The Observation Deck

Let me see if I understand this. If two people are running for council, and one is a drooling idiot with absolutely no prospects of advancement, while the other is talented enough that they might someday achieve a higher office, you are all going to vote for the drooling idiot?

If you don't want replacements to be appointed, you should have brought forth that argument when the charter was written and approved, or rewritten and approved.

I think appointments may be the best solution. After all, the person moving to higher office doesn't seem to have any reason to appoint someone who is unqualified, and the appointee is subject to standing for election; its not as though they are being given a sinecure. On the other hand, requiring an election rather than an appointment is expensive (elections are not without cost), and the office would be vacant until an election could be completed.

As to the truth of the matter of a possible conflict of interest on the part of one candidate, consider the source.

Will Brown wrote:Let me see if I understand this. If two people are running for council, and one is a drooling idiot with absolutely no prospects of advancement, while the other is talented enough that they might someday achieve a higher office, you are all going to vote for the drooling idiot?

Well yes.

Will I really do not see this conversation as "Vote for the drooling idiot." I would hope
that everyone votes for the person they feel can best represent their ideals and ideas.
And that can be very different for each and every person and/or family.

However there is here and for all I know elsewhere, groups asking incumbents to run,
and then step down and appoint a predetermined heir to their thrown. While legal,
this is a completely different scenario than what you paint with "Drooling idiots." I
personally do not believe that any of these candidates are "drooling idiots."

Will Brown wrote:If you don't want replacements to be appointed, you should have brought forth that argument when the charter was written and approved, or rewritten and approved.

To my knowledge the changes recommended in the last two charter commissions
have not been adopted by council. The frustration with this has grown to such a level
that I know of at least one group of retired politicians and lawyers that understand
charters that was meeting to rewrite the entire charter and have the community vote
on it, as a last resort to change the charter.

Will Brown wrote:As to the truth of the matter of a possible conflict of interest on the part of one candidate, consider the source.

Again, I would hope that everyone thinks about who they vote for and what is said. But
I would hope you can see the difference between me saying something, and someone
awarding friends hundreds of thousands of dollars, then being run for office by those
friends, who will be back asking for more favors once they are in and/or appointed.

Also I hope you can see the difference between running for higher office and winning
or a councilperson or school board getting sick, and "I will run as an incumbent then
step down and we will then appoint you, because you cannot get elected." Or then
working as hard as you can to work around the charter as it stands. As pointed out to
me by the LO's Charter guru Steve Davis, Order of Succession, Law Director, Finance
Director, Public Works Director, President of Council, then you or I, or even the
"drooling idiot" you speak of.

As you have invoked the "drooling idiot" into the discussion, let me ask... Is it a good
thing to help those down on their luck, get an education and help so that they can make
for themselves a better life?

Is it also OK then to fund that by selling CRACK, or robbing people at gun point?

Just because a destination is right does not make ALL roads to that destination right.

This win at all costs mentality is destroying this country.

My biggest problem in all of this is that the system seems ripe to be exploited once again
by a few "THAT KNOW WHAT IS RIGHT FOR LAKEWOOD." After all then how could it be
bad, they know they are right, correct and righteous. As I have tried very hard to take
the high road for this cycle, I have refrained from listing all of the groups that have
gone haywire after realizing THEY ALONE ARE RIGHT, GIFTED, EVERYONE ELSE COULDN'T
POSSIBLY UNDERSTAND. WE CANNOT TRUST THESE PEOPLE TO VOTE THE RIGHT WAY.
But the history books are filled with them.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely..." Lord Action

FWIW

.

Will,
I would think as a proponent for charter schools to provide some competition for the public schools and provide better service, you would understand the need for competition in school board seats and in council seats. This is more about one group with one agenda finding ways to get their group members or peeps into these incredibly important seats. So big money flowing into Lakewood for big projects will go where? One group to decide and people who the citizens have NOT voted for will helping to decide.


Why would anyone (except this group and their friends) be OK with this? This is an incredibly dangerous plan in light of corruption in other towns and big monies lost and levies never having a chance to be passed. You know in Parma they are threatening the parents with hundreds of dollars of extra costs to get buses, sports, etc. to get them to pass a levy -but after the corruption on the school board I doubt it will happen. SO THE KIDS SUFFER AND THE PARENTS WHO PAY TAXES SUFFER. Good God we can't let anything similar happen in this town.

Hay, Maybe those of us who think all of this,

back door dealing,
scheming,
bait and switching,
self serving,
resident robbing,
democracy denying...
Bull----

would be ok with this

teetering on illegal and over the line of immoral crap, you guys who are connected and will reap the rewards from,
are pulling,

if you cut us in on some of the phat loots!

Dont get me wrong, we aint cheap, but like the rest of you I am sure we all could be had and would sell out our neighbors, sell out our city and sell our souls .....for a price.

Any of ya want to hook us up and cut us in??!!

Start the offer high though. Some of us have values, morals, a sense of right and wrong...and a memory of what Democracy means.

I think appointments may be the best solution. After all, the person moving to higher office doesn't seem to have any reason to appoint someone who is unqualified, and the appointee is subject to standing for election; its not as though they are being given a sinecure. On the other hand, requiring an election rather than an appointment is expensive (elections are not without cost), and the office would be vacant until an election could be completed.

Will,

I want my voice and I want my vote. Appointments ought to be rare and used in circumstances that truly warrant them. I cannot support people who run for office or re-election with the intent to appoint THEIR predetermined choice when they move on. It is an abuse and manipulation of the system which robs citizens of their vote and right to properly vet candidates. I would say that there is some security in an appointment. Yes, you may have to stand or re-election but it is easier if you've been doing the job for a while or if you've got name recognition..especially if there in no opposition.

I want my voice and I want my vote. Appointments ought to be rare and used in circumstances that truly warrant them. I cannot support people who run for office or re-election with the intent to appoint THEIR predetermined choice when they move on. It is an abuse and manipulation of the system which robs citizens of their vote and right to properly vet candidates.

Kristine,
I agree!

Shelley Hurd wrote:if you cut us in on some of the phat loots!

Shelly

I am not saying any "elected" political official is getting rich on this. Although I could
drag in a couple "civic leaders" that are doing pretty damn well from the sweat of
others.

This is what amazes me. They all act like we are dealing with the water right to
Los Angeles in the 1920s. Not some $7,000 or $1,200 a year gig.

Two years ago I saw a contract go out to a firm that bid 200% more than the next
lowest bid.It was an out of city/county company, that ended up at almost 300% more
than what the award winning Lakewood company offered to do a better job for.

In the end, the only thing we could see that made a difference was two paid for trips
to Cincinnati! So the tax payers paid three times as much.

It is amazing.

.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:

Shelley Hurd wrote:if you cut us in on some of the phat loots!

Shelly

I am not saying any "elected" political official is getting rich on this. Although I could
drag in a couple "civic leaders" that are doing pretty damn well from the sweat of
others.

This is what amazes me. They all act like we are dealing with the water right to
Los Angeles in the 1920s. Not some $7,000 or $1,200 a year gig.

Two years ago I saw a contract go out to a firm that bid 200% more than the next
lowest bid.It was an out of city/county company, that ended up at almost 300% more
than what the award winning Lakewood company offered to do a better job for.

In the end, the only thing we could see that made a difference was two paid for trips
to Cincinnati! So the tax payers paid three times as much.

It is amazing.

.

Jim,

I'm not saying that doesn't sound suspicious at face value, but working in the construction industry, there's usually gotta be a pretty good reason to reject a low bid. Did the low bidder not properly complete the bid form? Did they not meet the qualifications (years in business, number of employees, experience in the type of project, etc)? Did they miss something in the scope of work?

Awarding a contract to someone who was 100% high is a pretty rare and extreme case, I'd be curious to hear the details.

Bob Mehosky wrote:Jim,

I'm not saying that doesn't sound suspicious at face value, but working in the construction industry, there's usually gotta be a pretty good reason to reject a low bid. Did the low bidder not properly complete the bid form? Did they not meet the qualifications (years in business, number of employees, experience in the type of project, etc)? Did they miss something in the scope of work?

Awarding a contract to someone who was 100% high is a pretty rare and extreme case, I'd be curious to hear the details.

Bob

I am a big boy and understand many things about business, bids etc. So I rarely complain
but this is a very real case here in Lakewood, and I am sure there could be other reasons
but none that are valid. One company bid $20,000 FLAT NOT ONE PENNY OVER EVER.
The other company bid $40,000, and was over $60,000 last time I checked, and the
project was still not completed nor working up to snuff, and was being charged a
monthly maintenance fee.

The Lakewood company was never even given an RFP until 6 days before it was due,
even though they had requested one in writing 6 months earlier! The Lakewood company
finished the RFP in time, fully. At the time of presentation while the Lakewood company
was presenting, another couple on the committee were reporting back about their
second wonderful trip to Cincinnati, and how they were progressing with production!

Again, one has to take some lumps and move on. But we should never live in a vacuum
thinking it could NEVER HAPPEN HERE!

.

.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:Bob

I am a big boy and understand many things about business, bids etc. So I rarely complain
but this is a very real case here in Lakewood, and I am sure there could be other reasons
but none that are valid. One company bid $20,000 FLAT NOT ONE PENNY OVER EVER.
The other company bid $40,000, and was over $60,000 last time I checked, and the
project was still not completed nor working up to snuff, and was being charged a
monthly maintenance fee.

The Lakewood company was never even given an RFP until 6 days before it was due,
even though they had requested one in writing 6 months earlier! The Lakewood company
finished the RFP in time, fully. At the time of presentation while the Lakewood company
was presenting, another couple on the committee were reporting back about their
second wonderful trip to Cincinnati, and how they were progressing with production!

Again, one has to take some lumps and move on. But we should never live in a vacuum
thinking it could NEVER HAPPEN HERE!.

.

Jim,

Ah, this was an interview process rather than a flat bid? Did they list what their criteria for selection were in the the RFP?

Again, not trying to mix it up with you, I'm genuinely curious. Not following the law in contract awards, that's pretty serious stuff - especially considering the current climate in county government.

Bob Mehosky wrote:Jim,

Ah, this was an interview process rather than a flat bid? Did they list what their criteria for selection were in the the RFP?

Again, not trying to mix it up with you, I'm genuinely curious. Not following the law in contract awards, that's pretty serious stuff - especially considering the current climate in county government.

Bob

RFP, with an interview for questions. At the meeting was asked a couple questions, and
two of the seven spoke highly of the $20,000 bidding company for being good, and leaders
in the field the bid was on.

Again, the real story is so insane, why revisit?

The point, is, do not think it cannot happen here.

At the same lowest bid is not always right and I understand that to. I remember
during the school construction bidding process, one member of the committee dumped
hundreds of pages of "evidence" into our offices. As the people being awarded the
bids were "lowest" not "lowest responsible bidder." Some we seen as unsafe to be
awarded contracts, and wanted "their ass covered, when the buildings fall apart."
Odd thing is it is my belief the same "civic leader" was behind both moves, pushing
the bids through, and making sure a Lakewood company would never get the contract.

No big deal, even though Harding has a big crack in it!

Anything for development, and legacy, for some I guess.

The point, is, do not think it cannot happen here.


.

I am switching this discussion to another thread if that is okay.

Appointing Problem

And Colleen has become an admin on here?

Someone please tell me if that has happened.

Sorry, just thought it was drifting and valuable discussion may be lost in subject heading...

I think it's just the nature of our discussions and is just fine.