Meet your new Mayor Pro-tem for 2016 of Ludington, councilor Kaye Holman. Her vote along with Krauch and Tykoski made for a 3-2 deciding vote over Castonia, whom was absent from the meeting, along with Moonbeam Kathy W., also out for a sled ride or something more important than City business. I would have thought that someone so honest and forthright would have abstained from voting for themselves, due to conflict of interest. That would only be fair and right, since two other councilors were absent from the meeting. I guess when it comes time to grab for power, you know who to look at, Yeti woman Holman. Gargoyle looking for more visibility and power grab.

http://www.shorelinemedia.net/ludington_daily_news/news/local/holma...

Views: 192

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I can't wait for Mayor Cox to take a day off so that she can become the sasquatch-in-chief for an evening of calumny at the Hall.  One can't hold Kaye to task for voting for herself, that's how candidates are almost guaranteed one vote when they run for public office. 

Except when the City of Ludington takes out a letter of trespass and refuses to let a candidate vote in that election, or go to campaign events held at the polling place, as they have done back in 2011 to some poor soul who was only holding the corrupt cabal of the city kakistocracy accountable. 

Castonia would likely have voted for himself if he was there, but if he had won on Monday in absentia, it makes you wonder what would transpire if for some reason he didn't want the title.   

It is my opinion that when voting for the Mayor Pro-tem, all Counilors need to vote. Even if one or more are sick they can always vote as absentee. An important position like this should only be approved by all of the Councilors because at the very least the public can then see who the Council considers the most qualified.

The city charter really gives no guidance on the procedure, but on this vote alone, I think you have a point.  The OMA disallows a councilor to vote in absentia on matters of public policy, but this is not really that, just an administrative exercise.  According to the city charter the MPT serves as mayor until the next regular election if the mayor vacates the office or is incapacitated.

Just think, if Mayor Cox resigns after election day in November but before January 1, 2017, a 'liberal' reading of the charter could have her finishing out the last two years of his term, even though she is effectively termed out as councilor later.

It is a damn shame that so few can speak for so many!

And paradoxically, those few do not really speak for anybody that I know around Ludington other than their own little closed country club.

I note this short thread was also buried by the trolls here quite quickly today. As Willy pointed out with curiosity, it also seems like a "quorum" of votes for this position would be in order. Does a quorum just mean the majority of the attending council, or the majority of the whole? Since this may be a seldom used but critically important appointment, it seems to me the council could have waited until the next meeting for such an exercise to get the full input for legality purposes. Another strange and unexplained show of votes.

RSS

© 2017   Created by XLFD.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service