Kristy Harrison named by Mayor Drovetta to replace John Shepherd on the City Council. The Council will vote on the appointment March 15th. (Harrison photo) 
Copyright © 2009 Gardner EDGE All rights reserved.
814 Main Street | Gardner, Kansas 66030
E-mail >>>
Printable Page >>>
RSS >>>
Comments
Add Comment | Report inappropriate comments.Order By: Oldest First | Newest First
na wrote on 5/6/2010 2:16 pm
re:Anonymous wrote on 3/6/2010 3:12 pm
Calling her Barbie? Really? Grow up. She will do fine. Her best quality is that she will listen to the citizens of Gardner yet she will not be phased by stupid, immature comments such as the one posted below.
Have you met her? I have and most often she is to drunk to listen.
Not Sure... wrote on 3/9/2010 3:51 pm
I'm quite certain that Peter and Avis didn't start this site to serve as a political counter-point to The Gardner News. There was an opportunity for a real-time local news source, and they seized it. I don't believe the Staff supplied information here is slanted one way or another. The biggest difference has been that this site is a very open forum for all on the message boards, and has served in that capacity since it's beginning. Most of the posters here were in support of the recall effort, and that's why some might beleive the Edge to be on that side of the fight. I don't think they are, but their readers most certainly were, with a few exceptions.
jdelphiki wrote on 3/8/2010 4:00 pm
Gardner News has been more supportive of the Take Back Gardner perspectives and their politicians. GardnerEDGE has been more supportive of the other side of the spectrum.
As I understand it, Mr. Thompson made his announcement to Gardner News and has yet to make a statement to GardnerEDGE. But I could be mistaken on that.
Political coverage politics? wrote on 3/8/2010 2:08 pm
Is there something to be said about Gardner Edge breaking the Kristi Harrison story and Gardner News breaking the Dan Thompson story?
Did Ms. Harrison also provide a photo to Gardner News as she did Gardner Edge?
fktkia wrote on 3/8/2010 1:56 pm
I wonder who inserted the two parenthetical words into Mr Thompson's resignation statement below. In my opinion, this completely alters the tone of Mr Thompson's sentence by moderating his actual quote:
"Thompson said the main reason for his resignation stemmed from a feeling that he could not effectively serve the city when so many residents believed he violated the Kansas Open Meetings Act with John Shepherd and Mary Peters.
"'That's not a healing process,' Thompson said. 'If one of us is a pariah, I'm also (seen as) one of those.'"
Chuck Norris wrote on 3/8/2010 1:52 pm
I could not disagree more completely. Dan should definitely step down. He is obviously complicit in the alleged wrongdoing that was the subject of the recall. His "pariah" sentiment is spot on. He has no credibility now. For Gardner to move forward, the council must be cleansed.
Besides, I think he is only doing it so as to count himself a victim in the defamation lawsuit.
terrance wrote on 3/8/2010 1:01 pm
[expletive] if Dan does turn to the dark side as Judith would see it. She'll be ranting what a low life he is and blah blah blah.
OMG turn of the tv and turn on gardneredge.com
terrance wrote on 3/8/2010 12:55 pm
http://www.gardnerkansas.gov/images/uploads/City%20Clerk/Ordinances/OR2337.pdf
link to pay off all gardner.
btw, council and mayor doesn't get benifits like insurance as do police and other city jobs.
4 Seats wrote on 3/8/2010 12:53 pm
I hope he reconsiders as well. We need him to move FORWARD.
http://www.gardnerkansas.gov/mayorcouncilcontact/
terrance wrote on 3/8/2010 12:51 pm
I sent him an email asking him to reconsider.
I don't know that he reads his emails though.
I believe he's not like the others. If he's not, I hope he does reconsider.
jdelphiki wrote on 3/8/2010 12:44 pm
I think Dan Thompson SHOULD stay on the Council. I agree with you, Jared, that the city NEEDS his voice.
I also agree that we don't have any visibility what, if any, "sides" are at play in his decision. That's why I would like for a little more transparency as to what IS behind his decision, how it will affect the Mayor's ability to fill the Council, and how it will affect Gardner.
To me, it says quite a bit, that Mr. Thompson decided to resign before Mrs. Harrison's confirmation. I would hope that he puts Gardner ahead of any other concerns at LEAST to the point that Mrs. Harrison can be confirmed. It costs him precisely one week, but it speaks VOLUMES to his will to actually serve the City of Gardner first. If he feels strongly compelled to truly resign as of today, I would hope that he cares enough about the citizens of Gardner to explain why, more than just a quick blurb to Gardner News.
As for the recall, just because Peters, Shepherd, et al, can claim plausible deniability for their organized Charter change plans doesn't mean that KOMA violations didn't happen or that people somehow "know" that the allegations made in the recall are false.
Peters' and Shepherd's attorney, Mr. Patterson, has already conceded that the recall is valid and dropped his appeal to the Kansas Supreme Court. The veracity of the claim about KOMA violations was judged to be valid enough by a strong percentage of the voters. Why are people still trying to play word games with Mr. Taylor and the recall committee?
More to the point, why are Shepherd and Peters, their lawyer, and their supporters testing their luck by effectively taunting, "Nobody can 'prove' that we met", then suing anyone who doubts their "Dennis Howard did it all" story?
Should we ALSO ignore Mr. Shepherd's statement that he attended campaign meetings where the Charter plan had been discussed (but he didn't pay attention to them)? And somehow everyone is expected to "know" that the entire Charter change plan was organized and executed while the Big Three operated in ignorance of what the others were doing?
The "truth" and the "proof" elude us because Shepherd, Peters, and friends seem to be playing that bit of "transparency" as translucent as concrete. But there's plenty of doubt about their actions to go around, in my opinion.
Don't Quote Me... wrote on 3/8/2010 12:44 pm
Jeff-
I believe the Mayor's pay is $12K per year, while the Councilmen each received $1200 per year. I could be wrong though.
Thank God Gardner2... wrote on 3/8/2010 12:40 pm
...you're not a cop or judge!
Not sure where you got your law degree, but I think "jury of your peers" refers to something that happens in a court room.
B Dot wrote on 3/8/2010 12:34 pm
Not enough to go through all the crap we give them. :)
terrance wrote on 3/8/2010 12:33 pm
at Jeff Barber, yes they do, but it's not very much, you can find the saleries on the GardnerCity web page.
it's like a couple hundred dollars a month or something like that.
Jeff Barber wrote on 3/8/2010 12:25 pm
Does City Council get a salary? Does the mayor? Just asking.
gardner2 wrote on 3/8/2010 12:22 pm
@Dan did...
No court case, only the jury of their peers through the recall. KS law said that the voters decide between the truth and falsity of their actions. I guess it was true then.
4 Seats wrote on 3/8/2010 12:21 pm
I would agree with Steve and Jared. If Dan cares about the community, and I know he does, he'll take advantage of this opportunity to grab the reins and lead! This could be disasterous for Gardner if he resigns.
Steve Shute wrote on 3/8/2010 12:14 pm
If Dan has decided to resign, this is incredibly unfortunate. Dan is a good man who truly wants what's best for the city - which is why Dan needs to reconsider his decision.
Dan could be a true voice of reason on this council, and, as an elected Council member, he could be someone who could enforce accountability for decisions made by the appointed members.
The last thing we need is for four appointed members to be on the Council. This already polarized community would be in total civil war.
Jared Taylor wrote on 3/8/2010 12:12 pm
@Terrance
I think right now if you believe Dan should stay on the council emails and calls to City Hall would be appropriate. I don't speak on behalf of the Recall Committee only my own opinions.
terrance wrote on 3/8/2010 12:07 pm
And another thing, if there was a law suit of slander, they'd all have to testify. The ones willing to lie under oath, aren't smart enough not to get tripped up.
I'm trying to think up somekind of lawsuit GRC could go after some of these people.
terrance wrote on 3/8/2010 12:03 pm
Some of us are waiting for the other shoe to hit the floor?
At first I thought, it won't be any different. Mayor will have to pick two people to make quorum.
I'm thinking Dan is just thinking the people have spoken and don't want him there or he thinks the law suit threat was the final straw for him and he's divorcing himself from the evil group.
After some thought on some of the sinister plots people are thinking of on this post, I'm starting to question my first thoughts about Dan.
This has been the damnest thing to watch unfold. People not paying attention to local politics are missing a real show. Turn off the tv and turn on city hall.
So Dan did break the law... wrote on 3/8/2010 12:01 pm
Thanks for clarifying your position, Jared. Now, could you provide a link to the court records that support your claim?
I mean, if he broke the law, there ought to be a court case number and at least a fine, right?
Jared Taylor wrote on 3/8/2010 11:30 am
@jdel,
We don't know what is at play here. Historically we all have our preconcieved ideas about what the "sides" are doing. We have a chance here to build above that manner of talk and community belittlement. This is our chance to stay above politics, put aside differences of the past and rise above.
Dan is decent and could add much needed voice and leadership to the council. It is true he was part of what the recall was about but we don't have to continue that legacy. If he is good Dan will learn from mistakes. We all do and we should all get that chance. I believe in Dan and that he can rise above it.
terrance` wrote on 3/8/2010 11:28 am
Dan Thomson wouldn't lie under oath. They'll not take a case of slander to court on that reason.
Jared Taylor wrote on 3/8/2010 11:26 am
@Really
I said they broke the law and the Recall was a right of the people. I've never degraded them and we have taken many opportunities to say that we believe them to be decent people but committed an unfortunate act.
I think we need leadership right now and I believe Dan can do that. Our city needs to heal and reverse the trend of divisiveness. We can all do that by turning our angst toward certain people and make a commitment to change the dialogue to build up our community and not let it wallow. Let's all commit to do that.
No brainer wrote on 3/8/2010 11:24 am
With three empty seats an election should be a "no-brainer".
Process wrote on 3/8/2010 11:21 am
If TBG doesn't want to have a say in how things go on in the town than that is up to them. They could have had Dan on the council and Dan help make the decision on the new appointment. Their choice.
Really Jared? wrote on 3/8/2010 11:09 am
You called them law breakers during the recall election, or did I just dream that?
Give her a fair chance wrote on 3/8/2010 11:08 am
I think people should stop talking negitive about Kristi. I have never met the young lady but she has not even had the chance to prove her self to us. I feel all the negitive talkers out there should give her a chance. You really are showing how immature you are by talking about her at this point. Let the past be the past with our council and lets work together to a better future in this city. I hope this is not to much to ask.
jdelphiki wrote on 3/8/2010 11:06 am
That's exactly my point, Jared.
They're all decent people, but I can't see how they're doing any good for the city by playing these games.
Heck, I even voted for Dan Thompson because I felt he WOULD offer some balance to the community. But I have a serious problem with him deciding to resign and leaving the city even worse off.
Jared Taylor wrote on 3/8/2010 11:04 am
We need to remember that Dan Thompson, like John Shepherd and Mary Peters are decent people. I don't like that Dan resigned and I hope he reconsiders. We need his leadership and his voice on the Council.
Lawsuit wrote on 3/8/2010 11:01 am
Now I'm waiting to hear that they are suing the recall people and the Mayor. Where did these people come from?
jdelphiki wrote on 3/8/2010 10:55 am
Yeah, but this could be bad for the city.
The Gardner News article says Thompson is resigning today, a week before the Council meeting where Shepherd's replacement, Kristina Harrison, would be confirmed by the Council.
Anyone know if the appointment process will change if only TWO Council members remain? Can Drovetta appoint to fill the seats if there's not even a majority of the Council remaining?
This move reeks of Take Back Gardner's underhanded tactics. At the very least, Thompson's decision to resign before the appointment hurts the city by making life more difficult for our government. At the very worst, it's a political ploy designed to once again steal Gardner from the will of the voters.
As usual, we need more information from Mr. Thompson, Take Back Gardner, and the people FUNDING Take Back Gardner.
At the very least, we now see the true nature of the people that Take Back Gardner would have running our city.
Easy wrote on 3/8/2010 10:38 am
See how easy that could have been Shepherd and Peters?
jdelphiki wrote on 3/8/2010 10:36 am
Dan Thompson resigned?
So much for representing healing for the community.
I have to say I'm disappointed. I hope he stays long enough to appoint Mrs. Harrison. I daresay that his willingness to stay at least long enough to make sure we have enough Council members to appoint a third so that they can once again go through the process that they're having to do with Mrs. Harrison.
If he leaves BEFORE that, I can only surmise tactics by the Take Back Gardner group to try to hamstring government.
Paranoid of me? Perhaps. I have no evidence for that statement, only suspicions. Let me explain...
Mr. Thompson might have been waiting for the outcome of the election to decide how the voters perceived the actions of him, Peters, and Shepherd. That much makes sense, at least. But I see no reason for him to leave office BEFORE Mrs. Harrison is confirmed by the remaining Council. He was elected to office. Stepping down at such a critical time (if that's what he ends up doing) could only be tactical, designed either to torpedo the Council out of spite or to attempt to force elections where Linda Meisinger's money can be used to put even MORE TBG puppets onto the Council.
Like I said, I'm disappointed in Mr. Thompson. He had the perfect opportunity to illustrate that he WASN'T a pariah, that he DID have the integrity that the voters thought they were getting when they elected him. He could STAY on the Council and become the voice of the people who feel they need TBG's voice in city affairs. Or at least, he could help the city transition by making sure that he stays long enough to at least replace ONE of the recalled Council members.
His timing will say it all.
Whoa wrote on 3/8/2010 10:23 am
Dan Thompson has resigned per Gardner News.
B Dot wrote on 3/8/2010 9:22 am
JD we should also have a special election for the extra council seat. Won't happen.
WTW? wrote on 3/8/2010 9:17 am
@JD, explain the concept you speak of, consolidating SE Johnson Cnty Gvt? Really? I know of many times this idea was brought up in many ways, all of which will never happen. Do you have a link to more info on what you speak of?
JD Randager wrote on 3/8/2010 8:56 am
Hope Thompson stays on and beleive adding 6 appointed members to counsel and pursuing consolidation of SE Jo. Co. government by appointing 3 from Edgerton 3 from New Century and existing Gardner representatives as interim consolidation council and rewriting charter consolidating Zoning ,Tax, and public works now as KS visioning recommended to Legislature .
B Dot wrote on 3/8/2010 8:14 am
Sounds like a good addition to me. Hopefully we can start getting somethings done in this town now.
For those that think the City had given away the f wrote on 3/8/2010 7:17 am
The developers that own all of the ground OUTSIDE the Gardner City Limits have options.
They can seek annexation with Gardner, Olathe, or Edgerton. On the ground on the east side of New Century we (the City of Gardner) must be aware of Olathe's tax policies and either choose to compete against those or hand the development to Olathe.
Although not played out in the "public arena" the City of Gardner always has been in competition with the City of Edgerton on the Intermodal. Most City leaders were keenly aware that the City of Gardner would have to compete with the City of Edgerton on incentives.
In hindsight, if BNSF and the Allen Group had from the beginning played one City against the other I think Gardner residents would be more supportive and understanding of the need to offer incentives. Because of the political uncertainty and somewhat public lack of support for incentives the rest of the development east of New Century will probably go to Olathe and be on their tax rolls instead of ours.
Despite the fact that the incentives are not 100% and are not forever there are some that act like they are. As long as New Century, Olathe, and Edgerton offer incentives our community must either support our City Leaders to compete or shut up and quit complaining about our high mill levies because we don't have industrial development within our City borders.
If we follow a policy of not competing for commercial development in effect our City limit borders will be frozen in place and Edgerton and Olathe will abut current City limits. Unfortunately because of City policies over the last year or so that is becoming reality.
I have questioned why Olathe is putting so much money into their "Welcome to Olathe" sign on I35 when eventually it could be right east of Gardner.
jdelphiki wrote on 3/7/2010 10:48 pm
@Good point -
So you want to sit in judgement of Drovetta? Maybe you ought to find legitimate complaints about him. The ones you listed sound more like you're making things up to be angry with him instead of actually finding the "questionable behavior" you're trying to condemn him with.
I mean, let's look at your "giving away the farm" statement. You want to come up with something that's a little more precise than "giving away the farm"? How many "giving away the farms" are there in 100% taxes with absolutely no abatements? Five farms? Ten?
Seems more like you define "giving away the farm" as anything Drovetta might have suggested. Probably even if he'd recommended no abatements.
But even if we take your strange, self-defined figure for what you perceive Drovetta as having given away, how do you justify THAT against the 100% taxes GIVEN AWAY by Peters, Shepherd, and Thompson?
Oops.
Are you REALLY trying to criticize Drovetta for giving away SOME taxes in abatements, but leaving the rest for Gardner is somehow better than the Intermodal being built in the SAME spot, but with that tax money going to Edgerton? Peters, Shepherd, and Thompson gave away ALL the tax money, including that money that Gardner would have received when the abatements expired.
So even IF Drovetta gave away the farm, he saved a heck of a lot more than did Peters, Shepherd, and Thompson. Using your example, I think it's safer to prejudge the Big Three for what they cost the city than to judge Drovetta.
And then there was the time when the Big Three tried to rewrite the City Charter so that THEY could (perhaps) appoint someone who didn't even make it out of the primary. On EITHER election he ran for. But instead, he became the magic man who waved his wand and made Peters, Shepherd, and Thompson forget the campaign meeting where the conversation about changing the charter was "discussed" so that when they all signed their identical documents, they could claim that they really WEREN'T trying to cheat KOMA.
You remember that part, don't you? The part that got two of them recalled?
Kinda hard to prejudge Drovetta for appointing the guy who garnered the next-best number of votes, huh? Or the clear fact that Drovetta's guy didn't plan a super-secret Pinky and the Brain scheme to take over the world.
As for Drovettan winning by four votes? Well, that's not his fault. During the election his opponent in the election somehow managed to not write conspiracy theory rants in the local newspaper so the voters might have missed out on the opportunity to see the single-minded tenacity with which he attacked irrelevant (and clearly unsubstantiated) conspiracies about Drovetta running Area 51 on the sly or some such nonsense.
Or maybe it's just that roughly 2000 people voted for Mayor and in the past three elections that have dealt with Intermodal issues or perceived candidates, the anti-Intermodals have collected somewhere around 900 votes and given the election, it's not surprising that the well-funded Take Back Gardner machine was able to generate an extra 10% more voters.
At any rate, the decisions of the voters are their own. That's not a negative on Drovetta...especially since he clearly won the election.
But if you really want to compare, do you think that Larry Fotovich would have come up with the Town Hall meeting and the appointment plan and the gracious gesture to his ideological opponents? Maybe I'm being a bit prejudging, but I don't think Mr. Fotovich would have been able to enact such a well-thought plan.
Four votes? Just enough.
Grasping at Straws... wrote on 3/7/2010 8:29 pm
Check
Good point wrote on 3/7/2010 6:52 pm
Jdel! We shouldn't prejudge Drovetta. So let's judge his questionable past conduct instead. There was that time he told us we were stuck with the Intermodal and the Allen Group and we should tax them, but then proposed to give away the farm through tax incentives. And then there was that time he tried to appoint someone to the city council that was just ousted by voters in an election. I mean who has the nerve to do that with a straight face? Always thought that was a pretty sloppy move on his part. That narrow four vote victory must have really messed with his head.
Great statement of progress... wrote on 3/7/2010 6:15 pm
Take someone from the beautiful North Supply building--the last development with good paying jobs and have her rubber stamp $8.50/hr warehouse jobs--check. Insert friend of last appointee--check. Ask voters to come together as you continue to screw them and do whatever you can get away with--check!
Pass along costs of bad decisions to taxpayers--check, cash or credit card, please.
Great Choice... wrote on 3/7/2010 6:08 pm
Appoint somebody who is adequately qualified to serve. Check. Appoint somebody who isn't tied into either of the two political factions in Gardner. Check. Appoint somebody who can bring fresh ideas and a fresh outlook to our City government. Check. Appoint somebody who doesn't bring a personal agenda to the table. Check. Appoint somebody who is wiling to take the heat of a vocal, angry minority. Check.
Well done, Mayor Drovetta!
jdelphiki wrote on 3/7/2010 2:34 pm
@PR Move -
It IS a great PR move. The question as to whether or not it's sincere depends, I guess, on whether or not one has already prejudged Drovetta.
JD Randager wrote on 3/7/2010 2:19 pm
Kristi sounds like a good candidate for position and based on previous comment I assume she is a current or previous employee of Sprint/Embarq/ Century link ? seems we get a lot of city council members from this company ! Didn't Doretta, Peters, Thompson,and other previous council members come from same company ?
There are lots of good people from other walks of life out there and I would think that they would be considered too.
Great PR move . . . wrote on 3/7/2010 2:16 pm
Mr. Mayor. Appoint a woman to Mr. Shepherd's seat, to avoid the potentially negative image of the city counil as a boys club. Check. Invite your political adversary Mr. Thompson to the table to give the appearance of bipartisanship. Check. Now if we could just get that pesky Gardner News to stop publishing all of those unflattering articles about your leadership, you could really control your message. You're pretty good at this. Are you sure you're just a small town mayor and not a career politician?
Lisa G. wrote on 3/7/2010 12:00 pm
I have never posted to this site but after seeing this anouncement and some of the comments, I thought it may be beneficial for me to add some comments to shed some light on my personal experience with Kristi Harrison. First of all, I am a Gardner resident. I also had the priviledge of working for Kristi for about 2 years. I have never worked under a more qualified or compassionate person. At the time, I worked in a call center in an entry level position. For anyone who has been in a similar position, you know that employees in these positions are not often asked for input or acknowledged by management. This was not the case with Kristi. She came into the position with many challenges in front of her and very unhappy employees to deal with. There were tough decisions that had to be made and she made them. Most importantly, she made them after asking the opinions of those that did the work and at times she was criticized for this. She was tough when she needed to be but most of the time, she was caring and made a stressful environment fun. She knew the names, hobbies, and family of virutally all 100 employees under her management in Gardner. She spent more time out of her office than in it, sitting with employees and talking to them about both business and personal issues. During her time in management, we had several employees who had life altering events take place, cancer diagnosis', diabetes, and sick children. Under her leadership, employees stepped up and raised thousands of dollars for numerous employees during hard times. It is partly due to Kristi's help and influence that I have progressed in my career out of my previous position into a position that has allowed me to advance in my careeer. I will be honest and say that I have not followed all of the latest issues that has faced the city. I am not certain of the specific qualifications that are looked for in determining a city counsel person, I do know that if I have issues or questions in the future, I have someone that I can call who will listen and help.
Mike P wrote on 3/7/2010 6:19 am
I really wish more could have been at the Saturday morning meeting. As Mayor Drovetta told the crowd, as in driving a car, you won't get far staring at the rearview mirror. I felt the Mayor's explanation for this appointment was logical and well thought out. It seems so sad that people will still judge others by their appearence.
jdelphiki wrote on 3/6/2010 10:21 pm
Judith, your "can't stand the stench" comment may be the most insightful thing you've ever said.
Only YOU sit at your keyboard...where your nose is located.
Take a Shower wrote on 3/6/2010 9:27 pm
.
Can't stand the stench wrote on 3/6/2010 7:46 pm
.
Sue Me, Too! wrote on 3/6/2010 7:34 pm
Linda don't forget me! I'm one of the 900 people that signed the petition and one of the 1259 that voted yes to remove Peters and Shepherd from office. Make sure you sue me, too!
Question? wrote on 3/6/2010 7:31 pm
Judith or Larry, you seem to have a lot of questions. You had a great opportunity to ask these questions this morning at the meeting. I understand it is easier to hide behind the keyboard though.
jdelphiki wrote on 3/6/2010 7:02 pm
Hmm...slander...
Judith ought to be quaking in her shoes.
jdelphiki wrote on 3/6/2010 6:16 pm
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
I just saw comments in here that led me to the Star article where Linda Meisinger's pet lawyer says he's going to sue the Gardner Recall committee for slander.
He says that the recall committee "knew" that Peters, Shepherd, and Thompson never met privately for their dirty, underhanded scheme to steal power for themselves by rewriting Gardner government.
HA HA Ha Ha HA ha!!
Sorry, folks. It's just such a hysterical claim for him to make! And for Peters and Shepherd to pursue.
Can anyone say "malicious prosecution"? Can anyone say "voter intimidation"? Can anyone say "poor loser"?
Even IF the judge doesn't disbar Patterson and allow a countersuit for, at least, court costs and malicious prosecution, he'll very likely toss it out on any number of criteria:
- that by dropping his Supreme Court appeal about the legitimacy of the recall and accepting the validity of it, Patterson has already accepted the claims made by the recall, thereby making his ridiculous allegation of slander an out-and-out lie.
- that the recall being a perfectly legal statement of voter outrage over the secretive and questionable behavior of three of its elected officials has nothing to do with any hard feelings or childish perceptions made by the people who perpetrated those actions in the first place.
- that splitting hairs and quibbling over nothing is wasting the court's time.
- or maybe that Patterson has no way of saying with ANY level of surety what the Gardner Recall Committee "knew" pertaining to the organization of the Peters/Shepherd/Thompson non-meeting meeting (officiated by Dennis Howard, of course).
That last point is really all that needs to be said on the matter. Patterson is cheating when he says that because nobody can "prove" that a meeting took place, that people actually "knew" it didn't.
It's a disingenious deception, that the only people who really truly "know" about whether or not a meeting took place are the ones suing people for even suggesting that it actually did. Peters and Shepherd allowed the recall to actually go far enough so that the DA had to squeeze out their version of the truth for the public to see.
NOW they're suing the recall committee for supposedly "knowing" a "truth" that Peters and Shepherd didn't bother disabusing anyone of with any evidence (other than their own words) until forced by the DA.
How simply petty and malicious can Peters and Shepherd be? More to the point, how petty can Linda Meisinger be?
After all, Patterson is her pet attack dog and we have yet to see any proof that it's not HER money that's funding the punitive prosecution they keep directing at Gardner Recall Committee and others.
Patterson, Peters, and Shepherd need to come clean now, once and for all, and cough up who's paying the bills for their lawsuits. If they're truly interested in honesty, they need to, for once, be honest with the city that they once deigned to represent. We need to know who's footing the bill to harass our citizens.
terrance wrote on 3/6/2010 4:17 pm
You know, I was going to be an adult and not say anything to Pary, John or Dan if I met them out in public. Now I'm not so sure. I might bring the KOMA thing up. I might just chant. KOMA KOMA KOMA.
Terrance wrote on 3/6/2010 4:10 pm
And another thing,
Remember several months back when I said all this would stick in Judith's craw forever?
I was right about that too.
terrance wrote on 3/6/2010 4:05 pm
defamation by slander. just read the kcstar article. This looks to me that Dolphin Song Lady is just trying to make people spend their money on lawyers fees.
The judge will be kick this case out faster than Judith can type Beasley Lynch Mob.
Paterson should be reprimanded by the judge for even thinking about sueing for this. I need to start taking wagers on these lawsuits. I've been right everytime so far.
I guess I'll have to use paypal again to help GRC with lawyers fees. By now I think I could have bought that big pottery bowl I liked so much.
If I could get some help now. I'd like to know what businesses are run by this group of scorned people. I'll never buy anything at Dolphin Song. I might shop there and complain about all the waste of resources, but I'll not buy anything. If I'm walking through town and the taco bell hits my gut, I might walk in and ask to use the rest room.
Please let me know what shops to avoid there in town. If I don't know, I'll not visit any of them. I'm hoping I can go to Smoking Babe's BBQ.
I'm pretty sure I can, Judith already complained about them already.
while I'm here, the defamation by slander thing.
If hypothetically it gets past the Judge, counter sue. there is just as much evidence that the other side as slander the GRC. That'd make it a push. I'm not sure if GRC can counter sue for legal cost, but they should be able to in my opinion.
Avis wrote on 3/6/2010 3:46 pm
Clarification: Everyone with a computer has the ability to post here - not the right.
jdelphiki wrote on 3/6/2010 3:44 pm
Funnier still, Judith, that you can't even think of an original thought to post after your other insults get deleted for being too rude.
It's clear that you aren't running out of words...just ideas. Or ideals, at least.
Anonymous wrote on 3/6/2010 3:34 pm
Hey, Judith. Post all you want. You have every right to. And besides, I doubt you can post comments complaining about Satan which is exacty who you will have to deal with once your wretched self is removed from this Earth.
No show? wrote on 3/6/2010 3:28 pm
ohhh...I thought that the "no show" was referring to Mrs. Peters.
jdelphiki wrote on 3/6/2010 3:26 pm
Having fun, Judith?
How typical of you that even when our elected officials are doing precisely what you always criticize them of NOT doing, you still aren't happy.
You stil aren't happy.
That about says it all. You seem to be so unhappy as to have reverted to childish behavior like posting using the nickname "Kristi"...maybe THAT'S why you keep saying that people out here are always making insults...you keep reading your own writng.
At any rate, it illustates your perfect lack of class and interest in what's good for Gardner that you automatically try to attack Mrs. Harrison even before her appointment has been confirmed. That would be about as solid a recommendation FOR Mrs. Harrison as I think anybody could make. Thanks!
Okay. Got that out of the way. Now to important things...
Kudos to Mayor Drovetta for making such a strong move to help Gardner and to begin the healing for our community. There's absolutely nothing that requires him to involve Council member Dan Thompson in the selection process for Mary Peters' replacement, but it says a lot about Drovetta's leadership skills and his willingness to bring Gardner back together that he would open up the selection process to Mr. Thompson, Take Back Gardner's final member on the Council.
It's obvious that there are still a lot of people who will criticize Mayor Drovetta just because they don't like him or have illogically blamed him for everything bad that's ever happened in the world simply because he's there, an available target. To those people, if they still feel they have valid complaints against Mayor Drovetta, I ask only that they back up their allegations. And that they come up with better solutions for bridging the gaps that have divided us.
I urge the rest of the citizens of Gardner to look past those voices...wherever they are...and actually look at what Mayor Drovetta, our Council, and our citizens are trying to accomplish -- bringing Gardner back together.
Chuck Norris wrote on 3/6/2010 3:18 pm
I hope someone is seriously keeping an eye on Judith. Anybody so full of hate and bile should probably be denied access to shoelaces, belts, and sharp objects.
Like I said it shouldn't take long to wrote on 3/6/2010 3:14 pm
to see what goes into her choices. She can make her own record just like any Council person does.
Anonymous wrote on 3/6/2010 3:12 pm
Calling her Barbie? Really? Grow up. She will do fine. Her best quality is that she will listen to the citizens of Gardner yet she will not be phased by stupid, immature comments such as the one posted below.
Krisit Harrison? wrote on 3/6/2010 2:43 pm
Aren't her husband and Steve Hale friends?
Wow, that is surprising!
Report inappropriate comments.