| | North Roe Neighbor 2 
Correction: Cook and Hatcher followed instructions and did what they were told to do. Wilson was the messenger from Miller and Smith. 04.10.09 15:13 informed?
Hey Ron At least COOK and HATCHER ponied up and said dwe need tro pay for the project unlike the two witches. 03.10.09 21:32 informed?
I guess you better check on that because the ethics commission sends a copy to the person being filed on even when it is rejected!! 03.10.09 21:06 lil BA
Mommy says your just being an old pee pee potty poopy panties and that you need to quit lying or she will turn you over to her FBI friends. 30.09.09 09:25 Not Disgruntled
READ S-L-O-W-L-Y: § 255.001. Required Disclosure on Political Advertising
(a) A person may not knowingly cause to be published, distributed, or broadcast political advertising containing express advocacy that does not indicate in the advertising:
(1) that it is political advertising; and
(2) the full name of:
(A) the person who paid for the political advertising;
(B) the political committee authorizing the political advertising; or
the candidate or specific-purpose committee supporting the candidate, if the political advertising is authorized by the candidate.
(d) This section does not apply to:
(1) tickets or invitations to political fund-raising events;
(2) campaign buttons, pins, hats, or similar campaign materials; or
(3) circulars or flyers that cost in the aggregate less than $500 to publish and distribute.
I SUGGEST YOU FILE ON BOTH OF THEM IF YOU THINK A CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED. AFTER ALL, DIDN'T JERRY BURNS SAY YOU SHOULD REPORT ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES TO THE POLICE?
28.09.09 11:37 Not Disgruntled
This is for "Ill" informed. The Texas Ethics Commission changed the procedure for filing in the past year. When someone files a complaint now you are required to send a copy of your drivers license with the forms. This part was over looked simply because it was never before a requirement. The complaints were re-filed within the alloted time frame and were accepted. Quote:
several of the complaints filed were sent back to the people filing them three times before they were accepted by the commission! i guess YUOR STUPID IS SHOWING!!!!
They were not sent back three times as you have so incorrectly stated.
i guess YUOR STUPID IS SHOWING!!!! 28.09.09 11:28 anonymouth
No, stupid is a council member admitting he "did what I was told". 28.09.09 07:00 informed?
How many times do you file a complaint before you do it right? several of the complaints filed were sent back to the people filing them three times before they were accepted by the commission! i guess YUOR STUPID IS SHOWING!!!! 27.09.09 20:46 In The Papers
Long before the bond issue to repair the creek flooding was presented by the council led by James Ouzts, former council members Miller, Smith and Grammer had no plan other than to approve studies that Pappas wanted. Miller's plan for creek repair was to buy out the three houses by the creek that flooded the most.
This "administration", make up of Burns, Miller, Smith, Wilson, Cook, Hatcher,Ryan (EDC) and Burnett have taken credit for all the hard work of their predecessors. Smith especially is guilty of plagiarism, openly taking credit for what others have accomplished. 25.09.09 10:12 anonymouth
I believe most of that creek stuff was put in lay before Hatcher and Cook took office. Why should they get any credit for it? 25.09.09 00:32 In The Papers
wilsons wife has said more in the last few weeks than wilson has said the whole time he has been on the council. wonder why she forgot the other two council members who voted for the bonds and creek repairs? 24.09.09 17:21 In The Papers
now that shows how stuupid you really are. ouzts was mayor for six years. for four of those years the council was controlled by smith and miller. let's see now, there was smith, price and podsednik, then there was smith, miller and wilson, now there is hatcher, cook and wilson. so who do you think is running the show? certainly not ouzts or burns. nope. it is still miller and smith. and why do you think that is so? maybe they are getting advance word on plumbing work? look for them in the ditches for the next few years when the sewer line and creek are fixed. mayhaps you will see them (or their butt cracks(?)) YUK! 24.09.09 14:31 lil BA
Mommy says your just a sore loser cause when Uncle James was Mayor he ran the show and gave all the orders and you did what you were told or he got rid of you. So why wern't you mad then? 24.09.09 13:15 In The Papers
City Councilman says "I did not know what I did was wrong" "I did what I was told". Now, what kind of representation do citizens have when those who are elected just follow orders from someone else? Who is giving the orders? Why? Who else on the council is "taking orders" and from who?
Now, that is a real WSissue you should be concerned about. 24.09.09 10:55 Wilma
RIGHT ON GIRLS  GIVE THEM CHAUVINISTIC MALE BULLIES WHAT FOR 02.09.09 16:07 anonymouth
Hey, If the boys ain't playin by the rules, there should be complaints against them.They are too busy trying to oppose anything the two women may want that they will never get things done for the city.And the thing is, alot of citizens are beginning to see this. 02.09.09 12:49 North Roe Neighbor 4
dam but you have a tunnel vision mind. onliest one here posting is white! you really are a freakin ididt. so i guess we should believd your yarns about outz and them cause you sait it. right?
freakin idgit and you got dat right, all mouth. alligator at that, but a poodle butt. 01.09.09 19:11 anonymouth 2
Shut up White were tired of your questions questions questions and no answers. 01.09.09 15:06 North Roe Neighbor 2
anonymous says ouzts, razz and anderson were "just as guilty". guilty of what? 01.09.09 10:55 anonymouth
Which "you" are you talking to? 01.09.09 09:51 Anonymous
Just wondering here but where was all this about judging and all when James Outz and Gunnar and Anderson were in office they were just as guilty yet you never said anything then why is that? 01.09.09 09:41 John
Look at John 7:24. There, Jesus tells us to judge, but to do so righteously . Righteously means to use the Truth of the Word to discern sins and not by appearances only. In 1Cor. 6:2-3 Jesus authorizes us to judge. Judge we must else we could not discern good from bad, proper from improper, righteousness from evil. But judge behavior, not the individual; the deed not the doer; the choice not the chooser. The individual/doer/choo ser is accountable for his/her deed/choice, but judge the deed/choice in your judgment. Jesus could see a king in a shepherd boy. And an Apostle in a murderer. So while we must judge one's behavior we must we try to nurture the goodness in an individual: to separate the deed from the doer.
And to continue, Matt 7:6 says. "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs (the KJV says "swine"). If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces." How are we going to know as undesirable the behaviors of "dogs" and "swine" if we do not judge?
Yes, we do have the right and the authority to judge the behavior of others as long as we honor and obey His Word in doing so. That Jesus is the only one who can judge is speaking to judging whether someone is or is not saved. Neither you nor I nor anyone else who ever draws a breath (except Jesus) has the authority to say whether another has or has not been saved. Only Jesus can make that judgment since only He can give Salvation. Nor may we who discern poor behavior based on His Word think of ourselves as "better than" the one whose behavior we judge as poor.
31.08.09 11:15 Mathew
Matt 7:2-5 "For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged [if we judge with an evil heart or dark intent, His judgment of us will reflect it; if we judge nobly with honesty and justice, His judgment of us will reflect that, too], and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you [if we use extremes or exaggerations or other ignoble means, our judgment will reflect it and judging with fairness and compassion will garner likewise in His judgment of us]. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye [point out his sins, "minor" in Jesus' example here] and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye [our own sins, even and especially those we will not admit, magnified by our selective blindness]? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' [tell him of his "minor" sins] when all the time there is a plank in your own eye [that there are greater or the same sins in our own lives which we do nothing about or think we are above]? You hypocrite* [pointing out the sins of others while by pretense thinking of ourselves as above sin], first take the plank out of your own eye [sincerely ask the Lord for forgiveness and learn and live the Truth and Light by His Word], and then you will see clearly [be in a righteous position] to remove the speck from your brother's eye [to judge and to help him out of his bondage to sin]." At Galilee, the Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea and the region across the Jordan, Jesus was talking to the multitudes gathered there after hearing of His message and of His healings to beseech them to not become like the pharisees and hypocrites who think they are above sin. 31.08.09 11:09 willie's devotional
"Love is patient, love is kind, it does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud." 1cor 13:4 NIV
From Wesley Notes:
"The love of God, and of our neighbour for God's sake, is patient toward, all men. It, suffers all the weakness, ignorance, errors, and infirmities of the children of God; all the malice and wickedness of the children of the world: and all this, not only for a time, but to the end. And in every step toward overcoming evil with good, it is kind, soft, mild, benign. It inspires the sufferer at once with the most amiable sweetness, and the most fervent and tender affection. Love acteth not rashly - Does not hastily condemn any one; never passes a severe sentence on a slight or sudden view of things. Nor does it ever act or behave in a violent, headstrong, or precipitate manner. Is not puffed up - Yea, humbles the soul to the dust." 30.08.09 13:59 Not Disgruntled
In response to the recent letter submitted by Jerry Burns bemoaning the actions of a few "disgruntled citizens... preventing the betterment of our city". What a crock. Why is it that whenever a citizen questions the political regime in this town their response is to wrap themselves in the flag and say "you are disgruntled" or "lets come together" or "let's move forward". The issue is whether state law was broken, not who is or is not "disgruntled". How typical of Burns to attempt to diffuse and redirect the issue at hand with an appeal to meet the complainants. He should be concerned with meeting the Texas Ethnics Commission to explain his actions. If there was no value to the complaint, I am certain the TEC would not have contacted him. The Texas Ethics Commission is processing the complaints as Category Two violations. Burns and Hatcher are required to respond to the Ethics Commission in writing and under oath. The complaint alleges that each candidate failed to file a campaign treasurer appointment for a political committee, and made expenditures and accepted political contributions totaling more than $500.00 for a political committee at a time when a campaign treasurer appointment for the committee was not in effect, in violation of sections 252.001 and 253.031 of the Election Code. The Election Code does not care what Burns thought the definition of a "committee" was.
The matter is very simple – Mr. Burns and his campaign partner broke state law. We intend to file complaints against ALL council people - current and past - who break the law. Burns and Hatcher received a copy of the Texas Ethics rules and laws when they signed their names to the application for election. Ignorance of the law has never been an acceptable defense.
The fact that he is trying to minimalize this by pointing a finger at the people who filed the complaints does not sit well with us and should not sit well with you.
Exercising our rights - since when does wanting city representatives to follow the state laws they were sworn to uphold mean we are disgruntled?
An informed citizenry is the mainstay against tyranny, and all it takes for bad people to win is for good people to look the other way.
Far from being "disgruntled" we consider ourselves to be a WATCHDOG GROUP on city politics, actions and ethics, and plan to continue exposing shady relationships, fast and loose accounting, and whatever stupidity on the part of our city "leaders" when and where we find it.
29.08.09 15:13 Not Disgruntled
I say we do not meet, absolutely not. Do not give him the forum he wants - respond in the paper.
Burns is trying to diffuse the issue at hand - no one cares about his and hatcher's definition of a committee - this is a matter of state law and the state ethnics commission will determine if the complaint has substance.
every time they get heat they come back with this "disgruntled, lets look forward" poo
Someone can reply back in the paper that the matter is very simple - he & hacker broke state law and we intend to file complaints against ALL council people - current and past - who break the law.
the fact that he is trying to minimalize this by pointing a finger at the people who filed does not sit well with me. actually, technically, I have not filed the complaint yet - state sent it back and and have not resent - you can bet I will tomorrow.
that is our right as citizens - since when does wanting city representatives to follow state law mean we are disgruntled? (did not stop them re the recall.)
an informed citizenry is the mainstay against tyranny, and all it takes for bad people to win is for good people to look the other way.
we can ANNOUNCE that far from being "disgruntled" we consider ourselves to be a WATCHDOG GROUP on city politics, actions and ethics and plan to continue exposing shady relationships, fast and loose accounting and whatever stupidity on the part of our city "leaders" .
29.08.09 15:09 Not Disgruntled
I just figured out why Alan Price was so mad at "ron" Tuesday night at CC
mtg.
He is expressing the anger and frustration that all the Black Hats are
feeling
Against WSInformed, not Ron personally. They think he is the Web Master of
WSI.
Now, Jerry Burns wants to "have a meeting" with the people who filed
campaign violations
against him and Gene Hatcher. I don't mine going, but it will be wasted
time.
How do I say, "Your Stupid is showing?"
Their real problem is that they were "talked into running for office" by Don
Smith and
Sue Miller with all the big promises and now then, it appears that Don and
Sue are
pretty immobilized and aren't helping them defend themselves. If they don't
know the
rules of the game, they shouldn't play ball.
Hey, I know. Maybe we can offer to let them resign gracefully and not file
any more ethics
violations against them. We'll need to plan our strategy carefully whatever
we decide to do.
Neither Burns nor Hatcher has a brain.
29.08.09 15:07 Not Disgruntled
The reason BURNS put the request for a meeting in the paper is because 1) He is trying to portray themselves as victims. 2) He is trying to show that they are fair people. See we offered to sit down and work out our differences. Which means, see I tried to get them to do what I wanted. 3) He is trying to give something to their group who is losing hope in their leadership.
The ethics violation needs to be explained.
First of all; Why is it important for a PAC to have a treasurer? Because without a treasurer it is not a PAC, and should not be acting in that capacity.
Secondly, how did the PAC influence the campaign? How many different PACs were used during the course of the campaign? How did that influence the voters. Well they thought many people were supporting Burns and Hatcher, and because we like to do what is popular, or supported by others (because we think the majority of the people can't be wrong), it did create an unfair and deceptive advantage in the political contest.
Thirdly, is proper procedure important when someone is running for an office that is dictated by proper procedure? Yes, if one cannot follow proper procedure during their campaign, it sheds light on whether they will be able or care to follow proper procedure during the course of their elected position. The rules were put in place for elections and elected officials because it was found to foster a fair and open government.
Lastly, what will be the rules for this "meeting"? Will both sides get to talk? Is there really anything to "work through"? They got caught ! It is the Texas Ethics Commission who they need to explain it to. It is another smoke screen to bolster his mutinous troops. Now that Burns has only placed a public notice of the meeting, and decided to only make this public (have you personally received any invitation?), let us carefully consider their response. A shouting match is never won.
29.08.09 15:02 jo ann
PENALTIES FOR REPORTING VIOLATIONS
Any citizen may file a criminal complaint with the district attorney, a civil complaint with the Ethics Commission, or a civil action against a candidate or officeholder for violations of title 15. Any penalty stemming from such complaints would be assessed against the candidate or officeholder, not the campaign treasurer.
29.08.09 10:23 jo ann
SUPPORTING POLITICAL COMMITTEES
A political committee that accepts political contributions or makes political contributions on behalf of a candidate or officeholder is required to give the candidate or officeholder notice of that fact. The candidate or officeholder must report the receipt of such a notice on the report covering the period in which he or she receives the notice.
29.08.09 10:20 anonymous
looks like the head clown sits in the middle of the dias pac 28.08.09 23:46 |
......... 
......... 
Again your kidding right? 
actually it smacks of narcissism 
