These four individuals put the best interests of the community totally aside, and "threw David Andrews under the bus." David has been terminated as our Town Manager.
This Special Session was so contrived and preordained, it was sickening.
The embarrassment to the community is Paul Loomis, the mayor. Loomis set David up for his own self-serving reasons because David was just so much smarter than he. David was so well respected by the employees, the staff and the citizens, that Loomis couldn't stand taking a back seat. In a popularity contest among town employees, you can be assured that only some of the police union workers would choose Loomis. Everyone else would pick David. Believe me, it's true.
So, what did Loomis do to achieve his goal? He didn't have to do too much, if anything, to convince "his stooge" Al Kunisch. Kunisch proves time and again he can't think for himself, so he is so easily manipulated by Loomis----who is so good at manipulating others that are vulnerable.
Loomis knew he had no chance with Bill Garner, Barry Gillaspie & Salette Latas because they're too intelligent.
So, Loomis went after KC Carter. Loomis knew that Carter is devious, vindictive and would do anything that may be harmful to Bill, Barry & Salette. The hell with David Andrews, Carter's friend for the last few years. Carter had no problem sacrificing David if he could hurt these three. Why? Because Carter basically stopped doing rational things since he joined Loomis, Kunisch & Abbott to totally undermine David back in May.
Paula Abbott was the "wild card." I was foolish enough to address Paula from the podium, imploring her to show the integrity that was required to save David's job. It didn't happen. Paula also got taken in, and joined this abominable coalition of four----the majority, using the lame excuse that after 18 years, David somehow no longer did his job with such dedication, knowledge, and concern for the employees and the citizens.
We don't know if Carter, Kunisch & Abbott will run for reelectuion. Loomis evidently will.
We can't believe that any reasonable, fair minded person will give any thought to voting for any of these four. The damage they have done to our community is incalculable. Forget the fact that we are obligated to pay David a severance package in excess of $140,000. He probable deserves more.
The big problem is that these four fools didn't give a damn about how do you replace 18 years of dedicated service to the community with David's experience, knowledge, and maybe even more important, the respect David was shown by those who worked for him, and the 1000's of citizens he served so well.
A recall of these four is too good. Too bad we can't tar and feather them, and toss them out on their collective "backsides."
For what they did to David, and what they did to the morale of the employees, and what they did to the citizens, "tar & feathers will be letting them off too easy.
SHAME ON LOOMIS, CARTER, KUNISCH & ABBOTT! The voters won't forget their dastardly deed.
88 comments:
Thank you for your well written pieces on Town Manager David Andrews. You are dead on correct about how staff respects and enjoys working for David. His departure will be a huge loss to the Town. I'd also like to thank the Citizens who spoke so eloquently last night. Although the 4 Council members who voted to terminate David didn't listen, the staff and the rest of the community heard you loud and clear. Thank you.
Last evening's Council Meeting was extremely disheartening, unpleasant, discouraging, unfair, and a twisted political display!
For Mayor Loomis, Al Kunisch, KC Carter and Paula Abbott to toss out one of the finest Town Managers in Arizona was deplorable!
We just hope the citizens of Oro Valley will remember this when it is time to vote them OUT next year!
We have seen terrible decisions by OV Council before, but this was absolutely reprehensible!
The mayor, Council members Kunisch, Carter and Abbott really hurt Oro Valley last evening. For whatever, petty, vindictive, political reasons they decided to expect our wonderful Town Manager to resign.
This is Oro Valley's loss---a terrible loss. We won't forget when it is time to elect a NEW Mayor, and Council members to replace them with Council Members who care about this Town and its citizens.
David, we will miss you terribly! Mayor, Kunisch, Carter and Abbott, we WON'T miss you!
The 'gang of four' had the opportunity for a civilized resolution in this matter had they approved a motion for an 'executive session' which could have resulted in a 'meeting of the minds' behind closed doors. Instead they chose to mock the community and exercise power politics in a most derisive and
sickening manner. Is this Oro Valley? Is this how Oro Valley wants to be viewed at the 'State of the Town' meeting on September 29'? Is this why Oro Valley is depicted in Tucson as a community of elitists? Will this perpetuate the 'power' of the Police in dipping their hands into the policies of Oro Valley, an area to which they are supposed to be subservient and about which they are in steadfast ignorance?
Last night the 'gang of four' was a disgrace to the civility of man; brains were not the order of the day. The irony is is that Mayor Loomis knew exactly what he was doing; neither Carter, Kunisch, nor Abbott had a clue!
BEWARE THE IDES OF MARCH
For those of you watching and listening carefully, Ms. Abbott nearly dropped the other shoe last night.
Interestingly, none of the discussion was about the police union.
My opinion--and it's only that--is that the dismissal had virtually nothing to do with the union. Rather, there were some issues that are not generally known to the public that precipitated the Manager's removal.
The fact that these issues were not made public may frustrate readers of this blog, but the information that the Council had was sufficient to justify the removal of the Town's senior administrator.
I fear that the remaining months of the present Council's term will see a plethora of 4-3 votes. How sad.
boobie-baby--- Your statement that---and I quote--- "...the information that the Council had was sufficient to justify the removal of the Town's senior administrator," has no merit whatsoever.
You seem to know a lot of "behind the scenes" details, so why not divulge what you are inferring.
I'll say this: your information is horse crap, and I can tell our readers that David was terminated because Loomis played his 3 stooges to the hilt.
You are taking false, anonymous, self-serving innuendos and making it sound like facts.
what the hell is your purpose in your feeble attempt to besmirch David's fine reputation? He doesn't deserve that kind of crap.
You want to divulge your information, you have this forum. If not, stop saying these nasty. worthless things ---and doing it while you hide behind that damn foolish pseudonym.
We had enough lies and deceit from Loomis his 3 stooges last night.
Art,
I could not attend last night. My health problems got the best of me.
The medications I'm taking have me unable to drive. I listened in.
Boobiebaby is probably referring to the anonymous (Code word for COWARD)
letter making accusations of improper conduct.
Art, the time is now for you to put aside old vendettas and look at some of the speakers last evening. I saw some damn good potential candidates that could easily knock out the Dastardly Foursome.
Boobie-baby
So, what are the rules relative to disclosure of information that might come out of an 'Executive
Session'? If, in fact, 'Executive Sessions' are 'privileged information discussions' then wouldn't your having been given this information by one or more of those partaking of the 'session' be in violation of the 'code' thus opening another 'can of worms'?
Seems like plenty of drama to go around in my opinion.
I am sorry to see David Andrews gone and won't repeat what has already been said and I don't see where it will help .
It's the towns loss.
Bottom line to me anyway is seems we are back to almost where we started a majority voting against what most of us want.
Some of has have worked to get a better town council and we win the battle for a while but Loomis always seems to win the war!
If Loomis runs again he will be the mayor again!!
Faces change but the game is the same.
I tried to follow along last night, but it was difficult. What were they talking about open meeting laws or some such? And hostile work environment?
I too am sad to see David treated so poorly. Did they appoint an interim?
I listened to the part of the meeting that covered the town manager.
Paula Abbot did seem honestly concerned about the future of Andrews.
Perhaps Loomis, Carter and Kunish presented some "evidence" to her of wrongdoing that she for whatever reason believed. Other then that I can't think of a reason she would vote to accept the resignation
Carter seems to have just lost it and I say that in the nicest way I can.
Kunisch seemed like he just wanted to get his part of whatever the deal was over with, did not seem like he wanted to discuss it or hear anything other then his marching orders.
Loomis once again like a shark just went for the kill without getting too bloody.
Ok, just my opinion based on what I heard on the video.
OV Mom---If you go back to our post of May 27, you'll read that I said: "In what some observers believe was a "predetermined" vote, on a motion by none other than Mayor Loomis, with the backing of Al Kunisch, Paula Abbott & KC Carter, it was decided that taking $380,000 from the contingency fund was a good idea."
Loomis made that motion, and the 3 stooges all jumped in to be the 2nd. It was obviously, predetermined.
Yesterday morning Loomis had the audacity to confront David Andrews telling him he wanted his resignation, inferring he (Loomis) had the four votes to fire David.
How the hell would Loomis know he had four votes if there was not a violation of the open meeting laws which prohibits a quorum (4 council members) from discussing an item PRIOR to an open publicized meeting?
Hopefully, this despicable action by these four did end last night.
Hopefully, the public will find out more about the dirty underhanded things that have gone unreported.
At the proper time, we will make sure we let the community knows what we know, and some of it "ain't" good!
Paula---- You might want to use a different name here.
Other than that, we have an assistant Town Manager in the interim.
There are some that believe Loomis who orchestrated this whole dastardly deed, has plans to bring in a new stooge as manager, with the blessing of his new "3 stooge coalition."
Anyone recognize the name Mike Hein, who recently was fired as Town Manager of Tucson?
We'll see.
I am going to post something that I know will result in me being in the LOVE dog house.
I don't see any good coming of continuing to criticize Paula Abbott.
Yes I know she has voted contrary lately to how most of us would have liked.
Paula has served us well for 7 years and I can't just throw her under the bus for a few bad votes, even though they were doozies.
I would rather see some discussion with her that results in her votes being more in tune to what the majority of the voters want.
Keep knocking her and ya might have a continuation of what is going on lately and I am sure Loomis would welcom more support.
Ok, just my two cents.
If Puala is voting to spite this blog, than we have a much bigger problems than you realize, MC.
She is suppose to watch out for the common good, not the demise of LOVE.
I want to know what we AREN'T being told. What's really going on here?
Boobie, you seem to know more of the inside story, speak up!
My hunch is that Loomis spoke to each of his acolytes individually and each was flattered by the role they were given to play in Hizzoner's hatchet-job. Loomis is way too wily to blatantly break the open meeting law, but capitalizing on petty jealousies and nasty innuendoes is more his speed..
What unfolded last night was clearly orchestrated. Our exemplary Town Manager (who ostensibly passed last week's performance review with APPROVAL) brutally removed due to so-called "issues" (according to Abbott) and "promises not kept" (according to Carter). Why were these issues and promises not ironed out behind closed door as Bill Adler suggested? The only answer can be that Hizzoner didn't want them ironed out. He USED these "things" to get rid of a thorn in his side. No matter how the secrecy is "explained,it is unfair to David Andrews and to the citizens of this town who valued David's integrity.
End, I did not say that Paula was voting to spite this log.
Just saying I don't see anything productive in continuing to criticize her recent votes.
I really have no idea what"issues" she was talking about and so far we don't know either.
Just a thought that perhaps she was presented with some type of info that for whatever reason she choose to believe
I may be alone in my opinion but I just can't fathom Paula throwing somebody under the bus for no good reason.
I base my opinion on her 7 year recod and also how she seemed to think it was better not to talk publicly about these so called "issues. Unless she is an actress she seemed genuine in her concern of not harming Mr. Andrews.
In other words could she have been duped?
Interesting things that I noticed last night:
(1) Salette wanted to go into Executive Session. The 4 stooges wouldn't even allow THAT! Why were they refusing to discuss it both PRIVATELY or PUBLICLY? Abbott said it would be unfair to David to discuss it publicly, so then why not discuss it privately so that Bill, Salette and Barry would KNOW what was going on? Why were they kept in the dark about everything? If Paula really wanted to be fair to David, she would have voted to go into Executive Session.
(2) Kunish made a motion to accept David's resignation without allowing any of the citizens to speak first. Why was he trying so hard to get that vote on the table without any discussion or any input from the citizens?
Here's my take on this. He KNEW that they had 4 votes, but he also KNEW that Paula is more emotional and that she might be swayed to change her mind and vote against it after hearing citizen input. So he wanted to eliminate citizen input so as not to give Paula any room for second thoughts.
He then motioned to vote a millisecond after the last speaker finished so as not to give Paula any time to digest what they had said and possibly change her mind.
It's quite clear that they all knew they had the 4 votes before the meeting even began.
(3) Salette asked Loomis, "Why would you assume that we wouldn't have the votes to go into Executive Session? Based on your opinion and Kunisch's opinion, you decide that we wouldn't have the votes. That's amazingly intuitive to me." Yes, and that's more evidence that Loomis knew beforehand how the vote would go.
(4) Eleven people spoke in defense of Andrews. Not one person was there to speak against him.
(5) Salette asked for a 10 minute recess to review the documents before voting. Loomis, Kunisch and Carter were even opposed to THAT. Why would they be opposed to taking 10 minutes to review the documentation? Because they didn't want to give Paula any time to rethink her vote. THAT'S why Kunisch kept trying to push the vote through as quickly as possible...no discussion...no blue cards...no 10 minute recess.
Since when do we fire people due to the claims of an ANONYMOUS person??!! Isn't that a slippery slope?
VC, if you are asking me , the way I followed the whole video/meeting , was that it was an agreement to vote for or against accepting his resignation.
Again I have no idea what type of allegation was supposedly discussed or if there was any.
Perhaps this issue/allegation/accusation was so potentially damaging, Paula Abbott just voted to accept the resignaion.
Of course this is just a thought . Nobody seems to know what the heck really happened.
In my past I knew of a circumstance where a really smart & good intentioned person did something that was actually good but legally it went over the lines. Person had good intentions, well bottom line they let the person resign in good standing , which allowed the person to continue with their professional career. If they had decided to pursue action, the person would have faced some severe penalty and would have not been allowed to pursue thier profession.
Not saying this is what happened here just saying I can't see Paula just voting this way unless she had a really good reason or somebody conned her big time.
Only person who could probably clear some of this up would be Dave Andrews. .
Mscoyote, I'll probably be in the LOVE doghouse with you after this is posted.
Appreciate your determination to defend Abbott, I respectfully disagree.
Abbott has never been able to work with any council.
She is as vendictive and petty as Loomis. I've seen it. The betrayal of David should give everyone the picture.
I voted for her the first time she ran and regretted it since.
The oath of office she claimed to take seriously last night is a joke. She has voted in violation of the law too many times to count.
I know there are many bloggers here who will disagree. Allow me to post my thoughts.
Moving forward and replacing four on the council is where I would like to go. The past can't be changed.
Deacon, thank you for not attacking me personally for my opinion!! I do appreciate it.
Yup, I agree we need to move on.
But here is the problem , unless some strong candidate steps up to run against the mayor we never really move forward
Most voters next year at election time , look around and think "oro valley is doing fine" and why not vote for the mayor again. Most are not really paying attention to what goes on unless somebody brings it to their attention.
I would like to see Bill G or Salette L run but then they would have to give up their council seats if they lost, which would be a loss for us. At least that is the way I think it works, correct me if wrong.
Agains thanks for not berating me for my opinion.
I sort of lost interest in the blog because for a while it seemed like all fighting, and no respect for opinions of those who diagree.
ORO VALLEY - THE HEART OF DARKNESS
BY NOMBE WATANABE.
I know what hate does to the hater, it clouds, it misdirects, it addles the mind. Hate drives the hater to act against his own community, his own honor and, in the end it drives the hater to hate himself. Lo, for I have seen the mighty brought low by pride, arrogance and self-indulgence and I will see it again, here.
Part One.
Who had the most to gain by throwing filth on an honorable man? Who threatened him? Who wanted to "take him out"?
Part Two.
Who would take what can never be returned? Can you ever get your good name back after false witness? An unsigned letter? A false claim? How can you defend yourself?
Part Three.
Weakness and lack of courage. Paula, once the lone voice against Mammon, the developers, they who dare to cut a cactus, they who don't care for women, her long lonely stance has got the better of her. Pity, not retribution is her lot.
Feeble. KC, age has taken its toll. Creepy crawler in the night. How could such a man be swayed? What gift do you give one who is so close? Respect? False friendship? Flattery?
The K man. Oh, what must burn deep in his breast? All those hours with the police? Why not bust the budget to replace one cop on such an overstaffed force? After all, we all know that Oro Valley needs addtional policing. Never can tell when all these white folks will get uppity.
Hizzoner. The Mayor, able to manipulate the infirm, the duped, weak, the police partisan. And it was so easy.
Coda.
Show them, won't cross me again. Stupid bloggers, think I don't read this crap. We'll see.
The end.
Ms. C.,
You said, "Paula Abbot did seem honestly concerned about the future of Andrews." But as Cowgirl pointed out, Abbott voted against going into executive session to discuss those concerns. More importantly, in my opinion, here is this employee who has served the town well for 18 years, and she voted against even giving him an extra WEEK to transition his responsibilities to someone else. That may seem "honestly concerned" to you, but it seems very cold and vindictive to me.
You say "Perhaps Loomis, Carter and Kunish presented some 'evidence' to her of wrongdoing that she for whatever reason believed."
But then Art said, "the open meeting law...prohibits a quorum (4 council members) from discussing an item PRIOR to an open publicized meeting."
So how could Loomis, Kunisch, and Carter convince Abbott of anything without breaking open meeting laws?
You say, "Paula has served us well for 7 years."
Could you let me know what she has done?
You say, "Keep knocking her and ya might have a continuation of what is going on lately and I am sure Loomis would welcom more support."
I think that's why ETH alluded to "voting to spite this blog." Why would she do that?
You ask, "could she have been duped?"
It would appear that way.
You say, "it was an agreement to vote for or against accepting his resignation."
Yes, but the resignation was demanded by Loomis, no?
They won't reveal what Andrews supposedly did to result in his removal. They say it was "issues" and it was "things."
I say, if he did something ILLEGAL, then he should not be entitled to a $145,000 severance package (of taxpayer money no less.)
And if what he did was NOT illegal, then after 18 years of exemplary performance, they should have met behind closed doors to discuss the "infraction" and worked out a solution.
Either way, it doesn't look too good for the 4 stooges. They either have to admit that they're giving away 6 figures in taxpayer money to a criminal or they have to admit that it is THEY who have something to hide by refusing to go into Executive Session.
That's how I see it.
I had the honor of working for the Town Manager's office and this news is just completely unreal to me. I have yet to meet another fair and decent man such as David.
I am totally disgusted with Mayor Loomis and the four council members that voted to accept David's resignation.
In particular, I am baffled by KC Carter. It seems that he has really gone off the deep in the last year. I personally know David did alot for KC (because he is elderly and alone).
What a shame, has anybody thought of asking David to run for Mayor? Wouldn't that be something?
The fact is, mscoyote, right or wrong or whatever, Council has the right to terminate or accept the resignation of a contract employee by utilizing the power of 'executive session', a closed meeting', but, in this case, the 'gang of four', INCLUDING Ms. Abbott, chose to air this matter in a public hearing which is not required. A motion was made to continue the matter in such a hearing but was defeated by this 'gang of four' thus FORCING a contentious presentation before the public. This was done willfully and with knowledge of the fact and done so obviously in advance of this public presentation. Ms. Abbott, by voting against the 'Executive Session' motion, can only be considered an EQUAL party to this travesty and, as such, has besmirched her legacy. In short, this whole issue could have been resolved, whatever the outcome,
in privacy; instead it was made to be a deliberate and despicable public showcase, complete with 'hanging chads and dangling participles'.
The abomination WAS Ms. Paula Abbott; The abomination WAS Kenneth Carter; the abomination WAS Al Kunisch; the abomination WAS Mayor Paul Loomis. Ms. Coyote, they ALL had their dirty hands in it; they are ALL guilty of a less than acceptable result - EQUALLY!
Lumping Paula in with the other three is unfair and unwise. She's not part of one side or the other, but votes independently - which makes her a SWING vote. What's worse, Paula where OV citizens have a chance she'll vote their way or her probably being replaced by yet another big money puppet like the other three who will vote for their own interests ALL THE TIME??? Sandra Day O'Conner used to be the swing vote on the Supreme Court - until she retired. Her replacement, John Roberts, made it a 5-4 court all the time for Scalia et al.
Better the devil you know!
Liliana, by her actions and her words
in this matter, Paula Abbott MUST be lumped in with the 'other' three. Relative to 'swing votes', she had the option of at least voting to retire this matter within an 'Executive Session'; she chose not to do this. Thus, she became an EQUAL partner! Let's not soft step her participation.
WHY IN HELL WOULD YOU PUT AN 'ITEM' INTO A PUBLIC HEARING IF YOU HAVE NO INTENTION OF HEARING THE PUBLIC?
Liliana--- Thanks for taking the time to read the blog and offer your support for Paula.
You may or may not know, but accepting the wrath of many, I stood up for Paula and always believed she voted in the best interest of the majority of the constituents, under very difficult circumstances for seven years.
This was my opinion---not shared by too many others.
I will say this to you, and anyone else that cares. Paula turned her back on the people for whatever reason back on May 27, when she joined with those unscrupulous other three despicable people in totally undermining David Andrews.
I don;t know if you listened in to last night's mockery of a meeting. If not, please do so when the audio gets on the town web site.
Pay particular attention to me (Art Segal) as I addressed the council. In the interim, I'll tell you this.
I opened by saying I wouldn't even dignify those other three callous people and I spoke directly to Paula.
I said in no uncertain terms that David Andrews future was in her hands and that David is too good a man to "throw under the bus."
The end result? Ms. Abbott joined with those other nasty, vindictive three, and she didn't even have the decency to allow David to stay on for five more days.
Whatever her motives might have been, David's life has been placed in turmoil. Paula Abbott holds the same responsibility for this as Loomis, Carter & Kunisch.
SHAME ON THE FOUR OF THEM.
Art
So you'd base who's on the council based on one or two votes that didn't go your way rather than on how she's voted overall? That's the kind of logic used by the very people you're railing against!
Removing Paula from office is akin to cutting off one's nose to spite their face. I'd rather have Paula in there where there's a good chance she'll vote my way rather than take the chance she'll be replaced by someone who will NEVER vote my way.
Wow. I see the judge, jury and executioner's have spoken.
Please I am entitled to my thoughts and opinions also.
VC, Yes I agree of he did something illegal then he should not get the severance package. Then again I am willing to wait and see if more info comes out and maybe Dave will offer some explanation.
I guessed I missed something while watching the video. I thought that they had discuussed the so called "issue". I thought the vote was for the council to go back into "executive" session to discuss the resignation letter/resignation of David.
Jennifer, Yes I agree KC has gone off the deep end, without being disrespectful I think he may have some age related problems.
Zev, Yes I am aware that council has the right to terminate a contract employee for cause or no cause as they serve at the please of the appointing authority, in this case the council.
Again, I will say I guess I missed something or misunderstood. I thought they had already discussed the so called issue at an exeutice session and they were voting to return to an executive session to discuss the resignation or resignation letter.
As far as I know this is still America and until Art says otherwise I can post my opinion.
I am still not convinced that Paula is one of the "bad guys"
Am I happy with her vote, No I am not
I am willing to to see if more info comes out until I am convinced she is one of the bad guys.
Well said, MsCoyote. Minds are like parachutes - they work best when open. OV could use more people like you! : )
I agree with Jennifer. Lets look at some of our Presidents, who have done some rather unfortunate things, but they were not forced to leave office. I am sure David could not come anywhere near to that, but things like that, don't necessarily affect your ability to do a good job. So her "issues", unless theft or a felony, is no excuse to put him under the bus. So these supposed " things" that I believe were prefabricated or there was a "setup" by someone who was either jealous, upset by what he would't do, was a power play to beat himself on his chest and say, "look at who is the power here" but what they don't realize is that people don't appreciate that kind of behavior and believe that kind of person needs to be removed, so it may come back to bite him on the butt. I am sorry, but Paula has not really been doing a good job. Many times she appears not to be aware of what is going on or has briefed herself on the facts. The questions that she has asked during Council session, just don't sound like what a representative of the people should be asking. She is not prepared.
OV Mom, again I base my opinion of Abbott on her service of 7 years in which I think the majority of the time she voted in the best interest of the ov citizens. Yes recently I have disagreed strongly with some of her votes.
Yes, I said she seemed honestly concerned to me from what I could hear on the video. I heard her not willing to public discuss in public the so called "issues" which I had thought had already been discussed in executive session, which now I am unsure of due ot other posts . She seemed to indicate that doing so could possibly harm his reputation thus his future career. You seemed to think she acted cold and vindictive. What reason would she have to act cold and vindictive to Andrews?
I never mentioned the open meeting laws or said they were followed or violated, other posters did that.
Also I said that perhaps, she(PA) was presented with some "evidence" , note I said perhaps. I don't think I mentioned any names , So I don't know who discussed what with who or if a violation of the open meeting laws were violated.
You seem to indicate that Looms demanded his resignation. Does anybody know that for a fact?
Liliana--- Don't talk to me about Paula. You seem to not comprehend what I said previously so I'll
say it again, louder.
I SUPPORTED PAULA TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PRIOR TO HER FIRST ELECTION IN 2002. I HELPED HER GET REELECTED BY THREE VOTES IN 2006. I STOOD BY HER THE WHOLE TIME AND ACKNOWLEDGED HER ACCOMPLISHMENTS.WE WERE VERY GOOD FRIENDS---and then-----
Paula Abbott "threw David Andrews under the bus" not once, but twice, in the last few months.
David did nothing to deserve that.
Support Paula all you want. I stand by my condemnation. It is certainly deserved.
So when the dust settles we are still left having to deal with the one who runs the show in town, Mayor Loomis
People Paul Abbott is not the problem here!!
This has turned into a Paula Abbott blame fest
Mayor Looms calls the shots.
When did this become Paula's story?
She may not run again - her time is past. To quote myself:
"Weakness and lack of courage. Paula, once the lone voice against Mammon, the developers, they who dare to cut a cactus, they who don't care for women, her long lonely stance has got the better of her. Pity, not retribution is her lot."
She did well in the past. The two recent critical votes against good fiscal management and against Mr. Andrews demonstrate that she has lost her independent voice.
N W
BB speaks NOT with forked tongue. There ARE undisclosed issues that are somewhat well known. I am surprised that none of you have privey to that information. It ain't pretty.
I like David. Always have and still do. Some of the problems that were previously discussed in this blog (especially well articulated by Zev) fall directly to the feet of the Town Council and not at David's feet. However the Town Council members would never be strong enough to admit to their own shortcomings.
Lastly, I would suggest to most of you that if you really want to make things better in this Town that you take the first step and throw Mr. Segal under the proverbial bus. He is nothing but a busy body, vindictive fool who thinks he is the 'know-it- all expert' who likes to stir up crap. The fact that he is unaware of the behind scenes issues speaks volumes about his 'knowledge'.
OVOT.
We await enlightenment.
Tell us what we should know.
NW
Ms. Coyote,
I agree that Loomis calls the shots, however, I am thinking of the expression, "No one can take advantage of you without your permission." Because Carter, Kunisch, and now even Abbott are ALLOWING Loomis to call the shots, they are all as guilty as he is of manipulating the process.
Liliana,
Back when the votes were 6-1, with Paula being the lone dissenter, one could say that she voted independently. However, that is no longer the case. It also has become apparent that she is difficult to work with, as many people stated in the past, but I didn't believe them at the time. I first noticed it when Dankwerth and Culver came on the council. It was expected that Paula would work well with them, but that didn't happen. At the time, I assumed the problem was Dankwerth and Culver. But now I see that Paula cannot work with Salette either. I now see a pattern of difficult behavior, and Paula is the common denominator in that pattern.
We liked and defended Paula for years, but something has changed in her and we can no longer defend her actions. First we were ridiculed by some for defending her all those years. Now we're being lectured to by others for having the objectivity to see that she has changed and for disassociating ourselves from her.
Art,
Your speech last night was "spot on!"
I was wondering when Cox would rear his ugly head and interject his arrogant stupid comments.
OK big mouth. Go ahead and tell our readers all the crap you seem to know. Give us facts, not obscene innuendo by disgruntled losers that will go to any means to besmirch the reputation of anyone they don't like.
We heard enough BS spouted by the four others last night. I'm sure you can add more to that.
Everything you say or do reeks from BS!
The next election may finally shut you up. You can't live with the fact I helped get Bill & Salette elected.
If that pissed you off, wait to you see the next election. The cronies will be out on their proverbial backsides, and we'll finally have a full majority of dignified intelligent folks with two attributes you know nothing about---"Dignity & Intelligence"
Thinker,
If the "undisclosed issues" are "somewhat well-known" then why didn't Gillaspie, Garner and Latas know about them? Why were these "issues" kept from them but not kept from you and Boobie-Baby? And why did David's performance review go well just one week earlier?
Also, you've never liked Paula and have complained about everything she has ever done. What did you think of her performance last night?
No need to shout, Art. I wasn't talking to you. I was responding to Zev's comment DIRECTLY to me.
The fact that you posted in the time between when I read his post and when I clicked on "publish your comment" is on you. Calm down already! There's no need to be nasty.
Paula was obviously having a difficult time last night. But it was because she wanted to disclose information backing her decision, not that she felt uncertain about it.
I'm convinced there is a lot more to this story and, to protect David, we may never know all. They were all interested in protecting any future job prospects for him. My feeling is that it wasn't something illegal, it was maybe something unethical/unprofessional/incompetent...something along those lines.
None of you...none of US...are privy to what went on in executive session. Making WAGs (wild ass guesses) will benefit no one and might just end up smacking of libel.
You (collectively) have been incorrect before. There is a possibility you are incorrect now.
Yeah I also wonder why the performance was satisfactory one week then the next it was some "issues" and Yes I would also like to know what changed in a week.
Is the so called issue or issues were discussed in the closed or executive session I am going to assume that for anybody who was in attendance to disclose any details would be a violation of some sort. VC, do you wonder why Paula would allow Loomis to call the shots for her but she did not allow it in the past. What changed?
Yes I disagree with her vote but I don't know any details but I don't really see how she acted cold and vindictive as OV Mom thought. She came across as sort of not really liking how she was going to vote. But then again I was not there, just listened to the video on the town web site.
Perhaps Paula could provide somebody with an explanation for her vote or perhaps David Andrews could give us his opinion on what and why this happened.
VC,
Four open seats in 2010. Keep your eyes on what we can change.
PA says she isn't running again. Actions inside Town Hall say otherwise.
Loomis is running.
Kunisch will run.
Carter, who knows. He can't keep his mouth shut. Good to see Salette got that on the record last night.
Zev,
Four good candidates is what we need.
I was impressed with some of the speakers last night. Two in particular.
Anyone else impressed by any of the speakers?
Deacon and all other faithful readers---- We previously told our readers we will introduce and enthusiastically endorse two candidate.
To date, we introduced Mike Zinkin, and we couldn't be more proud of our first choice.
By next week, we will tell you about the second candidate, and we know every reasonable person will agree this is great news for Oro Valley.
We realize there will be four vacancies, and we are hopeful we will "clean house" and get these four incumbents out of here before they ruin this town completely.
We hope to have two more candidates, but be assured we will NOT endorse anyone that is beholden to ANY special interest group, other than the people of Oro Valley.
Hopefully candidates supporting quality of life items like the Naranja park instead of yet another ugly business park.
I'm not sure any of them will run again. Maybe the Mayor?
Bloggers:
I concur that what happened to David Andrews is a travesty, a decision that will go down in infamy for this town. As voters we need to know what the reasons are.
So many have articulated very valid points. To be succinct I will address only one that has not surfaced.
"Intimidation, threats, harassment"
Hizzoner's style is not one of rewards and gifts but is heavy handed, creates fear, threatens.
There are reports of Police surveilling the Council members of surveilling citizens' court hearings, of saying threatening things to citizens. Could this treatment explain why Paula and KC who previously were so constituent-oriented, suddenly reversed their positions?
A man I interviewed who was fearful of my questions said the following, "I have family members who are cops and who know how to take a person out into the desert and see that he doesn't come back."
Which municipality did his relative work for?
It is part of public record that OVPD often ticket traffic violators by surrounding the car with up to five squad cars. Sounds pretty heavy handed to me.
In uniform with guns many arrived to Town meetings en masse. Sounds pretty intimidating to me.
If I observed one or two whether on or off duty watching my comings and goings, I'd wonder why. While "surveilling" may not be a crime, "stalking" certainly appears in the AZ Statutes.
"Malfeasance by color of office" is the legal term for Police misuse of their roles, ie using intimidation to coerce behavior.
Is this what is happening to Council to get their votes?
Hizzoner and the Chief bonded a long time ago.
Liliana said, "Paula...'s not part of one side or the other, but votes independently"
Sorry. Maybe in some distant past. For the past 7 months, Abbott has voted consistently with the axis of evil.
You said, "Paula where OV citizens have a chance she'll vote their way"
Sorry. Many, many citizens got up and spoke Wednesday evening. Some implored Abbott directly to vote for the people's wishes, and she stubbornly refused.
"Better the devil you know!"
Well, at least you admit she's a devil.
You say, "So you'd base who's on the council based on one or two votes that didn't go your way rather than on how she's voted overall?"
It's not one or two votes that didn't go someone's way. It's a consistent pattern over the last 7 months. Abbott has voted against educational family activities that would cost the town nothing (the historic gardens at Steam Pump Ranch). She has voted against putting citizens on an Economic Development Commission. She has voted against a Sustainability Commission. She voted against having transparency in policy votes. I could go on and on. The fact is, she has been on the wrong side of almost every issue for nearly 7 months.
You say, "I'd rather have Paula in there where there's a good chance she'll vote my way rather than take the chance she'll be replaced by someone who will NEVER vote my way."
I'd rather have someone in office who takes my phone calls, returns my e-mails, and therefore has some CLUE about how I want her to vote. And I'd rather have someone in office who votes FOR family activities, FOR citizen-centric economic development, FOR environmental sustainability, FOR transparency, and not just AGAINST everything.
Ms. C said, "maybe Dave will offer some explanation."
I don't believe that "Dave" owes anybody an explanation for 18 years of exemplary service. I think that Loomis, Kunisch, Carter, and Abbott owe all of us an explanation.
You say, "I thought that they had discuussed the so called 'issue'."
If they had discussed it, how come Garner, Gillaspie, and Latas seemed to have no clue as to what it was???
Liliana said, "Minds are like parachutes - they work best when open."
I agree. And phones work best when they are answered, and e-mails work best when they are read, and government works best when its servants listen to the people who put them in office.
Ms. C. says, "I base my opinion of Abbott on her service of 7 years in which I think the majority of the time she voted in the best interest of the ov citizens."
Thank you, Ms. C., but please answer my question: What has she done? What legacy has she left? Just being against everything is not a legacy. It's not productive.
You say, "What reason would she have to act cold and vindictive to Andrews?"
Good question!
You say, "You seem to indicate that Looms demanded his resignation. Does anybody know that for a fact?"
I believe Bill Garner established that quite clearly.
You say, "Paul Abbott is not the problem here!!"
If Abbott had voted on the side of the people, a good man would still have his job, and Oro Valley would still have a good town manager. I'd say she is 1/4 of the problem, along with Loomis, Kunisch, and Carter.
Suija said, "Paula was obviously having a difficult time last night. But it was because she wanted to disclose information backing her decision, not that she felt uncertain about it."
Then please tell me why she voted against going into executive session where she could discuss it?
Ms. C. said, "I don't really see how she acted cold and vindictive as OV Mom thought."
Because she voted against giving an exemplary 18-year employee ONE WEEK to gather his things and make a transition. That is cold and vindictive.
I just love this. OVOT, and others claim that there are "issues" which predicated the removal of the town manager. I respect that this blog may not be the place to make a claim or disclose such information. A recent court case, outside AZ, allowed a blogger to be sued for libel. (good to know)
However, if such derogatory information does exist, then should it not be known to ALL the members of the council?
If the information was deemed serious and/or if the information was found, after reflection, to be true, then would not ALL the members vote against the manager?
Boobie, Mscoyote, if there are issues out there. I wonder if they were fabricated? And if any issues are indeed true, exactly how serious are they?
For example, men and women have affairs all the time. That is human nature. It becomes an issue outside the family, when someone in the chain of command is having an affair with a subordinate, or a lobbyist is "in bed" with a government official (what a shock) Anyway. If the gang of four were the only ones to have this information, then the open meeting law must have been violated. If the three members of the good government party were informed of any "issues" they must have discounted the charges as false, unproven or petty.
NW
OV M.
You say "Well at least you admit she is a devil." After that statement I don't really owe you any answers. That was disgusting and I think you know it!!!
ActuallyI am surprised at you. In the past your posts have always been factual and not filled with name calling or character assasinations.
Now you are the one who seems to have a personal issue with Paula.
Then yougo on to say "Abbott has voted consistently with the Axis of Evil". Wow, that sounds like one of the people who believes in all the 9/ll conspiracy theories or the birther conspiracy.
I said "maybe Dave will offer some explanation", Mom, I said that not because I think he owes anybody anything, I said it with the hopes that maybe he would offer some facts!
Please don't assume you know what I meant.
You keep asking me what has Paula done?
I keep telling you that in my opinion her votes reflect the way I think most of the time. Also have stated I don't always agree with her and some of her recent votes I strongly disagree with her. And just because I disagree with some of her votes, especially the last one I can strongly disagree with her actions without calling her names.
She is not a bad person, she made a bad decision(vote)
What more do you want? I am not going to jump on the Paula bashing band wagon. Forget about it unless there is evidence to warrant same.
You then go on to ask what type of legacy does she have, etc.
Never said she had one, you seem to think she should
Mom, if you know more about this then perhaps you can share with the rest of us.
Until then it is sounding like you have a personal issue with Paula.
You don't seem to have the same strong feelings about the others who I think would warrant some bashing.
Once again, it is not about Paula. I say again, her time has passed. With this latest controversy,she may not last until the next election.
It is about manipulation. It is about alleged police surveillance of council members. It is about possible false claims and character assination. Wake up people! The majority of your town government may not have your best interests at heart.
NW
Please, lets move on!
Find four decent people.
Art, with due respect I want to read questions answered by interested candidates. Any one person making all the decisions isn't the American way.
I have serious reservations about endorsing anyone this early.
Nombe,
Will take your comment about the majority of council mabye not having our best interest at heart a step further.
Government in general does not always have our best interest at heart!
Just my humble opinion.
People should not fear the government, the government should fear the people.
VC will know who said it. Can't recall but love the words. Maybe Jefferson.
Wake me up in three years, ok?
The issues confronting Oro Valley are numerous, and competent government is sorely needed.
Without knowing all of the facts involved in this latest controversy, it is not possible to be declarative in judgement. It is beyond dispute, however, that the 4-3 vote makes it clear our town council is disfunctional, in that this decision will impact a human being's life in a deep and lasting manner.
If we the citizenry of Oro Valley live up to our reputed reputation, we will seize this as an opportunity to actualize ourselves, and elect a council that will manage the town effectively, without histrionics.
Christopher Fox
Ms. C.,
I did not call Abbott a devil. I pointed out that Liliana was saying that. I don't believe in demons personally.
"Axis of evil" is a term coined by United States President George W. Bush in his State of the Union Address on January 29, 2002, to describe Iran, Iraq, and North Korea.
I'm sorry if I offended you because you believe that Abbott's votes reflect the way you think most of the time. Are you able to talk with her? I have not been able to reach her by phone or by e-mail. So I have no idea why, but I can tell you again that for the past 7 months she has voted against my values nearly all the time.
Yes, I think that people who hold public office should try to do some good and not just try to be contrary all the time.
I don't have a personal issue with Abbott. I just think it's completely fair to take her to task, along with Loomis, Kunisch, and Carter, for her spendthrift, myopic voting record in the last 7 months. And I think it's completely fair to ask for evidence of what positive things she has done for the voters who put her in office.
Ms. Coyote,
You asked, "Do you wonder why Paula would allow Loomis to call the shots for her but she did not allow it in the past. What changed?"
Here's what I think. In the past, the votes were usually 6-1 or 5-2 with Paula in the minority. Back then, she probably voted against the Mayor 98% of the time. With the new council, the votes were now split 3-3 with Paula always being the swing vote. So Loomis used his manipulative ways to "swing" her to his side so he could be in control once again and always get the 4-3 votes that he needs. He probably used the old "divide and conquer" strategy to turn Paula away from Salette and Bill. Just look at what's happening with animal issues. Paula has always been an advocate for animals, and now she has Salette in her corner on this one, yet she has even turned against Salette on this issue. Paula is now suddenly against something that she was for all along, unless, of course, she is the one spearheading it! The jealousy factor is hard to miss.
Ms C and VC.
Do not forget Young-Wright and LD 26 (do I have her name right?).
I believe you will find the source of SOME of the hate I described in a previous post deep in who supported each faction.
To Bad Oro Valley suffers because of that history.
Nombe's observation is powerful:
"However, if such derogatory information does exist, then should it not be known to ALL the members of the council?"
Yes, the evidence is mounting that each of the 4 members who voted to accept the resignation clearly KNEW going into it that they had the 4 votes so they had no need to reveal the information to the other 3.
If you wanted to remove Andrews that badly, you would want to make sure that EVERYONE had the damaging information so that you would get the majority vote. But you wouldn't have to do that if you already KNEW that you had the majority vote!
Nombe also said:
"If the information was deemed serious and/or if the information was found, after reflection, to be true, then would not ALL the members vote against the manager?"
That's correct. Apparently, the 4 stooges had no proof of their allegations and voted based on hearsay or on the contents of an anonymous letter or because they were intimidated into doing so. If they had anything concrete, they would have been happy to share the information and get a unanimous vote.
OV Mom,
Maybe technically you did not call Paula a devil but saying in response to Lilliana" Well at least you admit she's a devil" is about as close to saying it.
So do you think she is a devil?
Yes, I recall Bush using the term Axis of evil and I don't equate Paul with that.I don't think she is evil but again I strongly disagree with how she voted.
You did not offend me at all but you disappointed me for reasons that I stated in earlier posts.
I have not tried to contact any council members lately but in the past some who have responded don't vote to reflect my views so I don't necessarily make the connection between a response to voting for my views.
In fact one council person who usually responds usually always voted the opposite of my views.
Yes I agree people in Public Office should try to do some good and not always be contrary.
Until recently Paula usually voted to reflect my views. Was she an "activist" type of council person, No probably not. But some who are active don't necessarily represent my views.
You say you don't have a personal issue with Abbott yet your posts seem to say something different. I don't see you asking for the same accountability of Loomis, Unisch or Carter. Why Not?
VC,
Yeah maybe Loomis did use the divide and conquer MO on Paula.
You speak of some type of jealousy between Paula and Salette.
Perhaps Loomis initiated that also, I don't know.
Whatever the problem is I wish all involved would try and work it out.
Ok, guess I am dreaming :)
OVM, Ms C, and VC:
There IS a devil out there and indeed it is NOT Paula:
Here is a portion of my yet unpublished rock opera:
ORO VALLEY, A VALLEY OF FEAR
BY NOMBE WATANABE, with aplolgies to the Rolling Stones:
Please allow me to introduce myself, Loomis is my name
Been around for a long long year
can you guess the nature of my game?
I was round when Paula had her moment of doubt and shame
Made damn sure that KC washed his hands and sealed his fate
Made the town or Oro valley look like Watergate
So if you meet me have some courtesy
Have some sympathy and some taste
use all your well earned politics
or i'll lay your soul to waste
You can see why apologies are required.
NW
"I did not call Abbott a devil. I pointed out that Liliana was saying that. I don't believe in demons personally."
Cheap shot, OV Mom. I never called her a devil...that's on you and you know it. "Better the devil you know" is a colloquialism.
The nastiness, diversionary tactics and name calling you are demonstrating here are incongruent with your onscreen name. Hopefully these are not values you're choosing to teach to your children.
Isn't the real issue here that three council members were not even informed of any cause to dismiss David?
David reports the the Council.. all of the Council.
Yet, four chose not to discuss anything with the other three.
Very bad leadership by Paul Loomis.
He simply must be replaced.
Candidates.
Please arise.
The truth of the matter is if the 4 council members who voted to oust Andrews cared about their political futures, they would have ensured that the public understood the basis for their collective decision.
From what I understand, Andrews received high work reviews, had developed strong relationships with other town employees and residents, and had an impressive 18 year stint with OV. To not renew the contract of such a town manager, and further, to not provide a sufficient basis for such a decision is unacceptable. These are public positions funded by tax dollars, and the public DESERVES to know.
Suija, you say that "Paula was obviously having a difficult time last night. But it was because she wanted to disclose information backing her decision, not that she felt uncertain about it. I'm convinced there is a lot more to this story and, to protect David, we may never know all. They were all interested in protecting any future job prospects for him."
While Paula (and her fellow supporters on this vote) may have wanted to spare Andrews any undue harm in revealing the true basis for their decision, they have put their political lives in great jeopardy by conducting town business in this manner.
In alleged attempts to spare Andrews embarrassment, they have made decisions to sacrifice their own political futures. Conducting government business in the dark is unacceptable, and the public deserves a valid explanation.
While any sordid details discussed in executive session should remain private, a revealing, yet redacted justification of Andrews' dismissal should have been released to the public. These 4 town council members have certainly not done right by their constituents.
Liliana,
When you said, "better the devil you know" referring to Abbott, you WERE calling her the devil. No one uses that phrase to describe someone they like, admire and trust. They use it to imply...well, I don't particularly care for this person, but at least I'm familiar with his/her MO and I know what to expect from them..and if we replace this person with someone else, we will have no idea what to expect from them and it could be even worse.
I think OV Mom was just using sarcasm to make her point. If you've been reading this blog for some time, you would know that her posts are always knowledgeable, objective and civil. "Nastiness, diversionary tactics and name-calling" do not come from OV Mom.
All opinions are welcome, but talking about "the devil" is not the issue. The issue is, as most recently enunciated by "Dan," is what these four did, mainly to David, but certainly to the town employees and the vast majority of the citizens.
As for Paula, how asinine a comment was her statement: "If I divulge all of the issues it will hurt him" ("him" being David.)
No. Paula didn't want to "hurt" David, so all she did was cast the deciding vote to toss him out IMMEDIATELY.
Wasn't that gracious of Abbott to be so concerned about David? Yeah! Sure, What a great friend she turned out to be.
And why was David removed? Because of Lies, Innuendo & Vindictiveness! Period!
Let's simplify this whole damned 'conversation' about Paula Abbott, shall we. Paula Abbott self- righteously proclaimed that [she had a duty because of her 'oath' of office to accept some 'dirt' relative to David Andrews, refusing to disclose same because she didn't want to 'hurt his future'] all the while REFUSING to allow that this subversion, in concert with her cohorts, Mayor Paul Loomis, Vice-mayor Kenneth Carter, Member Al Kunisch, be handled in a confidential manner as allowed by the 'codes' of governance and available to HER (as well as the rest of the bunch) by the utility of a non-public 'Executive Session'.
Paula Abbott, what was the 'oath' you took that FORCED you to act out in this egregious manner, pontificating that [there were a myriad of issues that you didn't want to disclose] for fear that you might 'hurt' that very person that, in fact, you were 'hurting'?
For those of you that are standing by your 'man', let me remind you that "today is a yesterday gone forever and a tomorrow that is now". Ask yourselves what the definition of 'is' is! "The old gray mare she ain't what she used to be".
I just finished listening to the farce of a council meeting where our beloved town manager was removed. I am absolutely disgusted with the way this went down. I had the pleasure of meeting David Andrews a few years ago and found him to be of high ethical standards, extremely intelligent and very compassionate about what he was doing. I believe that Mr. Andrews loves Oro Valley as much as the rest of us do, and I find it totally reprehensible as how he was treated. I have read with great interest all of the posts on this blog, and I see a lot of support for Mr. Andrews. The one thing I do not see is someone stepping up to throw their hat into the ring to challenge Mayor Loomis in the March 2010 election. Let me throw my hat in that ring to say I would be honored to do just that. I am an eleven year resident of Oro Valley and love our town. I have raised a wonderful family here and would love to see this own of ours become better. To unseat Mayor Loomis and his cronies however, I will need help, so I ask the powers that be for their support and guidance. Should you so desire to help me please leave a post on how I can get in touch with you or send a reply to Art and I will find a way to get in touch with him. I am very desirous to unseat the incumbent Mayor in the March election, please help me.
Thank you.
drdon
drdon,
To beat Loomis will be a difficult but doable task. In my opinion it takes council experience to be mayor.
The candidate I like to beat LooneyFox is eloquent, articulate, poised, intelligent and knows the ways of the LooneyFox. Has outsmarted the LooneyFox many times. Has served on Council in the past. I think she and Salette would work together and get the job done. Barry will speak positively of her. So will Dave Andrews and many staffers. Bill G. would welcome her guts. I count a majority of 4!
Deacon,
You said, "I think SHE and Salette would work well together" and that this person has served on the council in the past. Are you referring to Culver?
VC,
Take Culver over Dankwerth. Both have guts. Dankwerth pushed the utility tax and does not support David Andrews. Two reasons for me to chose Culver. The bloggers here can form their own opinions if they just talk to them.
Deacon--- Conny Culver spoke eloquently on behalf of David Andrews last Wed. evening. That was very much appreciated by me and many others.
As one who supported her in the 2004 election, I, and most of her supporters soon became disenchanted with Culver and her voting record.
We will have candidates that we will enthusiastically support in 2010, that will NOT turn their backs on us.
Culver had her chance, and blew it.
Art, With due respect I disagree with you. Culver did not blow it. I know her. When I didn't agree with her vote I contacted her to get her explanation. Did you?
Deacon--- I don't want to get into another one on one dialog---especially with an anonymous person.
For all I know, YOU are Culver!
The answer is "No." I supported her. She totally disappointed me, and I did NOT need to know why. Her votes said it all.
Carter had his reasons to "do in David." Paula had her reasons. The bottom line is---they accomplished what they set out to do---remove David.
I look at the results that people's action cause. Why or how doesn't negate the result.
Art,
INNUENDO & VINDICTIVENESS PREVAILS IN ORO VALLEY
Me Culver? Me female? No.
A longstanding supporter of Culver? Yes.
A vote does not say it all.
INNUENDO & VINDICTIVENESS is what you say when you don't want facts.
Culver didn't like Abbott and she was right. You attacked her every time. She stuck to her guns and proved you wrong about Abbott.
Culver did this without INNUENDO & VINDICTIVENESS. She had facts.
Open your mind Art.
Deacon,
WHY didn't Culver like Abbott?
WHAT were the facts she had back then?
Thank you.
VC, That would be a good question for you to ask Conny Culver directly.
Since you're wondering ask Barry, Salette and Bill too. The answers will be consistent.
Hmm! Some may think she just did!
VC,
Conny Culver has left her email address and phone # on a previous post.
Think it was the post or topic above this one.
Art Segal posted
" As one who supported her in the 2004 election, I, and most of her supporters soon became disenchanted with Culver and her voting record."
and
"I supported her. She totally disappointed me, and I did NOT need to know why. Her votes said it all."
-----------------
Mr. Segal,
Voting records are public records. The blanket statements you make that my voting record is your reasoning for public distrust is somewhat confusing to me.
A review of the public records will show Barry Gillaspie, Helen Dankwerth and I voted in agreement virtually all of the time. Rarely did we disagree.
Why do you continue to mislead the readers of this blog?
As one of your bloggers posted recently, I'll probably be in the LOVE doghouse. Woof.
connyculver@mac.com
219-1313
Always looked to me that Gillaspie and Culver were on the same page so to speak.
Post a Comment