edgewatertalkingstick.myfreeforum.org

Register

eye witness · Guest

Guest · Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 1:52 pm Post subject:

Guest · Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 2:49 pm Post subject: The law is the law.

It's not OK to make it up to suit your purposes or to harm someone else with.
You owe those folks an apology.

Guest · Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 9:23 pm Post subject:

In 2006 the Citizens of Colorado passed Amendment 41 which is now Article 29 of our State Constitution.
http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satell...e=1224913947935&ssbinary=true
Before that law was enacted, the Edgewater City Council in January of 2007, as it's first order of business (Ordinance 01-07) used the powers of Home Rule to create a watered down Code of Ethics to shield its self from the stringent requirements of Amendment 41.
http://www.colocode.com/edgewater/edgewater_02.pdf
That is not made up, it is historical fact and in the record. I owe no one an apology.

Guest · Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:06 am Post subject: Your premise is flawed, Sir

You have accused people of violating rules that do not exist on their books. That is similar to saying, if I steal a loaf of bread in the USA, I can have my fingers cut off because in Saudi Arabia, those are the rules.
Colorado's Proud Tradition of Home Rule, is just that, a proud tradition giving small communities the right and authority to be self governing.
If those were the rules and they followed the rules you can not say they did anything wrong. The law is the law.
If you have an issue with Home Rule then you should be addressing this issue in the state legislature not victimizing a few honest Councilpersons for receiving good advice from their Attorney and acting on it in the spirit of fellowship and cooperation.
And to do all this to gain political advantage by trying to tarnish their good names in an election is truly unethical and underhanded. You do indeed owe them an apology. Shame on you.

Guest · Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:36 am Post subject:

The only unethical thing about this was the political loophole Council took advantage of. Legal is not always ethical nor right. Of what benefit to the City is it for any City official to accept "perishable" gifts of whatever value used to influence them? It is the root of corruption, one all to familiar in Washington. This very behavior has led to some of the most egregious failures of our City. It is time to correct our Code of Ethics and remove the temptation. Our Code of Ethics should address conflicts of interest and public declaration of a conflict of interest. No more sneaking around under the cloak of hidden City email invites, "working lunches" or exotic "retreats".
Again the apology is not mine to be given.

Guest · Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 10:05 am Post subject: Close the loopholes

Point taken, if the Code of Ethics needs to be brought into line to keep certain Councilpersons from lunching with the Sloan's boys, I agree, wholeheartedly. I simply don't believe that the two Council persons being skewered in this election did anything other than listen to advice of Council and act in good faith.
They are not attorneys, they didn't perceive their actions to be exploiting unethical, but legal loopholes.
Had they seen this problem of perception, in my opinion, they wouldn't have gotten anywhere near that baseball game.
They are being made unfair examples of a larger more pervasive problem.
Review the code of ethics and correct the loopholes.
and obviously, you are not the offending party, you write too well.
Please accept my apologies.

Guest · Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 10:21 am Post subject:

I do not wish to beat up on anyone. But a problem exists and what better time to bring it up than an election, when public awareness is at it's highest. If the incumbents and new candidates are made aware of the problem then it behooves them to address it. If not now, then soon after they assume office.

Guest · Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 11:25 am Post subject:

For those who don't like our Charter, that should be addressed as an item for the voters to decide on. It can be changed by a vote of citizens at an election. Don't forget that the Charter was voted on and passed by a majority of citizens only last year. It was the citizens' vote, not council's vote. Don't put this on their shoulders.

All candidates, except McCloskey, are running a clean campaign, with no personl attacks. I guess he feels he can't run on his "good" name huh? It's a shame he has personally attacked Laura and Adam. It's wrong. Because he, I believe from reading previous postings and knowing his past antics, is against them for not voting for him for CRCC. This is yet another of his bullying techniques. Have you listened to that tape? Thank heavens the majority of council did not approve him. He is vindictive, at best. It's sad he attacks our current council , city manager, staff and attorney who have all shown they are only interested in doing what is right for our community. Does council all agree on every issue? Absoluteley not. Thank God. We need a council that looks into everything and has our interests at heart. It seems McCloskey, and some past councilmembers and mayors, have not had this ideal. Past actions speak loudly. This man is trouble. I wish everyone had seen him in action. He is bitter and angry. We don't need that ever again. We need representatives who don't have chips on their shoulders.

Guest · Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 11:59 am Post subject:

Regardless of McCloskey or any other candidate or incumbent, the Code of Ethics is not a Charter issue to be voted upon by the Citizens. The Code of Ethics is established by Council by ordinance. According to the Charter: