What is our vote?
It is our LIBERTY
Liberty
NOUN
1. right to choose: the freedom to think or act without
being constrained by necessity or force
2. freedom: freedom from captivity or slavery
3. basic right: a political, social, and economic right that
belongs to the citizens of a state or to all people ( often used in the plural
)
4. breach of etiquette: an action or remark that violates
the polite distance usually left between people and that may strike the person
at whom it is directed as insultingly familiar
Who has our Liberty (votes) right now?
BRAD LORANG AND MARK STORM HAVE OUR LIBERTY.
And how did they get it?
They TOOK it from us UNWILLINGLY in the name of THEIR
government and REFUSED to give it back.
While people may not always agree, nobody can be shut out of
the process of positive change and be prevented from exercising their voice by
means of one of the most elementary rights as U.S. citizens, the right to
choose our elected officials.
As citizens our right to choose all of our representatives
on council was circumvented by a few who were not only NOT elected by the
citizens but were self-appointed to terms that have been historically voted on
by the citizenry at the next election.
Not only did they appoint themselves to said terms they specifically and
blatantly ignored the charter by incurring an increase to a fire suppression
fee again, without a vote of the citizens.
Therefore we the people express our Constitutional right to
be heard and cause change in a meaningful way in that Brad Lorang be recalled
from the office of council.
While people may not always agree, nobody can be shut out of
the process of positive change and be prevented from exercising their voice by
means of one of the most elementary rights as U.S. citizens, the right to choose
our elected officials.
As citizens our right to choose all of our representatives
on council was circumvented by a few who were not only NOT elected by the
citizens but were self-appointed to terms that have been historically voted on
by the citizenry at the next election.
Not only did they appoint themselves to said terms they specifically and
blatantly ignored the charter by incurring an increase to a fire suppression
fee again, without a vote of the citizens.
Therefore we the people express our Constitutional right to
be heard and cause change in a meaningful way in that Mark Storm be recalled
from the office of council.
__________________________________________________________________________________
To all who helped. It was a lot of fun during this rush
to what may be nowhere Tuesday. From my draft to
the re draft to the discussions and agreements. We had a lot of laughs and I
had a lot of fun I have not had in a long time. So this is for you and you know
who you are. We have to do it again.
Thanks for the hard work so this is for you all anyway. Lets do this again just this time the charter.
Good luck to the other re-caller and a post page awaits all by itself until something breaks.
Cody
42 comments:
Quick question:
When Tom’s council position is filled are you saying it should be until the next election or for the two years left on his term.?
From the Charter:
"Section 30. FILLING OF VACANCIES. Council vacancies shall be filled by a majority of the remaining members of the Council. The appointee’s term of office shall begin immediately and shall continue until the next general election and the term for that position shall be the unexpired portion of the remaining term."
To "Nice try, but we've seen that one before", Cody, Gary, Kate, Sandra, Darlene et al:
(This continues the debate from before using Mark Storm as an example.)
First, if Brad ever compared you with Nazis or Fascists, I would agree that is definitely not a good thing, and doesn't contribute to the health of political discourse in Cascade Locks.
I wasn't sure what you meant about your Hood River County Elections argument, so I checked into it, And get this:
1.) Gary Munkhoff and others had an attorney look into this very issue;
2.) In spite of this attorney's efforts, Mark Storm was not told by Hood River County Elections or the city attorney to stand for elections, and his appointment to the term which he is now serving was upheld!!!
So, Mark Storm was appointed lawfully, and his term continues lawfully according to the County and the City of Cascade Locks.
Gary, have the integrity to come forward and explain to the others who read this blog that what I say about the process is true. (Even though you may disagree with how it turned out).
So:
1.) Cody stated that the Secretary of State "found 4 criminal violations". This is simply not true. Everyone who reads this blog should look back at that document, and then decide for themselves on Cody's ability to research and state facts.
2.) Mark Storm was appointed and continues his term according to the procedure established by the city council at the time, and this was upheld by Hood River County and the City of Cascade Locks when challenged by the lawyer.
Given that all of your arguments about the laws have not carried the day, what you are left with is disagreements about policy, such as the fee, etc.
And, no one yet has responded to this:
And, Cody, you personalize policy disagreements in a scary way. You have stated that they are out "to screw" you; that they have drawn "first blood" against you; and that you look forward to playing "taps for them"; that you need to "restrain yourselves as much as we (me included) can" and on and on...
Gary, Sandra, Kate, Misanthrope, "NIce Try...", Darlene et al: I call on your consciences - surely you know that this ongoing rhetoric is not only poisonous and destructive to reasoned debate, but potentially very dangerous as well. Please show the leadership and courage necessary to admonish your friends when they do bad things (as well as mistate the facts). This is a real test of the character of Cascade Locks.
Dear LongviewForMyself:
I am unsure how I go lumped into this argument and why you would think that I have friends in this town, let alone figure that I would tell someone what to think and how to act. I also do not like your definitions of poisonous rhetoric versus reasoned debate.
You see, it is my considered opinion that the citizens of Cascade Locks are fundamentally flawed, are unable to compromise, carry grugdes for years, are unable to consider anyone else's feelings, have no understanding of boundaries, are unable to separate the personal from the politic and love judging someone at the drop of a hat. In other words, acting like a bad reality show about feuding Irish families, or like Italians without the guns.
I have been threatened and/or insulted by both "sides' at one time or another. I have listened to the politics in this town for over six years now and am just not impressed that I should show you leadership or courage in pursuit of your agendas.
Here's a real test of character, bite yourself. See? Not so easy to do when you have your head up your ass.
Kate,
I apologize, Kate, since you felt that I was lumping you in with other's statements. I included your name up front only because I wanted your comment on it all, but that was not clear. Mea culpa.
Aside from that, it seems clear you agree with me about the poisonous state of CL politics.
Gary, Cody, Sandra, Darlene, and others - how about the substance of the previous post?
LongViewforCascadeLocks
"In spite of this attorney's efforts, Mark Storm was not told by Hood River County Elections or the city attorney to stand for elections, and his appointment to the term which he is now serving was upheld!!!"
Who appointed him?
Section 14. QUORUM. A majority of the Council shall constitute a quorum for its business, but a smaller number may meet and compel the attendance of absent members in a manner provided by ordinance.
So what’s a majority?
Section 19. VOTE REQUIRED. Except as this charter provides otherwise, express concurrence of a majority (four members) of the Council is necessary to decide affirmatively any question before the Council.
So what could they do to fill the vacancies?
Section 30. FILLING OF VACANCIES. Council vacancies shall be filled by a majority of the remaining members of the Council. The appointee’s term of office shall begin immediately and shall continue until the next general election and the term for that position shall be the unexpired portion of the remaining term.
Not one thing.
To constitute a quorum. Requires a majority. A majority is how many? Four members. No legal quorum. Government is unfounded.
Looks like those five alarmers did not have it all figured out as much as they thought now does it?
Every action taken since the recall, I just nulled and voided.
So your Mark Storm argument is irrelevant as there was no government to appoint him to begin with.
But there is more. So when you get a grasp of what just happened to you let me know as I will be more than happy to show you the rest of the story.
Cody
Longview,
Your comments on the issue are partly true, but there are facts that were not considered and which are relevant to Mark's or Brad's right to hold their unelected positions on the council.
I would relish the chance to debate the issue, but I refuse to debate with someone who is afraid to use their real name on this blog.
And you question my integrity?
LongViewforCascadeLocks
So all this arguing over what the remaining members could do and how long the term of office is to appoint forgot to define the word majority. Nobody could appoint anyone.
Cody
Cody (and Gary since you quoted the same provision),
There are three instruction in the following:
30. FILLING OF VACANCIES. 1.) Council vacancies shall be filled by a majority of the remaining members of the Council. 2.) The appointee’s term of office shall begin immediately and shall continue until the next general election and 3.) the term for that position shall be the unexpired portion of the remaining term.
( I added the numbers above for clarity)
1.) The first instruction was followed.
2.)The second instruction was followed for those whose term expired at the next general election.
3.)The third instruction applied to Mark Storm, because the City Council appointed him to the longer term.
Clearly you think that number 2 voids number 3, but apparently the powers that be did not agree (instruction 3 modifies instruction 2 for longer terms).
Cody, you are still dodging the Secretary of State falsehood that you told, as well as my point about Gary's attorney.
And, you are delusional about your statement: "Every action taken since the recall, I just nulled and voided."
I guess in your world, you - not the courts, not the secretary of state, not Hood River County Elections, not the City of Cascade Locks and its attorneys, administrators, interim administrators, mayors and council members - you, not them, are the final arbiter of the law.
Gary,
We just posted at a similar time, so I didn''t see yours.
Which comments of mine are true, and which are not?
I (like several others) need to use this screen name, because due to threats, I have reason to fear for my safety...)
If that is not good enough for you, so be it - but don't the other citizens of CL deserve to hear from you where Cody is incorrect?
Put another way, why withold the truth?
LongViewforCascadeLocks
1.) Cody stated that the Secretary of State "found 4 criminal violations". This is simply not true. Everyone who reads this blog should look back at that document, and then decide for themselves on Cody's ability to research and state facts.
Now real quick before I have to leave for another round of Therapy. I will address this one.
This issue you raise did get transferred to the Oregon State Police.
I was called to The Dalles Office twice. And many emails between us which if you want to come out of the closet and contact me I will gladly let you read them.
The officer in charge was Lt. Patrick Ashmore.
He had the original public record documents and the original forged public record documents and the proof from the PAC itself in its handouts and slate mailers that it was used to unduly influence the voters.
Now you were not in what they called their “war room” in the basement of the State Police office by The Dalles Dam. With more suits with guns and badges than I like to be around.
But it boiled down to budget. At that time it was when the crash hit government bad. Bend had some serious child investigation cases as well as an overflow of cases because of the economy and over rampant drugs. They tried to get investigators from other departments but all were busy. They tried to get additional funds but none were available. The choice they made was to protect the children over the adults. I have the final decision of that in writing saying just that. The children came first and it was on this blog or the other blog. But it is for sure in my email backup file. Plenty of other citizens have copies as well. So come out of the closet if you want to read it.
Now the Postal Inspector? I doubt it will go anywhere as they are broke themselves as we all know.
If you read that Sec of State decision it is a joke. I was just down after surgery and had no means to go to Salem and call her on it. But I have no statutes of limitations with my disability so you never know.
Cody
So, Cody,
Given your statement above, what it boils down to is this:
1.) You did not tell the truth on this blog when you said the Secretary of State found 4 criminal violations; and,
2.) There was no money (or no inclination) to investigate your claims.
True?
"The appointee’s term of office shall begin immediately and shall continue until the next general election AND the term for that position shall be the unexpired portion of the remaining term."
Now I, and a great many others read this as:
Start term immediately and continue until general election. Then run for seat, either the appointee wins and continues through unexpired portion, or loses and another Councilor is elected.
It has the advantage of the least amount of time we have an appointee in place, continues the practice of replacing half the Council at each election and most importantly, give the citizenry their vote in the matter.
Now, how does this not make sense?
Misanthrope,
Reasonable thoughts! Lots of laws have apparently contradictory clauses which are open to interpretation, and yours and mine are reasonable interpretations. It should be clarified, I agree.
However, the powers that be interpreted it not in your way. So Mark Storm is not a lawbreaker nor evil and only did what he was told by the powers that be.
So why not agree or disagree with him on policy matters? And recall him or not based solely on those?
LongViewforCascadeLocks
Oh really “And, you are delusional about your statement: "Every action taken since the recall, I just nulled and voided."
Keep dreaming Long View.
Government was unfounded.
So when government is unfounded, which ours was. Does government found government or do the people found government.
“Article I, Section 1. Natural rights inherent in people. We declare that all men, when they form a social compact are equal in right: that all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; and they have at all times a right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper. —“
Only the people can found government.
And how do we do it?
The vote.
And how do we do that when we have a government without a legal quorum?
We refer to the charter for guidance.
Section 24. CONDUCT OF ELECTIONS. The election laws of the State of Oregon shall apply to elections held under this Charter except as this charter or an ordinance of the City prescribes otherwise.
So what does the election laws say for an incorporated city that does not have a legal quorum to appoint to fill vacancies so the constitutional rights of the people to vote and re-found our government?
ORS 221.160 (1);
Whenever because of death, resignation or other cause the number of the members of the governing body of any city is insufficient to constitute a quorum for the transaction of the business thereof, and the charter of such city does not otherwise provide, the mayor, or if there is no mayor, a majority of the remaining members of the governing body, may call a special election for the purpose of electing a sufficient number of persons to fill all the vacancies then existing in the governing body. For the purposes of such election the mayor, or if there is no mayor, a majority of the remaining members of the governing body, may appoint persons to act for all offices necessary to the holding of such election where such offices may be vacant. The appointments shall continue until a successor is selected as provided for by the charter or law governing such city.
You call a special election and then you appoint until the electoral winner is certified by the vote of the people.
Schools out as well as that attorney opinion.
Now can you say NULL AND VOID??? APPOINTTED NOT BY ANY STRETCH OF YOU IMAGINATION!!!
Schools out.
Cody
Cody,
Did you tell the truth when you said the secretary of state found 4criminal violations?
LongViewforCascadeLocks
She stated she did not have the jurisdiction (authority). Which she didn’t. All I can tell you what I know. The complaint by law went to the State Attorney General. Now all I can tell you is I was asked to meet Lt. Ashmore at The Dalles. I can tell you that I have no idea where 2 of what the Secretary of State referred to in the complaint came from. I can tell you that more than the ones mentioned on that complaint were hashed about in that “war room” with the officers. I can clearly tell you there is more than one person right now who does not realize how lucky they may be.
So just keep bringing it up here as all you are doing is reminding those who monitored all of this and went with me. So just keep it alive for me please. Maybe I will put a few things on the blog I have not posted for you. That may not be a bad idea there Long View?
Cody
LongViewforCascadeLocks
What part of there is no hiding on this blog when you sign in that you do not understand?
When a few five alarmers tried throwing me in jail all hiding ended.
A corporate monitoring tool to see if there are trends was installed.
All I have to do is click on a post or a visitors IP address that is registered and right click Google maps and right click earth view and zoom in and hello there Long View I am looking at you.
Why do you think every time the police come all I have to do is show them the logs and go through this and they go there merry way. Now they will not respond on a call over this blog.
Ask a few about almost getting filing false reports on them but the Sheriff and I found humor in it and I did not file any charges. I just sent him back with a message from me.
Cody
Misanthrope
Yes you are right that’s what it means. Will Carey is the Judge at the Municipal Court of Hood River. Just ask him as he wrote it. He has made that point clear after what our attorney did to his Charter.
Cody
Cody,
So:
From your post on January 13 just after 8PM:
"the Secretary of State she found 4 criminal violations"
when what she said was that she didn't have jurisdiction.
Let's be clear that you are admitting - in your post directly above this - that you lied about this very serious matter.
Cody,
other people sign in as "Misanthrope" and "Nice try...."
Specifically, are you threatening me?
My interperation of the charter is valid, perhaps even more so than yours. Mine accounts for the biennial replacement of Councilors and their terms. Yours does not.
What Powers that be are you mumbling about? And how the hell are you accusing me of calling Mark names like evil and lawbreaker? Talk about putting words in my mouth! Jesus Kee-rist, Longview, where do you store your brains? Kate was right, pull it out of your ass!
You need to stop arguing with well, everyone on the blog and go clear your head because you are beginning to confuse your arguers.
Whether and how I choose to disagree with him as a Councilor has nothing to do with the price of tea at Choi's. His ass is going to go through the recall process, as well as Brad's.
There is a older than me saying about lying down with the dogs and rising up with fleas. He's infested.
LongViewforCascadeLocks
I can say it either way and it still comes out right. There were phone calls, letters, emails, meetings. From all sorts of State Agencies. I guess you needed to be a tag along. There are others in town who were at times of pretty reveling subject matters. I was not the only one in the “war room”. So we all know. Do your diligence and investigate like we do.
Now I have to go.
Maybe later if you wish to continue. I will be here.
Cody
Cody,
Say what you want, and try to dodge the truth - but in two posts in this blog within three days of each other, you directly contradicted yourself about whether the Secretary of State found 4 criminal violations.
Cascade Locks, consider the sources of your information
Yep, listen to someone we know, who runs this blog and puts his name and ideas out for all to see, or an idiot who refuses to identify himself and may not even live here and thinks if he (or she) says it often enough, it must be true.
What a hard choice!
Longview,
I've asked several times, why did these two CHOSE to avoid the ballot box?
Say what you may, but there is absolutely no dispute over the fact that when past elections were researched, in every instance reviewed of a council seat being appointed, the seat that was appointed was on the ballot at the next general election. Just as the charter states "the next general election" It is the established policy for the City of Cascade Locks.
Mark Storm and Brad Lorang were both aware of the established policy, they decided to ignore the established policy because they didn't want to give the citizens of Cascade Locks the opportunity to decide for themselves. To try and say "Oh, they just misunderstood the charter" isn't going to cut it.
It seems as though you have been trying to distance Mark Storm from Brad Lorang and the rest of the 5 alarms/no responders group. Please elaborate on how Mark and Brad's viewpoints differ.
Also, you're pretty adamant that Mark doesn't deserve to be recalled, could you explain how he is any less deserving than the council members recalled in 2010?
Thanks, "Nice try, but we've seen that before"
I appreciate your comments, and will address them, plus a leftover one from your last blog entry before.
First, I don't agree that Mark and Brad "misunderstood the charter". There is an interesting back and forth with Gary M earlier today on that but here is the core of my point - a quote from my earlier post:
"30. FILLING OF VACANCIES. 1.) Council vacancies shall be filled by a majority of the remaining members of the Council. 2.) The appointee’s term of office shall begin immediately and shall continue until the next general election and 3.) the term for that position shall be the unexpired portion of the remaining term.
( I added the numbers above for clarity)
1.) The first instruction was followed.
2.)The second instruction was followed for those whose term expired at the next general election.
3.)The third instruction applied to Mark Storm, because the City Council appointed him to the longer term.
Clearly you think that number 2 voids number 3, but apparently the powers that be did not agree (instruction 3 modifies instruction 2 for longer terms)."
Regarding Mark and Brad - they are very different people politically, (for example, one is very Republican, and one is very much not a Republican). I just used Mark Storm as an example, because his involvement has been much shorter than Brad's and he never was mayor etc. so it is simpler to talk about his history. I would be happy to ask him if he was given the option to run in this last election by any City official - but since he was told he didn't have to, he has done nothing wrong on that.
I think I have successfully pointed out holes in Cody and Gary's arguments about the length of Mark Storm's term and proven that Cody lied when he said that the Secretary of State found that there were 4 criminal violations in posts earlier today, and those are no small matters.
Therefore, while I think is within the rights of CL to recall anyone, I believe it would only be for policy reasons and not that Mark or Brad did anything wrong in a legal sense.
From before, you made a comment that Mark has not served as a volunteer fire fighter. This is so, to my knowledge; however, when there was the huge fire that destroyed the trailer last winter, my spouse and I were the first persons who did not live in those immediate dwellings that made it to the scene. I called Mark Storm, and he came before the fire department arrived. (We convinced people in the trailer engulfed in flames to move much further away - after they told us there was a propane tank in there that might blow.) I know him to be a great guy who cares.
I appreciate your point of view!
What is this Longview, dodge ball practice?
If you want a discussion you have to actually respond to the questions.
It depends what his definition of 'and' is. How special is it that magically inserting a number 3 and a period legally changes the meaning of an entire sentence.
And WTF does that perky little anecdote about showing up at a fire as a voyeur have anything to with actually being a firefighter?
To add to your burning trailer story, Brad wasn't an astronaut either but I remember him being lost in space while mayor. Oh, no actually it was the Houston Airport.....
We are gonna vote on these guys being in office, whether they like it or not.
What lots of hits in such a short time.
LongViewforCascadeLocks
Come look at it all for yourself. Or give it up. You weren’t there. I can give many definitions and they could all say the same thing. There were a lot of people who touched this matter.
The five alarm pac got lucky. Another citizen knowing as much as I did had this matter all the way to the Governor’s office after the State Police chose not to investigate or charge.
So unless you want to read it just ask.
The cat was out of the bag and the ship sailed away throughout this town long ago. I guess you were not part of the right side to have seen all this.
The other recall will be filed tomorrow. I got the call this afternoon. The five alarmers left a mess when they departed so suddenly. So we are going to clean it up for them.
Now you have not answered the question; Did we have a duly founded government when there was no duly founded quorum to make any decision? That charter amendment you keep arguing about ends at the word majority. A majority is four, There were only three. Special election. Once again the five alarmers left a mess for the people to clean up.
Everything from the recall untill Monday night is null and void. Mark and Brads votes do not count even now unless the council appoints them to fill their own vacancies.
You were saying?
Cody
LongViewforCascadeLocks
“The first instruction was followed.”?
It never happened. It is an illusion.
“Council vacancies shall be filled by a majority of the remaining members of the Council”
Again do you see that word majority yet?
Here let me help you once again.
“Section 19. VOTE REQUIRED. Except as this charter provides otherwise, express concurrence of a majority (four members) of the Council is necessary to decide affirmatively any question before the Council.”
Now pay careful attention here. “Except as this charter provides otherwise” At this point it has to specifically state in the charter “majority (four members)” is anything other than four to make any decision. It does not.
This appointment provision makes it clear that it requires four members on a council to make any decision.
So now let’s bring your charter argument into the picture again.
“Council vacancies shall be filled by a majority of the remaining members of the Council.”
There is that word “MAJORITY”. CAN YOU SEE IT NOW OR MAYBE CORRECTIVE LENSES ARE IN ORDER?
Now see this.
Abuse against public office I and II plus criminal impersonation.
ORS 162.415, ORS 162.405, ORS 162.365
And for good measure.
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241, Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
I raise you.
There is your challenge to prove me wrong. So I do not care who argued this already. They never argued me now did they.
CAN YOU SAY EVERY ACTION IS NOW NULL AND VOID YET?
Fold or draw?
Cody
Misanthrope
I know you. You are correct. How’s the family.
Yep! “How special is it that magically inserting a number 3 and a period legally changes the meaning of an entire sentence”? If they do their math it is one short of 4.
Now go back in time and watch the video right before the first appointment.
I said I doubt the validity of this process as there is no legal quorum.
But they go on ahead and appoint.
What does the charter say?
Again.
“Section 19. VOTE REQUIRED. Except as this charter provides otherwise, express concurrence of a majority (four members) of the Council is necessary to decide affirmatively any question before the Council.”
Any question before the council must be what. Voted on.
Now did I bring the question before the council?
Did they decide affirmatively the question.
No they ignored it and just started appointing.
They did not even take time to count.
I knew I could not serve with a surgery around the corner, nor would they appoint me.
But I knew how to Null and Void every decision until I got back from the Surgeries to fight another day.
Now I just put a personal liability target right square on each and every one of them.
So thank you LongViewforCascadeLocks for helping so much here today.
Now everyone knows the truth again.
Come back anytime. We need helpers of the cause like you.
Cody
Longview,
Lame excuse for hiding.
Why should you fear for your safety any more than I should?
End of our discussion.
Longview,
My question to you is this; Why would Lance Masters after over thirty years of historical presedence of our Charter being interpreted the same way, why would Lance ask the attorney to spend the taxpayers money to try to find a way around this historical interpretation?
Lets see now, the County Elections Officer says they have to run for election. When questioned about it she calls the Secretary of State and she says yes they should run for election and Judge Will Carey who wrote the Charter says yes they should have run for election.
Now that wouldn't fit Lance's need to fill his council with five alarmers who will all vote the same way and always support him would it? No. Lance made sure that Tom had no say in appointing Bob Walker to council even though he received the motion and second to be appointed. Lance had to hide behind lies and mislead city staff to get his way. However with all of that power ol'Lance had with all of his five alarm buddies on council it came back to bite him.
Lance put himself and his council above the law and started re-interpreting things to meet his own agenda. Our Charter fell by the wayside as fees started rising without voter approval. Council was appointed without regard to the General election or our rights to vote for our electors.
Lance was just too smart for us. When Lance had to run for his position and answer to the voters in a public candidates night he was exposed for what he is, a loser who tried to mislead the public by his lame attempt at changing our Charter under the guise of the city not being able to raise utility rates without a revision to the Charter. But John Randall called him on it and Lance had to eat crow for trying to once again mislead the public.
Brad and Mark are just Lance's pawns, puppets, followers who listened to Lance and thought Lance would win the election for Mayor and they would be rewarded with council seats for their allegiance to Lance and his agenda.
As it turned out the public was a little smarter than Lance and saw through his lies.
Now where does that leave Brad and Mark? Facing a recall for not stepping up and doing what they knew was the right thing to begin with. Stand for their positon and be voted in. Too big of a risk for Brad who had run in a previous election and lost to George Fischer. Another loss on the ballot would have been too big of a blow to Brad's ego so in turn he chose to go along with Lance's re-interpretation of our Charter.
Brad and Mark are just leftover pawns, playthings of Lance. Left to now try to defend their actions.
I am not impressed with the "I was appointed and didn't know any better" mantra. They didn't run because they knew they would lose after going against the voters and the Charter and raising fees illegally. Face the truth, face what you did and resign.
Darlene
Very well stated Darlene!!
30 years of precedence, the county elections official, the Secretary of State, and the attorney who wrote the charter all say yes, but Mark Storm and Brad Lorang say; No,No,No, (feet stamping) We don't want to and you can't make us, SO THERE!
The dull thud of cognizance can be disconcerting.
A feeling as if that conscience, so long repressed
has unexpectedly awaken
loud, hungry, intense.
The fear of others seeing the real you.
What to do, what to do?
Fight...Flight....Resignation.
When the advisarey of an opponent does everything they can to hold onto power even when the opponents have a mandate from the voters, we end up with courupt leaders.
Richard Randall
Good Faction, Bad Faction
In response to Jean McLean’s Letter
This all depends on who you talk to in Cascade Locks.
Obviously one faction is more fiscally conservative with the budget.
Obviously one faction wants to look at waste and inefficiency.
Obviously one faction has a clearer vision to balance the Cities services.
Obviously one faction has the voters mandate to uphold the Charter.
Obviously one faction chose to ignore our Constitution (Charter) twice.
Obviously one faction was the instigators of our current problems in the first place.
Obviously one faction don’t want to listen to the voters.
Obviously one faction thumbed its nose at the emergency services task force.
Obviously this election proves what the majority of citizens think about one faction.
Obviously both factions love this town enough to think their way is the best way.
Obviously both factions are not interested in dis-incorporating the City.
Obviously it’s time for one faction to stop its manipulation and intimidation tactics.
Obviously, this all depends on who you talk to!
Richard Randall
Cascade Locks
“The political climate in Cascade Locks has become increasingly contentious, making it all but impossible to accomplish even the smallest measure of success,” Lorang wrote in his resignation.
The worst one being your own wife, Brad. You two can dish it out, but you can't take it.
Post a Comment