A Big Step in the Right Direction
These folks deserve credit for doing the right thing.
- Mark Borkowski
- Gerry Broderick
- Paul Cesarz
- Lynne DeBruin
- Dan Devine
- Ryan McCue
- Roger Quindel
- Joseph Rice
- Jim Schmitt
- John Weishan Jr.
Supervisors frustrated by Milwaukee County Board Chairman Lee Holloway's drawn-out ethics case took a novel step Thursday toward electing a new leader, but Holloway and the county's own lawyer called the move into question.The corporation counsel, Bill Domina, says the effort may not be kosher.
Unable to muster a state-required two-thirds majority needed to attempt to remove Holloway for cause, 10 supervisors forced a special meeting for Feb. 20 at which they contend a new chairman could be elected by a simple majority.Even some supervisors in the group of 10 conceded the uphill legal battle they face in holding a midterm election for chairman when the office is not vacant.
But even if the move fails, the group hopes to send a clear signal of protest over what it views as Holloway's failure to keep his eye on county business while aggressively challenging the ethics case on several appeal tracks.
The chairman, by state statute, is elected by the board shortly after the new four-year term starts. Holloway was re-elected chairman in 2004 on a 16-3 vote.
Domina said Thursday that there is no legal basis for removing a County Board chairman without cause on a simple majority vote. He based that opinion on his own research and consultations with corporate counsels in other counties, he said. Domina said he views the special-election meeting as tantamount to a removal action. Rice disagrees. Supervisor Peggy West asked Domina on Thursday night to draft a formal opinion on the matter.
I believe the supervisors are asking the wrong question. Instead of asking whether state statutes expressly allow a vote mid term, they should ask if the statutes expressly prohibit a county board from revisiting its vote for leadership, or if they are prevented from conducting another vote at any time.
The board members who did not back this move should be ashamed of themselves. Moreover, they should explain, in clear language and explicit detail, why they support Lee Holloway.
10 Comments:
So, the folks you like on the board couldn't get enough votes to nail oust holloway because maybe he violated the rules. They decide to ignore the rules and pretend they need less votes than the law requires. and --you cheer.
at least we have an honest admission that you don't really care about wrongdoing or the law, you just want the man lynched. pathetic.
Lynched? Ah yes. Everytime a white person criticizes a black person it's racially motivated...
No. When a bunch of white folks set out to violate the law and destroy a black person - that's a lynching and its what's happening here and now.
Question -- where was your outrage when Walker pocketed $25k from Bear Stearns folks in Chicago, gave them a sweet county contract for which the paperwork disappeared, and watched as his white friends in Chicago got indicted?
Where were your cartoons and diatribes then, big shot?
I was in Washington, DC, you big shot brave anonymous poster.
This post has been removed by the author.
Lynched? I suppose you think the 90 some ethics charges should just be ignored.
Funny how you lefties demand immediate resignations and such from leadership positions when you thing you have a rightie on the hook (Delay, Lott, etc.) yet you give a complete pass to the Holloways and the Doyles of the world.
Let me clue you in on something you sanctimonious race-baiter.
Many of these same people voted for Holloway to be Chairman, were they racists then? Clue in on this. Every time an African American does something bad and they get called on it, racism does not necessarily exist.
This is a case of an ethics challenged politician and people who made the choice not to have him as their leader anymore. Leaders serve at the whim of those they are leading, there is no term. They can remove them at any time for any reason.
Lee Holloway is acting like a thug. He needs to be removed.
I never called anyone a racist; I only pointed out illegal conduct and the differing standards that some use when dealing with this stuff.
And, the 90 charges are nonesense. Rice made two charges, the ethics board made up the rest.
Tell you what - give me one other example of a modest complaint involving 2-3 allegations being transformed into a mess like this. One example and I will stand corrected.
Thug? huh. interesting choice of words. Says more about you than Holloway.
PS -- Did the ethics board and the sups treat walker the same way? Why not? While you will probably continue to ignore this question, if you doi respond, along with the name calling, please offer something more than a declaration that walker did nothing wrong; there wasn't even an investigation.
I wonder if a sweep of computers that belong to County Board staff would prove who the original anonymous on these posts really is? I'm guessing they have plenty of time to play blogwatch since they live a sham pretending they have a full time job
I'll interpret mke resident's post as a confession that he or she can't respond to the substance of the issues i wrote about. the fact is that holloway is getting treated totally differently than others and its bad for the county.
Post a Comment
<< Home