tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5452889.post7949652498349157919..comments2023-11-05T03:02:43.249-06:00Comments on - jef4wi -: Well this changes everything....Jef Hallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09937646669350649402noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5452889.post-9562961954629933132009-05-29T00:41:07.359-05:002009-05-29T00:41:07.359-05:00Mister N00b,
I appreciate the props from you. Su...Mister N00b, <br /><br />I appreciate the props from you. Sure, my instinct is to rush to defend my buddies, but I did some homework before I did because like you implied I'm not going to prop them up without feeling that I know what actually happened. <br /><br />So I talked to Bob, and I watched the taped portion of the 7 minute break carefully, watching for who was talking to whom and for how Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09581728675607760362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5452889.post-69036352044164888272009-05-28T16:29:35.174-05:002009-05-28T16:29:35.174-05:00While I believe that Ron is one of the few people ...While I believe that Ron is one of the few people capable of not just propping up a buddy for old time's sake (I sure hope that's right) I have to point out 2 things <br />1.The question here is not were "people" - some people, anypeople, two homelss guys and Bobs' wife - privy to this Actionable Conversation, but were The People able to witness the decision-making process. Transparency criteria Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5452889.post-89011590924884463152009-05-28T14:30:36.779-05:002009-05-28T14:30:36.779-05:00Jef,
I am curious about something else that was ...Jef, <br /><br />I am curious about something else that was in the Northwestern article. They wrote: <br /><br />"Poeschl and Councilor Tony Palmeri spoke throughout the break in the council chambers — in front of a crowd gathered there. " <br /><br />I wasn't there (I watched on TV but naturally took a "break" when they took a break) but you were. So was this crowd gathered in front of Palmeri Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09581728675607760362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5452889.post-91666545955439803832009-05-28T13:24:54.295-05:002009-05-28T13:24:54.295-05:00If you take the law literally it is arguable that ...If you take the law literally it is arguable that Poeschel's vote did not cause an item or a motion to fail. It was a nomination process to narrow the pool of candidates down to two, and at the time of the discussion the outcome of this process could have ended up in a tie. Proceedings would have then continued.( What that would have consisted of is a mystery to me but maybe someone knows what MacinOshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05168444034837213091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5452889.post-5508671753937720472009-05-28T08:32:32.769-05:002009-05-28T08:32:32.769-05:00I see Kent Monte has been busy blogging about how ...I see Kent Monte has been busy blogging about how Poeschl's vote wasn't necessary ("Bucholz had 3 votes confirming his selection regardless of what Poeschl voted.") and calling your suspicions sour grapes. I wonder how he explains so many others complaining about the same thing, many with a lot more smarts than him. On top of which, Poeschl's vote absolutely was necessary. Since the appointment Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com