The Pub-dogs scooped us again!
Interested PRU readers may view the exhibits Schmidtzkrieg included with his response to the Mayor's and the Frimark Five's condemnation here.
March 19, 2008
Those Mangy Mutts!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I am curious about WHEN the Frimark Five are going to wake up and realize they are following a clown.
This is great. Poor Howie must be pale under that Florida tan.
Oh My! Now this is good stuff!
Schmidt would be thrown off any Corporate Board Of Directors I have ever served on for his action.
And that would be fine. Because corporate boards are not public government bodies, beholden by law to the general public while conducting their business. But perhaps you've spent so much time on corporate boards, who increasingly seem to milk public bodies for money, that you no longer understand there's a distinction.
Anonymous at 6:38pm:
Gimme a break. As the moderator rightly points out, there is a SLIGHT difference between being a BOD member of a (Public, I assume you mean) Corporation and a public servant - in this case an Alderman.
Schmidt has, I dare say, proven without a doubt that his actions were legal and within his rights as a member of the City Council. The City Manager and City Attorney both advised him that the actions he took were not illegal or against any ordinance. Oh, and the Illinois Attorney General has opined the same.
Now, did what he did piss the others off? Yes, without a doubt. And one must ask themselves why they all got so worked up. Why did the others insist on keeping secret the memos he released and so much more? And now, if what's he's done is so bad, why has the Mayor backed off and said essentially - let's move on?
Lastly, any nitwit can stamp "CONFIDENTIAL" on a piece of paper. Whether in a Corporation or, more pointedy, in a public body that doesn't necessarily deem it so. It just means it's a document that has been stamped "CONFIDENTIAL".
Read Schmidt's response to the Mayor's idiotic public condemnation, it's real enlightening my friend.
To anonymous @ 638pm, or should I say "MK". I will summarize here what I posted in my response to you on the Public Watchdog. Since you are equating a Board of Directors with a City Council, then you must also equate the groups they answer to. A Board of Directors answers to its stockholders, just as we as aldermen answer to the residents. If a Board of Directors had done what this Council just tried to do, ie, attempt to purchase real estate for a new corporate facility without first going through the proper process for approving such a facility, and also attempting to hide the details regarding an investigation into alleged wrongdoing in a division of the corporation, then the stockholders would have every right to sue the Board of Directors for malfeasance and breach of their fiduciary duties to the stockholders. Moreover, if I sat on a Board of Directors which tried to do that, I would have resigned from the Board or done just what I did here, take the issue directly to the stockholders. I concede there is one big difference: stockholders have the right to get rid of their Directors on an annual basis. In our town, the residents are stuck with their aldermen for four years. But I'm working on it.
Post a Comment