Allentown City Council VP Michael Donovan is steamed that Mayor Edwin Pawlowski is usually MIA for City Council meetings. Last night was no exception.From his blog, Donovan takes Pawlowski to task with some pretty strong language.
"I am tired at seeing how cowardly you are not to come to Council meetings. I have great respect for Mr. Bennington. I feel sorry that he has to take the heat that is directed at you. The charter says the following:Well, Michael, I can tell you where Hizzoner was last night. Instead of making a guest appearance at City Hall and answering a few questions, he and campaign manager Mike Fleck were feeding at the Iron Pigs trough, guests of some engineering outfit.
K. Be present or represented at all regular City council meetings. The Mayor may participate in all regular City Council discussions but shall have no vote.
If I were Mayor, I would have the GUTS to occasionally come to council to answer questions and cooperatively discuss city strategy. Want to know why I am calling you out? Because you do not do this.
If I felt a recall was possible, I would pursue that. You do not impress me as a leader, and when you DO try to recruit people to run against me — yes I know you have — that makes me realize even more how paranoid you are."
I've been critical of Bethlehem Mayor John Callahan, who is running against Charlie Dent for Congress. He was invited to the very same shindig, but guess where he was? That's right. He attended his City Council meeting instead of networking with possible campaign contributors.
43 comments:
Bernie,
More words, words, words but in deeds Michael falls far short. Where is his outrage over his own failings as a councilman to note Pawlowski’s budget overspending? What about council’s recent rubber stamping of the bone headed high rise “income restricted” housing they approved for the downtown? The real question is why the mayor should give his rubber stamp council any respect. If they are willing to be the dog at the master's heel they should be content with the occasional pat on the head.
Scott Armstrong
Wow!
Mr. Donovan ripped the Mayor on his blog! There are probably six whole people who actually read that!
How about a press conference to inform the other 99.9999% of city residents what's going on?
Anonymous said...
Wow!
Mr. Donovan ripped the Mayor on his blog! There are probably six whole people who actually read that!
How about a press conference to inform the other 99.9999% of city residents what's going on?
6:59 AM
Well Said. Why not a press conference in front of city hall, Councilman Donovan.
Mikes's as much a part of Allentown's problems as Pawlowski. Both are ruining the city. One doesn't even have to show up to do it. The other works hard at the ruining, every day. Mike's feigned indignation is thin cover for kindred spirits he and Ed truly are.
Thank you for letting me be heard (read). I'm going back to my housework, now.
Donovan has gone off the deep end.
His new tone is not unique to the mayor. This is how he goes around and talks to many city residents he shares minor disagreements with.
Mike will not be reelected to council. Not because the mayor recruits someone else but because he has become an ass. Not sure why he thinks this is how you get things done all of a sudden.
I would say the bully pulpit is all council members, including Donovan, really have in their arsenal. So I'm not sure what Armstrong expects here, given the unusual constraints our Council faces. Donovan already gave a lengthy response to the "rubber stammp" accusation, and while I wish he would have voted differently, he did use sound logic to reach his final decision. A "NO" vote would have killed so many other programs in Allentown - it would have been outrageous to vote no on that entire package. The pork barrel is not Donovan's doing, so I cannot see the point in blaming him for the perils of package deals.
Given Donovan's point of view on this and other matters, I do not find his "tone" unusual or without warrant. Really, the only thing Donovan can do is speak out, and he is doing so quite loudly. Seems he can't win either way with his detractors. And, maybe 6 people read Donovan's blog, but how many read Bernie's blog? (A LOT.) So, ultimately, Donovan's message will find its intended recipients, and I personally think Donovan is doing a whole lot more than anyone else on council to raise red flags on the City's direction. I understand folks' frustration with Allentown, but I do not see the logic or rational in holding Donovan, of all people, accountable. He's the wrong whipping boy, folks.
Michael's best course of action is to be a pain in the ass for the next 18 months, not seeking re-election in 2011 and then waiting for the whole political power structure under pawlowski to go belly up. The man is a tenured professor so he has something to do when his term is up. When the time is right, an opportunity will come around for him.
I could see Donovan as a managing director under a future mayor: one that respects the relationship with council and one that actually understand that 5 minus 10 is actually a deficit.
Monkey Momma -
I could agree with you if the low-income housing vote were the only instance of Donovan doing the same thing. It isn't. There are numerous examples of where Donovan opposes Pawlowski in principle and then ends up voting along with him.
The pork-barrel you speak about was brought to council by the Mayor very close to the deadline for approval. This was deliberate, and again, not unusual for this Mayor. He does it time and time again, because Council will always approve it because of all the other "good" things in the package. That way Ed gets what he wants, and council has political cover to say that they were against this provision or that provision but they had to vote for the entire bill.
For this to occur time and time again, it is only logical that Council is either stupid or in collusion with the Mayor. Since I don't believe that members of Council are idiots, it's time to realize that Council and the Mayor are working together.
Donovan likes to hand-wring and talk after the damage is done - we need someone who will act to stop the way the Administration operates when it counts.
Donovan is part of the problem - not the solution. He is part of the "Crony Council" that Ed Pawlowski has purchased. Despite Donovan's occasional outbursts against the Mayor, the votes show that Ed's money was well spent.
P.S. - No offense to Bernie, but while more people might read the story on Bernie's blog (only because Bernie CHOSE to pick it up), it is no where near the combined number of Allentown residents that would be touched by a press conference covered by the Morning Call and local TV and radio stations.
Anon said:
"I could see Donovan as a managing director under a future mayor: one that respects the relationship with council and one that actually understand that 5 minus 10 is actually a deficit."
*********************************
You've got to be kidding, right?
Donovan might understand that 5 minus ten is a deficit, but he still continues to vote for the deficit!
Get this man away from my tax dollars and keep him away - forever!
Instead of making him our managing director, eliminate that postion completely! Let's not forget that the reason Pawlowski is able to feed at the trough of political contributors is because his "Crony Council" approved the Managing Director position to perform some of (what had always been) the duties of the Mayor. Then the "Crony Council" gave the Mayor a raise.
This would be hilarious if I didn't live here.
wow... Scott Armstrong and his ilk are just amazing. They really do want the whole damn world. I think the only way the would be happy with Donovan is if he switched parties, renounced his job at a college, launched an investigation into the sexual improprieties of Bill Clinton and then started carrying a side arm.
Yes, pure sarcasm, which I think will be missed by this crew.
Donovan, keep giving the mayor hell. The conservatives who keep posting here are only different from the mayor in one regard: he has the power, they dont. If they had it, they would be doing the same crap.
933 has selective memory. Donovan voted against the last budget. That's when the mayor started recruiting people to run against him.
People, if you want to take on the mayor, you need somebody in power that is actually willing to do so. Donovan is the only potential ally you have. You can bitch and moan all day long, but if you do, you have nobody to work with. But my guess is that you really don't want somebody to work with: you want to stay home and sound smart in your head rather than actually getting up and doing something.
I recall Donovan making very supportive statements about Pawlowski in his last primary election. He announced his support of him. Guess he might be a slow learner, but he gets it in the end (double entendré recognized).
While Scott and a few others decide that Donovan has not done this or that right, the Mayor is slopping at the trough and laughing at them. He's the real bad guy here. He's the person who thumbs his nose at the people until election time rolls around.
Pawlowski is a classic "entitlement" politician who uses his political office for personal perks. I'm entitled to use a free car from a dealership, I'm entitled to free parties at Iron Pigs games, I'm entitled to free babysitting, I'm entitled to free this, I'm entitled to free that. Imagine all the freebies he cashes in on that aren't yet reported. I'm impressed with Donovan's heated comments. His ego must have taken a real hit when he found out Pawlowski is backing another Ray O'Connell/Julio Guridy type for City Council, a loyal, do nothing rubber stamper.
Bernie O'Hare said:
(The Mayor is) "the real bad guy here. He's the person who thumbs his nose at the people until election time rolls around."
**********************************
You're somewhat right Bernie, but Council is enabling the Mayor.
I bet the Mayor might have to show up if council refused to pass anything unless they hear personally from the Mayor (at a public council meeting) and refused to accept Bennington as the Mayor's surrogate. Or maybe if council was bringing forth an ordinance to REDUCE the Mayor's salary the Mayor might be inclined to show up. Perhaps an ordinance to eliminate some of the many assistants to the Mayor would grab his attention.
Those are three quick things off the top of my head. I'm sure there are many other clever ways to get the Mayor to attend council meetings - IF COUNCIL REALLY WANTED HIM THERE.
Council has all the power in the world. In addition to the "power of the purse", they even have subpoena power.
My gut feeling is that while some on the "Crony Council" might like to complain about some things (for political favor with the voters), they really don't want to actually change anything.
They are in collusion.
Dear 10:10am
I did want to reduce the mayor's salary and asked about introducing an ordinance to do so at budget time.
When I asked, I learned that while council can provide a raise through ordinance, it is not allowed to take it back.
I found that crazy, but apparently there is legal justification. I could fight it, but there are other things I am trying to accomplish.
And for those who call me an ass, That's fine. Consider this. If you think I'm getting testy, it is because I am living in this city. Seeing mismanagement. Trying to introduce sound "principles" as someone said, and making only very slow headway. The slow headway is because of partisanship, and for many, an unwillingness to follow appropriate management principles. I know. Politics. Screw politics. 80% of the population just wants a well run city.
What I have seen, instead, are the vocals (screamers) focusing on their own selfish agendas, whether democratic or republican.
Fortunately, I get good feedback from people who are not screamers and understand what I am trying to do. Indeed, when I note to people that I am contemplating my choices, I hear disappointment if one of them is not to run again.
I'll be nice to people who are nice to others. I tried to be nice to people who were not being nice and made no headway.
Final note. If you stick your neck out, one is bound to have it cut off. Quite frankly, I have had worse events in my life than having verbal knives at my throat.
Don't call me a rubber stamp,Mr. Armstrong.
Best regards,
Michael Donovan
Armstrong is a rubber stamp himself. We can predict the following from him at any moment:
-crony council
-rubber stamp council (even when it is utterly false)
-Democrat Congress
-Liberals
-Democrat voters
What we never hear is an acknowledgement that his complaining has never once changed the outcome. All we have are lost elections and no choices from the GOP. But hey, it's okay b/c Scott's right and when you are right, you don't need results.
Keep up the fight Donovan. You are a good Democrat and the kind of councilman that we need to keep a check on the administration, regardless of who the mayor might be.
Michael Donovan said:
"The slow headway is because of partisanship..."
********************************
Michael -
What alternate universe are you living in? You are on an all democrat council with a democrat mayor. Democrat voters in the city outnumber republican voters by 3 to 1.
And you think there's a problem with partisanship?. Why not claim the problem is racial discrimination because you are white? That would be equally ridiculous.
11:36 doesn't get it. Partisanship isn't about Democrats and Republicans. It is about protecting your turf for the sake of protecting your turf. The mayor is extremely partisan in that he is constantly protecting his turf. He uses whatever means he can to do so. He does it to Democrats, Republicans or anybody. In effect, the city of Allentow is the Party of Pawlowski and the party of everybody else. If Pawlowski found it beneficial, he would be a Republican and behave the exact same way. And given his penchant for corporate welfare, he might as well be a Republican.
Anon said:
"Anonymous said...
"Partisanship isn't about Democrats and Republicans. It is about protecting your turf for the sake of protecting your turf. The mayor is extremely partisan in that he is constantly protecting his turf. He uses whatever means he can to do so. He does it to Democrats, Republicans or anybody. In effect, the city of Allentow is the Party of Pawlowski and the party of everybody else. If Pawlowski found it beneficial, he would be a Republican and behave the exact same way. And given his penchant for corporate welfare, he might as well be a Republican."
********************************
I get it, and (big surprise) Pawlowski is all about Pawlowski. But that's not what partisanship means in the political sense.
The reality is that Democrats own Allentown City government.
Pawlowski ran for re-election just last year. Where was any prominent Democrat (such as members of council) saying that Pawlowski is doing the city wrong? There were none.
In fact, they were tripping over each other the support and endorse Pawlowski. This included Michael Donovan.
And please don't give me the line that they had to endorse him. The ethical thing to do would have been to tell it like it was, or at least to NOT endorse any candidate.
Michael Donovan said...
"I did want to reduce the mayor's salary and asked about introducing an ordinance to do so at budget time.
When I asked, I learned that while council can provide a raise through ordinance, it is not allowed to take it back".
********************************
Mr. Donovan -
While I am not sure of the legal advice you received on the issue, a casual read of the charter would indicate that any change to the Mayor's salary would not take effect until after the next election.
So why not propose a ballot question changing the charter to allow council to REDUCE the Mayor's salary at any time? That might get the Mayor's attention.
My point is not about the Mayor's salary. It is that if Council REALLY wanted the Mayor at the meetings, Council could certainly find some creative ways to get him there.
Would it be easy? Probably not. Would such measures be the ideal solution? No.
But it would certainly be more effective than just venting your spleen in your semi-private diary.
Anon said:
"933 has selective memory. Donovan voted against the last budget."
**********************************
Yes - actually a MAJORITY of the DEMS on council voted against the budget. But they did so knowing that (per the charter) the budget would go into effect anyway - unless they voted to change the budget. We all know this from the wonderful Afflerbach years.
If a majority on Council was really against the budget, all they would have had to do was agree to change the budget by at least 5%. Or (add or) delete a single program. This would have forced the budget back to the Mayor for comment and resubmition within 3 days.
This would have kept the process alive and at least retained a possibility of improving the budget. Council legally had until 12/15 to adopt a budget. Instead, they washed their hands of it (with their vote) on 12/2.
So instead of working toward a better budget (with both the Mayor and other members of council), a majority chose to grandstand with a symbolic "no" vote.
They can't have it both ways. If they were truly against the budget, they should have actually done something about it.
By the way, if any of the four (voting 'no') were truly against the way the process worked, did any one of them propose a charter change stating that a budget must be approved affirmatively by council in order for it to pass?
The answer would be no. Actions speak louder than words - and much louder than feigned outrage over the state of the city.
Those on council are not bystanders to what has happened to the city - they are accomplices.
"The reality is that Democrats own Allentown City government."
You are clueless. Ed Pawlowski owns the Democrats, the Independants and most of the Republicans. Question: how many serious Republicans were out there in 2009 denouncing Pawlowski (remember that the only republican to run was a former D)? He was getting their money to wrack up that war chest of his. He got 75% of the vote. When was the last time somebody got re-elected with those numbers? That doesn't happen b/c of Democrats alone. Remeber that 2009 was a sad turn out for Democrats in the fall. Pawlowski could not have pulled in those numbers without voters who were Republicans and Independants.
Pawlowski's partisanship isn't the same partisanship people understand in mainstream media. It is a partisanship that crosses party lines and relies on the allure of power, not party ID or ever partisanship. the sooner people understand that, the sooner we can rid ourselves of pawlowski.
"They can't have it both ways. If they were truly against the budget, they should have actually done something about it."
You have that selective memory again. donovan made several proposals, none of them adopted as part of the budget. Then he voted against it.
See, the problem with conservatives is that they forget these little details. You condemn Donovan for the foolishness of the others on faulty information, even as he tried to change the budget. Donovan is the good guy. Pawlowski and his partisans are the bad guys.
Keep going Michael. You will be vindicated and hopefully allentown saved.
Michael Donovan said:
"Don't call me a rubber stamp...".
*******************************
Then start FIGHTING the Mayor's agenda (and others on council voting with the Mayor) AT COUNCIL MEETINGS.
If you're upset at the Mayor for not attending council meetings, find a way to get him there and TELL him publicly - to his face - what you wrote in your blog post.
Charter change for mayor salary on my list
I offered a 2000000 detailed budget reduction. Could not get a second.
I was very clear about my lukewarm support. I did not want phillips non, worse, the people he would hire!
Partisanship because we do not have enough moderates who focus on good management principles!
The critiques do not hold water.
Anon said:
"He got 75% of the vote. When was the last time somebody got re-elected with those numbers? That doesn't happen b/c of Democrats alone."
********************************
It's you who are clueless.
Pawlowski received 7,908 votes. Dem registration is about 40,000 voters.
Nice try at re-writing history, genius.
"Then start FIGHTING the Mayor's agenda (and others on council voting with the Mayor) AT COUNCIL MEETINGS.
If you're upset at the Mayor for not attending council meetings, find a way to get him there and TELL him publicly - to his face - what you wrote in your blog post."
He IS! That is what Bernie is trying to explain. Are you so think as to not understand what is going on here or is your own blind partisanship that tells you to hate all Democrats.
Donovan can't do anything by himself. you demand subpena's... he can't issue them alone. You want him to deny the budget. He can't do that himself. He can introduce all of these things, but if he can't get 4 votes, it's not going to happen. Right now, the best he can do is make a lot of noise until the press picks it up (believe me, they will). Donovan is part of the solution. But go ahead, keep lobbing your nonsense. When push comes to shove, people in Donovan's position will be left with two choices: listen to people like you and get nothing done or run back to Pawlowski and plead for forgiveness. Where would you rather see him go? Never mind, you'll just keep you silly comments coming.
Remember, Aflerbach's partisans quickly ran away when the going got tough. Once Donovan gets traction and press attention to Pawlowski's behavior, Pawlowski's partisans will do the same.
"Pawlowski received 7,908 votes. Dem registration is about 40,000 voters."
Wow, that means absolutely nothing. out of approx 11,000 votes, he got just under 8k. that is approx 75%. by your logic, only democrats voted, 25% of which voted for Republicans. Are you telling me that republicans are so irresponsible that they would stay home for an election, yet somehow manage to elect a republican for district mag? Like I said: clueless.
Anon said
"The problem with conservatives is that they forget these little details. You condemn Donovan for the foolishness of the others on faulty information, even as he tried to change the budget."
********************************
Who said anything about being a conservative?
And like I said, if those on council (voting against the budget) truly wanted the budget changed, they could have easily worked together to extend the process.
Even if I accept your premise that Donovan's vote against the budget was sincere and he was hampered by the other "no" voters who wouldn't cooperate, what has Donovan done since to try to change the process? That's right, nothing.
I actually had a great deal of hope for Donovan when I voted for him. However, he has been a huge disappointment. Either by nature or (most likely) willingly, he has done little to stop the games down at City Hall. But he knows how to talk a good game, and many are fooled by that.
Wake up and push him to get results or stop whining.
Anon said:
"Pawlowski's partisanship isn't the same partisanship people understand in mainstream media. It is a partisanship that crosses party lines and relies on the allure of power, not party ID or ever partisanship. the sooner people understand that, the sooner we can rid ourselves of pawlowski."
*********************************
Despite your spelling error, I think we now agree that it is not partisanship that is the problem. It is an abuse of power by - and arrogance of - Ed Pawlowski.
Since we seem to agree that Pawlowski is the problem, I'll also agree that the "the sooner people understand that, the sooner we can rid ourselves of pawlowski".
Therefore, don't you think that if an elected member of city council held multiple press conferences (not blog posts) about the problems Ed Pawlowski is creating in city government, people would understand the problem sooner?
Instead, Pawlowski was endorsed for a second term by those very elected officials who now act as if they are concerned. How are city residents supposed to know that there is a problem when our politicians (including Donovan) are endorsing him at election time?
I guarantee you that Pawlowski's campaign mailers (with Donovan's endorsement) reached a hell of a lot more people than his blog.
As the city continues to deteriorate and it becomes impossible to continue to support Pawlowski, many more on council will try to distance themselves from him. This is exactly what happened when Roy Afflerbach became unelectable/undefendable. And it's how Howells and Guridy remained on council despite their hand in Afflerbach's debacle.
That can't happen again. A clean sweep is needed in the Mayor's office - and on council.
Anon said:
"Wow, that means absolutely nothing. out of approx 11,000 votes, he got just under 8k. that is approx 75%. by your logic, only democrats voted, 25% of which voted for Republicans. Are you telling me that republicans are so irresponsible that they would stay home for an election, yet somehow manage to elect a republican for district mag? Like I said: clueless.
*********************************
OK genius, you seem to be having trouble with numbers so I'll try to go s-l-o-w.
You're original comment was this:
"Pawlowski could not have pulled in those numbers without voters who were Republicans and Independants."
I believe that 7,908 votes out of
40,000 is a tad under 20% of registered Democrats - making 7,908 easily reachable without any Republicans or independents.
Your 75% figure is irrelevant.
Now I'm not contending that there were no Republicans or independents voted for Pawlowski. The Republican candidate was admittedly weak.
As to the District Magistrate portion of the argument, did you consider that many Republicans (Democrats and independents too) could have voted for Manescu and also NOT HAVE VOTED for Mayor? That is possible, you know.
All that said, your statement saying that Pawlowski needed Republicans and Independents is obviously incorrect.
You need to get a clue - and a course in basic math.
Mike,
I repeat, you are a rubber stamp. If you want to disagree that is your right but it is my right as well to correctly label any elected official. Toughen up.
I will add that your own opinion of your value as a public servant seems to exceed your performance. Just my opinion but again I have every right to voice it and many I’m sure will agree with the assessment. Public handwringing doesn’t count as an accomplishment when it isn’t backed up by action.
Scott Armstrong
Monkey Mama,
Is it logical as a council person to allow yourself to be put into a position of an all or nothing vote that facilitates a disastrous action? No it isn’t. Preemptive actions on his part could have eliminated the wheat from the chafe.
So the logic is that Mike failed the residents of Allentown.
Scott Armstrong
Note: I'll add my reply in CAPS to Michael Donovan's previous post
********************************
Michael Donovan said...
********************************
Charter change for mayor salary on my list
WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR? YOU SHOULD HAVE PROPOSED IT FOR THE MAY 18TH BALLOT SO IT COULD HAVE BEEN IN EFFECT FOR BUDGET TIME THIS YEAR!
THIS IS YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF WHY I DOUBT YOUR SINCERITY.
*******************************
I offered a 2000000 detailed budget reduction. Could not get a second.
NOTE FOR THE COMING YEAR: YOU WILL NEVER FIND ENOUGH SUPPORT FOR DETAILED CUTS. THERE ARE TOO MANY "SACRED COWS" IN THE BUDGET FOR EACH MEMBER OF COUNCIL.
THE ONLY WAY COUNCIL WILL SUCCEED IN CUTTING THE BUDGET IS TO DO IT ACROSS THE BOARD. IT WAS DONE SUCCESSFULLY DURING THE AFFLERBACH
YEARS. I REALIZE YOU MAY NOT HAVE BEEN IN TOWN YET WHEN THAT OCCURED, SO I'LL GIVE YOU A PASS FOR NOT PROPOSING THAT LAST YEAR.
NOW YOU KNOW, SO WE'LL SEE WHAT YOU DO THIS YEAR.
******************************
I was very clear about my lukewarm support. I did not want phillips non, worse, the people he would hire!
I CAN CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THAT YOU MIGHT NOT HAVE WANTED TO SUPPORT PHILLIPS. THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU HAD TO SUPPORT PAWLOWSKI.
UNFORTUNATELY, "LUKEWARM" DOESN'T SHOW UP IN CAMPAIGN MAILERS OR MORNING CALL ARTICLES MENTIONING ENDORSEMENTS.
********************************
Partisanship because we do not have enough moderates who focus on good management principles!
THAT IS NOT PARTISANSHIP.
AND I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANYONE FOCUSING ON GOOD MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES. TO PUT IT IN BASEBALL LANGUAGE, YOU WANT TO ANALYZE THE MAYOR'S LAST PITCH WHILE HE IS THROWING ANOTHER ONE BY YOU (AND THE REST OF COUNCIL).
IT'S TIME YOU (AND OTHERS ON COUNCIL) REALIZE WHO THEY ARE DEALING WITH. THE MAYOR IS PLAYING HARDBALL AND COUNCIL IS PLAYING SLO-PITCH SOFTBALL - AND THAT'S BEING GENEROUS.
*******************************
The critiques do not hold water.
OBVIOUSLY, WE DIFFER IN OPINION. I'LL LEAVE IT TO THE READERS TO DECIDE.
Yes Michael you go guy! You are an inspiration and you are sure to have my vote in the next election when I again hit the straight party button. Nothing partisan about that.
Allentown Democrat Voter
Michael Donovan -
Let me extend an olive branch.
Despite all my criticism, I will say that you do seem to work harder at the position than your colleagues. And despite the fact that I seldom have agreed with your votes, I do hold out hope that you can help stop the damage that is being done to our city by the Mayor.
But the time for action is now.
We can all wish for better management practices and the like but we all know that won't happen as long as the Mayor is in office. We need to stop the bleeding before the patient (our city) dies.
I think you've tried to work with the Mayor or politely critique for long enough. Now it's time to get in the trenches and fight - for real.
Anon,
No one on this council is going to mount any serious effort against or opposition to the Democratic Machine that is running/ruining the city. Isn’t going to happen!
Scott Armstrong
Change won't happen. Donovan runs in place. A victim of his own short sighted ego.
He is not unlike Villa - a victim of believing his own press or perhaps a legend in his own mind.
My opinion will change when I see him come down and wallow in the muck of this city with us common folk who really are interested in making a change.
Bernie i thought your depiction of the three pigs was over the top. How many other politicoes were there ? Jane Baker never went to commissoner meetings...was she wrong? these are separate branches of government
"How many other politicoes were there?"
None who should have been attending a meeting.
"Jane Baker never went to commissoner meetings...was she wrong?"
Absolutely. The Exec needs to be there as often as possible for questions that only the top dog can answer.
In addition, Pawlowski claimed during his campaign that he regulary attends city coucil meetings. He should keep his word.
Lot's of hot vixens at Pigs games. Mike should come on out.
congrats bernie. i know it hurt but you finally said something nice about callahan
Post a Comment