the 7 candidates, for all their lack of qualities, is going to bring the least harm to the city?
This is not to say that all the candidates have no qualities. We do have at least 2 good candidates.
I am talking about the candidate that, if elected, would bring down the council and anything productive for the city.
My first thought is McCloskey. This guy is scarey! Every time he opened his mouth when he was on council before he spewed vitriol.
He picked fights, he bad mouthed everyone and strutted like a rooster.
He never did finish his term.
When he applied to be on the CRCC he didn't have anything good to say. All he wanted to do was stick it to whomever he could. It was quite obvious that he did not belong on a committee like CRCC.
Now he seems to think that he is a shoe-in for a slot.
Why is everyone throwing stones at Devon and Adam? McCloskey is the one you need to be afraid of.

McCrockskey Lover · Guest

Heck, I WANT John on Council! I just couldn't get enough of his last resignation speech, I want to hear him resign again and again and again.
And besides, I'm curious about something. He quit last time because he got a postal promotion (he could go more postal than the next guy?) and now he's back. Did he get demoted? Did he never actually get the promotion in the first place? C'mon, John, give us the skinny here! What's the real dirt on your last resignation? Let's clear up this mystery before we take the chain off the front door this time.

Guest · Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 3:50 pm Post subject:

John over Devon any day of the week

Vote your best judgement · Guest

vote only for the ones you know and trust
vote only for the ones you know and trust
vote only for the ones you know and trust

just because there are five slots doesn't mean you have to vote for five people
if you vote for four candidates you trust your vote is stronger
if you only vote for three you are pretty certain you can trust, your vote is stronger still
don't vote for McCloskey, he has a checkered past and a nasty temperment, he will drag the whole town down and back to the dark ages where he left you in ruins the last time
My money is on HJ but ya want to give him a good Council with good people skills and good intentions. Not a guy who will try to power over him.
Edgewater has a shot at going to a bright future right now. Don't look back.
vote only for the ones you know and trust

Guest · Guest

Great advice up until you decided to attack one candidate. Stick to the advice, leave the decisions to the voters.

snake in the grass · Guest

Let's see who shows up at the debates.
Let's see who has signs up and who is sitting back waiting for uneducated and unsuspecting voters to check five boxes, one of them his.
I've done that, we all have.
This guy isn't campaigning, to my knowledge. Has he come to your door or is he just hoping to slide in under the radar?
The decision always rests with the voters and they live with the consequences.
If I see a house burning isn't it my responsibility to yell "fire!"?

Guest · Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 7:39 pm Post subject: Re: playin' the numbers

Guest

John - fire: manipulative, inappropriate and extremely unethical (based on my experience working with him)

Devon - the tornado: unpredictable, inexperienced, too easily swayed by simplistic reasoning and retaliatory (based on my experience with him)

Adam - a persistent rain: a little pompous (that's a defense, you have to have some armour sitting on Council!) and a bit of an ideologue at times but well intentioned and capable of listening to and grasping a reasonable argument. (based on my experience with him)

Unlike fire and tornado...

Don't ya just love metaphors?

Guest · Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 12:50 pm Post subject:

A persistent rain that erodes the fabric of the hillside with ideologue that serves as an excuse to listen to him self talk and question the professional abilities of people such as our attorneys and various consultants.

Adam Gardner · Joined: 07 Nov 2007 Posts: 35

I appreciate the feedback. I will try to appear less pompous. If you knew me, you would definitely know that I'm a whole lot less sure of myself all the time than I seem. If I appear confident, it's probably just appearances.

Frankly, if I appear competent it's probably just appearances.

I have been working on the critique that I talk just to listen to myself. I try to balance the "I have something to say" with the "Is it necessary that I say it". Most times I get it wrong. I do mean well.

As to questioning the professional abilities of our various consultants, I'm not sure I know what you mean. To the best of my recollection, here are the consultants who have come in front of Council in my term:
Dr. Skumatz (economist) - Perfectly competent, very professional
THK (economists) - Perfectly competent, very professional
Russ Caldwell (financial consultant) - Perfectly competent, very professional
A couple of appraisers whose names I can't remember - both perfectly competent and very professional
And our attorneys past and present:
Kendra Carberry - Perfectly competent, very professional
Greg Graham - Perfectly competent, very professional
Thad Renaud - Perfectly competent, very professional
Carmen Beery - Perfectly competent, very professional

If you can think of someone else I'd be happy to tell you what I thought of them, but overall I've been very satisfied with our attorneys and consultants.

Since I'd rather not hijack this thread, feel free to start a "Constructive Criticism of Adam Gardner" thread and I will be happy to read it.