For our faithful PRU readers interested in the discussion and vote to override Mayor Schmidtzkrieg's budget veto -- the fun begins @ the 48:00 mark.
Enjoy the show!
May 18, 2010
City Council Meeting 5-17-2010 -- Video!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
42 comments:
The video is beyond rediculous. The mayor is blaming the aldermen. The aldermen are blaming the mayor. It is nothing but finger pointing. It is nothing except political games. None of them want to be on the hook for making real decisions. If the mayor is right then we are screwed but he never offered how he would fix it. If the mayor is wrong we are still screwed with higher taxes and city services cut. These idiots should at least try to work together for the good of the town but they are all too busy with political posturing and finger pointing.
Anonymous @ 2:10,
It sure looks that way...and it is "beyond ridiculous," but I'm sure there are those hoping Mayor DipSchmidt is right...because then they will have been right too, even if it means hoping we are "screwed."
2:10:
BINGO!!! It reminds me of a bunch of pre-schoolers arguing over toys in the sand box. The aldermen are just lost but the Mayor and his band of fanatic supporters are just playing games.
And through it all, Dipschmidt's still a better mayor than HOward was.
Bar's not very high, is it?
Father McKenzie --
Right you are.
But we expected much better from someone who once showed great potential for leadership.
He may still have it in him, but we have our doubts.
Father:
The problem I think the Mayor has is people comparing him with things he said and what they thought they were getting versus what he now appears to be.
This is the case with me. While you are technically correct, I take no comfort in Schmidt being a better Mayor than Frimark. To be blunt, big friggin' deal!!
The election is long over and Frimark isn't the Mayor. Will there ever come a time when you people get over it? Schmidt has been Maor for a year. It's stupid to keep comparing Schmidt to Frimark.
2:10:
You nailed it. Nothing but political games going on.
May 18, 2010 2:46 PM,
I think those of us who voted for Mayor Dave are reminding ourselves why we voted for him.
The budget problems have disappointed many people who thought they knew what they were getting.
The Aldermen have stayed the same but Mayor Dave seems like he has changed.
I don't think our Mayor is a bad guy or anything. I think he is still learning the job and like PRU said a few weeks ago, Mayor Dave inherited a mess.
So what happens now? Can the mayor use his line item veto power?
Anon@3:17 --
No. What Mayor Schmidt will have to do is veto spending ordinances as they come to the Council and are approved.
At least he inherited a mess that he was involved in creating.
Anonymous @ 3:27,
True enough!...but he wasn't alone...and most of these clowncil goofs were/are up to their necks in it too...
...couldn't happen to a "more deserving" bunch of dunderheads.
The only truly regrettable aspect of it all is, the rest of us are getting dragged under THEIR karma bus!...and we will have to pay for it, one way or another.
Anonymous 3:17 here.
PRU, the mayor said the city is over budget by more than a million dollars. Will there be that much coming for approval that he can veto?
Anon@3:42 --
It's possible, but it's unlikely the Mayor will have ordinances come before him totalling the amount by which he believes the budget is in the red.
PRU:
Will the money slated to go to the community groups have to go before the mayor?
Anon@3:37 --
Yes and no.
The money for most of the community groups should not have to go before the Mayor. Those funds have now been budgeted for and there would not seem to be anything more to do than for the finance dept. to cut the checks.
However, we think the funds for the PROAC will have to go before the Council for approval because we believe the process involving those funds will require a bid and then Council approval of the low bidder -- particularly the lobbying component of the package as well as any potential independent environmental study.
So all these Schmidt fanatics saying he will still be able to veto the community groups are wrong. Get everyone all fired up about money going to community groups and then do nothing about it.
It would now appear your April 27 post was pure genius!!!
Anon@4:17 --
The post you refer to was our attempt to offer the Mayor an alternative to a take it or leave it action -- where some of what the Mayor's budget goals are, and veto intentions were, could have and probably would have received sustaining votes.
We expected the Council would not act any differently after a general veto than they had previously. And we expected some of the Council would act very politically, as they have demonstrated.
It wasn't genius as much as it was our feeling that half a loaf is better than going hungry or drowning in an even deeper pool of red ink, and we remain uncertain about the extent to which the Mayor may be right or wrong about revenue projections. But thank you for the compliment.
We stongly feel if the Mayor had taken a decisive position on cuts we suggested and then had taken an equally decisive position on cuts to reach the balanced budget he was seeking, he would have forced the Council to act on his terms and his recommendations and we believe he would have drawn some modest victories as well as populist support. Unfortunately, the Mayor chose to swing a budget veto axe and now he will find himself in the same position as the Council he has accused of failing to act when they had the opportunity to do so.
IT IS ALL JUST A BIG GAME!!!!!
THESE ASSHOLES ARE JOCKEYING FOR POSITION FOR THE ALDERMAN ELECTIONS COMING UP!!!!
Pru, I agree with you when you say "now he will find himself in the same position as the Council he has accused of failing to act when they had the opportunity to do so"
I wish the mayor had differentiated himself from the aldermen. I would have supported him as I know many others would have.
The aldermen were miserable failures at putting together a budget that would have saved our public safety personnel and others from layoffs. I was hoping the mayor would act differently.
So we have a historically overspending council pandering to various interests in an effort to win votes and favor. We have a supposed white-knight fiscal conservative mayor who turns out to be more in favor of calling out the council on their problems than actually presenting concrete solutions and leading people to their acceptance.
I'll bet that soon we'll hear pleas from the mayor asking us to get like-minded people onto the council.
My fear is this. . . . why would a mayor be so interested in putting in his people that he would essentially give up his opportunity to do his best to fix flawed budget? What does he have to gain if he can get a agreeable council? Are we talking about more "good buddy" deals sailing through?
Mr. Mayor, what is so important that making this political point was better than successfully cutting whatever fat you could in this budget?
5:25:
You said what I was thinking. I am not in any way defending our current aldermen, although I would probably be less harsh than some might be. But I get this very uneasy feeling about the Mayor having a council filled with :his people". By the way, I think this push by some to go back to 14 has a great deal to do with increasing the chances of the council being in the Mayors favor.
Anonymous @ 5:45 said...
"By the way, I think this push by some to go back to 14 has a great deal to do with increasing the chances of the council being in the Mayors favor."
Not even close.
5:25
Schmidt was part of the same overspending council for 2 yrs. Now he is a reformer don't you know. He is a reformer now that he can blame the council for the budget. NOT ONE of them has done the job they were elected to do. I don't give a crap how many meetings they had or how hard they think they worked. They have stunk up the joint!!
Bean:
I am curious to hear your thoughts. Doesn't more slots mean more chances for Schmidt to get someone favorable to him? If 4-5 of the current crop stay and have a shot at winning, wouldn't those seven new spots even things out so to speak? Last election 3 slots were unapposed. I would bet Schmidt would have someone lined up for every slot and some might win just by showing up.
I read an article today that criticized Sen. Brady for his mindless idea to make cuts across the board in the state budget.
When I watched Robert Ryan on the video talk about cuts across the board for civic groups I was reminded of the article I read and how Robert Ryan is mindless.
Anonymous @ 6:27,
Oye!...no, it is much much MUCH easier to "control and manipulate" smaller groups...so a council of 7 would make it MUCH easier for ANYONE to recruit, run, finance/back, and get elected a mere four bodies of "like-mind" whether in contested races or not.
...and the sorry story Kenny Blast-n-bitch tells about "uncontested" races being a thing of the past with smaller clowncils is nothing but another one of his delusions, perpetuated by his equally delusional, if not out-right dishonest, "associates."
There are only a few things folks in the seats of power need to "control" elections...money, fewer bodies to control, and low voter turn-out...
...either that or garbage cans. Garbage cans have worked really well...
Besides...DipSchmidt is lacking in many many MANY ways...but he is by no stretch of the wildest of imaginations any sort of "politically strategic" thinker...let alone able to conduct himself like a "political boss"...
bwaaaaaaaaaaaahhhaaaaaaaaaaaahhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhaaaaaaaa...
NFW.
Anon 6:29:
I agree with you. Ryan is mindless which explains his wanting across board cuts. Advocating for something like that is just wanting to avoid having to make decisions and be responsible.
The Hawkettes were the best part of the whole meeting.
I am so sick of politics and politicians. Mr. Mayor and Aldermen would you all please grow up and start acting like reasonable adults. You have important work to do and it is darn time you get down to doing your jobs. If you can't or won't do what you are supposed to, then step down and give others the opportunity to serve.
Funny how Dave complained that Frimark wouldn't work with him when he was Alderman. I wanted to believe that Dave would different. I guess it's hard when you think you're king no matter who you are.
Anon@10:06 --
As was mentioned earlier, Mayor Schmidt is still better than the former occupant of the big chair.
We also note the remark regarding Mayor Schmidt's having been in office for a full year and the displeasure at least one commenter may experience from the continual comparisons to the loser in the last election.
Indeed, the campaign is over and Mayor Schmidt must now be measured by and against his promises made, kept and--or broken, and his actions and conduct while he holds the gavel and is the occupant of the big chair.
PRU:
Your post is correct. I guess you are just going to have to put up with some people reveling in the irony every now and then. At least here one gets realistic view of the man's performance.
I notice on PD this morning that anyone who sees issues about how the Mayor handled this (or anything I am sure)is an "apologist for the council".
Good King vs Bad King. The thing is that it's the "King" part that's the problem.
Mike MaRous was a Great King (and the only one the people didn't elect). 1 out of 4 in 20 years ain't bad!
7:32
Calling Schmidt "King" is over the top I think.
On the Advocate today I did read Schmidt say he didn't use the line veto because of his fears of the revenue projections.
What I don't understand Mr. Mayor is why you didn't line item cuts until you got to the point where the spending would be under the revenues you think are right.
It doesn't make sense to me to keep saying revenues are over projected so instead of making cuts that get us to where I think we need to be I am just going to throw the whole budget out.
10:51:
Imagine someone who has been butting heads with the council for years and since he was a member of that same council. Imagine someone who is more interested in setting the table for the 2011 elections than the fiscal well being of the city this year. Imagine someone making a cynical political decision. Now from that angle it makes perfect sense.
Anon 12:03
Maybe Schmidt is setting the table as you say. I think he just copped out and didn't want to be responsible for anything specific.
6:52 AM: I saw that. It is pretty funny coming from the apologists for the mayor!
If Ryan really thinks, as he stated on this video, that the residents agree with his assertion that the mayor's veto is "disrespectful of what the aldermorons do" he is even more full of beans that I thought. Mr. Ryan: we have a deep disrespect for what YOU have done! And I live in your ward so you can be expecting a sea-change when the next election comes around.
To 12:29:
Agreed!
Post a Comment