Playin' Hardball
Exactly why Holloway should not be the Chairman...
[T]he County Board voted Thursday to delay action on confirming Don Uebelacker as a member of the Ethics Board. That board will likely have a say in the penalty phase in the Holloway case, if it gets to that point.Holloway joined a group of seven supervisors who asked that the appointment be sent back to corporation counsel for a written legal opinion. Only six votes were needed to delay action, based on board rules.
Supervisor Elizabeth Coggs-Jones, who sought the delay, said she believed Uebelacker had a conflict of interest that should preclude him from serving. County Executive Scott Walker nominated Uebelacker, a Brown Deer retiree who co-founded Citizens for Responsible Government.
The group's members led or assisted recall drives against former County Executive F. Thomas Ament, Holloway and multiple supervisors, and they endorsed Walker in the 2002 county executive's race.
Holloway and his cronies can control who sits on the Ethics Board. As Chairman, Holloway can pressure his colleagues in an attempt to obtain a preferential outcome before the Ethics Board.
He said he'd play hardball. Meanwhile taxpayers continue to get beaned.
7 Comments:
what's the difference between cronies and fellow board members? color?
No.
Just because a white person criticizes a black elected official, it doesn't mean the white person is motivated by race.
I totally agree. It is you who have divided the board up by color, champions of justice (despite their avowed decision to break the law) on one side and african-american cronies on the other.
And, besides -- you have already declared that the law should only apply to the black folks. Holloway should be lynched and the white lawbreakers celebrated.
Ah, love the lynch reference.
Trust me, if one of the black supervisors signed the letter, I'd bestow my praise and appreciation on them as well.
And I have never said folks should break the law.
Your "Big Step in the Right Direction" shovels praise at people who have said that they know what they are about to do is illegal. Hello?
There is a HUGE difference between pursuing an option that may not be procedurally allowed and doing something illegal.
It is not illegal to hold a meeting. They may not be empowered to remove Holloway. The courts will utimately decide this.
The only difference is that you like the goals of one set of criminals and will go along with anything that'll destroy holloway whether its a crime or not.
There's little to decide. Read the ordinances; they establish by law when and how a Chair is elected.
They tried and failed to get him through the 2/3 vote the law requires. So, they are simply going to change the number of votes required. Its illegal. The fact that these criminals can say "the courts will decide" is meaningless. A murderer can say the same thing. And by the way, who do you think will pay to go to the courts? I thought we didn't like legal maneuvering around here?
Post a Comment
<< Home