Monday, June 27, 2016

Despite confessing faith, Enid Commission members don't know right from wrong

Quite a headline in the Monday newspaper, huh:




This is the second article on this subject, though; Sunday's article merited not only front page headline but inside, a full page spread.  So where was the newspaper months earlier, hm?  Like I said--it's more a lapdog than a watchdog, and this particular issue isn't one that the newspaper can ignore anymore.  I will have more commentary on this at a later date, but for now I'll say that my regular readers already know that I was on to this corrupt bunch a long long LONG time ago, a time when the newspaper provided cover for this rotten bunch, and now they've been reported by the paper to opine that they need ethics guidelines, not their respective churches, to tell them what's right and what's wrong.  The longer they talk, the more of a disgrace each Commissioner is to the respective churches they attend; they are, after all, the same people who voted to approve a rule that evangelicals should be required to pay for a vendor's permit in order to set up downtown on a First Friday despite First Amendment protections in that regard.  Watch this space.



July 8 UPDATE: Those of you who watched the City Commission yesterday already know the move I made on this. For those of you who didn't, here's the gist: I opened my comments to the Commission with a continuation of the comment I made on curious City economics, how even the new Walmart  neighborhood market store didn't make a difference in the millions in retail sale revenues that were lost, and all the current construction going on proceeds without any visible means of (financial) support, while Kingfisher consistently gains each tax period...and there's something that's just cockeyed about that.  I then pointed out that anyone who needs ethics guidelines to inform them what's right and what's wrong is a disgrace to the church they go to, as messing around with somebody's spouse is just plain ole wrong.

What's worse, though, is that the Commissioner in question enlisted the service of the City Attorney to execute a warrant to the Police Department on a personal matter, and I said that this was a clear abuse of office.  The City Attorney should have known better than to use HER office to execute ANY action regarding a personal matter that is NOT City business.  The news I'm going to break with this UPDATE is that I'm going to file an OBA complaint on this attorney.  She should have known better but didn't and participated in her own unethical conduct and facilitated the conduct of the Commissioner.  There exists NO excuse or mitigating circumstance for the conduct of either person. The conduct of the City attorney was just as unethical as that of the Commissioner.
Post a Comment