Of term limits and
Committee for a
Stronger Ludington Decides
To define its goal
Allow us to vote for John
For fourth and Fifth terms.
People need choices
Need to have their voices heard
Don't restrict our vote.
People need to have their say
More terms mean more say.
Let me get this straight:
Want to hear the people's voice?
Is that what John wants?
September 24, 2012 Ludington City Council Meeting
Please check this time out
Twelve Twenty in video
What does Mayor say?
"Tom that is enough
Your time is up, you have five
Minutes, Your time is up."
Tom plaintively says:
"Can I have a little more
Your Honor?" (pause) "No"
October 8, 2012 Ludington City Council Meeting
Twelve twenty-five in
The Mayor says: "Alright, Tom,
That's your five minutes."
August 27, 2012 Ludington City Council Meeting
Ten minutes and five
Seconds into this, John breaks in:
"Tom, that's five minutes."
Tom says: "Last July,
A person named Jon Cade had
Seven minutes and...
To cite his piece." John looks quizzed
And comes back with this:
"We try to follow
The five minute rule, you have
Used your five minutes."
This is just a few
Of the times the Mayor quelled
Mayor wants more time
To move Ludington forward
His actions and acts
Silencing any critics
Excellent way to make your point. I've always said that since these meetings are so short and there are very few speakers, that the public speaking time limit should be extended. Ludington citizens have only 10 minutes a month total to address the Council. In a larger city where meetings can run several hours I can see the need for such a small time limit but not here in Ludington. This small time limit only discourages citizens from participating and helps City officials to quickly put an end to complaints they don't want to hear about. Another thing is that Councilors and the Mayor can use all the time they want to berate citizens who then have no chance for a rebuttal.
Rules and policy are fine, except when they squash the time of the people that have every right to exercise their voice in government affairs. Henderson is an excellent time keeper, esp. when it fits his fixed agenda. I am sure he is more than willing and able to extend time limits if it's for a pat on the back or other compliments. Excellent thread Haiku.
I had Haiku over to the house on Monday to look over the records I received from the LPD regarding Ling Yan Zou, the young lady who died in the marina this year on June 2. For some reason, I haven't been able to find the cat since then.
Once the two hour plus meeting is posted on the web site for last night's meeting, I will review that. I was again cut off just before my last paragraph, but nobody else was, even though some seemed to drone on for more than five minutes.
I know one thing; unless our dedicated city councilors get five terms, I'm not voting for the extension.
Hi, Ron, my uneducated self couldn't figure out what you meant by " a favor a just move", I'm sure it was just shorthand for you, professor.
The money the City may lose to me, or because of me, is only due to their own policies and unlawful need for non-transparency. Obviously, you must have been apprised of the latest news. Good luck!
If you think the McAdams are making things up, why do all of the police reports and depositions back their story up? And if there is nothing substantive in my case, you should be able to rest easily, and laugh at my attempts to get relief for myself and the other Ludington citizens that can be affected by this unlawful WSP.
I'm also disappointed in the Ludington Eye website. They promised us a rebuttal to the Rotta v Shay lawsuit, and have come up with nothing of the sort, just a site that's being abandoned today with a bunch of leftover detritus of defamation.
A black EyE for the Ludington area, that makes the City of Ludington and our MCSO look extra foolish and culpable for these two suits.
I have been asked to provide a link to the Ludington Eye website so that your readers may form their own opinion instead of having to rely solely upon your word.
Except for the threads on the Tigers, I don't see anything of redeeming social value, just something that is psychologically troublesome for the participants. People can view and make their own opinions, I recommend they do.
Ron, would you mind increasing the text you are using in size, like everyone else, so we don't all have to squint to read your silly posts? If you must show off or be different, use a pink or yellow colored text...lol. Thanks.
CLFD, I checked out your link, 1st time in weeks, thanks, but it still is lacking in merit, and facts, just plain defamation and libel is all I see, and that's not cogent to any issues. Plus I see membership is stale at best, and participation is lackluster too, but, do continue to talk to yourselves, as I don't see anything to address except boredom. Yaaawn......
What's embarrassing is how ignorant you are of the facts and laws and because of that your posts reflect nothing but ramblings.
Why would you have to post a link to that site. Just have the site manager open the forum up so anyone can view it. That was one of the downfalls of the "Soup" forum. They were a closed forum and wanted to keep unregistered users from seeing what was being discussed.