A respite from the Mackson controversy is in order with a
little potpourri and some other Council gems.
The Republican core has been shakened by the upset loss
suffered by Virginia’s House Majority Leader Cantor to an unknown ‘Tea Partyer”.
The voter turnout is unknown, nor the forces behind this unexpected defeat of a
solid member of the Republican core establishment.
Coupled with an unsavory primary race in Mississippi between
a core incumbent Republican and a challenger with ‘Tea Party” and “Religious Right”
the GOP is having serious doubts in this mid-term year.
9:30 am,from Sabato's Crystal Ball political column:
==========================================================
The Court has declared California’s Teacher Tenure Laws to be unconstitutional. The decision will be appealed to the Supreme Court.
9:30 am,from Sabato's Crystal Ball political column:
An old country phrase best describes the
possibility of a turnout increase saving Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) in an
upcoming runoff: That dog don’t hunt. But it’s also far from clear
whether a bigger turnout would naturally help Cochran in the runoff
anyway. Mississippi Republicans voted at record levels in the regular
primary, and that of course wasn’t enough to push the incumbent over
50%.
As to the first point, turnout generally falls in runoffs held after primary and general elections -- significantly.
*Most states don’t have runoffs, and the lion’s share of the ones that do (11 total)
are located in the South, a relic from the days of one-party dominance,
where winning the Democratic primary was once tantamount to election. Underline mine, shades of Plainfield
==========================================================
The Court has declared California’s Teacher Tenure Laws to be unconstitutional. The decision will be appealed to the Supreme Court.
The following
is quoted from the Times:
“The plaintiffs argued that California’s current laws made
it impossible to get rid of low-performing and incompetent teachers, who were
disproportionately assigned to schools filled with poor students. The result,
they insisted, amounted to a violation of students’ constitutional rights to an
education.
But lawyers for the states and teachers’ unions said that
overturning such laws would erode necessary protections that stop school
administrators from making unfair personnel decisions. They also argued that
the vast majority of teachers in the state’s schools are competent and
providing students with all the necessary tools to learn. More important
factors than teachers, they argued, are social and economic inequalities as
well as the funding levels of public schools.
Under state law here, teachers are eligible for tenure after
18 months, and layoffs must be determined by seniority — a process known as
“last in, first out.” Administrators seeking to dismiss a teacher they deem
incompetent must follow a complicated procedure that typically drags on for
months, if not years.”
If upheld those laws will be attacked in States where they
exist; New Jersey is one.
==============================================================
A little Council Stuff; the Council led by Rivers and with Taylor’s input did not place on the agenda for first reading a proposed ordinance containing changes relating to "events" held by private promoters especially the 3 day ones in the Business area.
A little Council Stuff; the Council led by Rivers and with Taylor’s input did not place on the agenda for first reading a proposed ordinance containing changes relating to "events" held by private promoters especially the 3 day ones in the Business area.
That was done even after City Administrator noted that a date to make its provisions effective could be set for 1/1/15, since it should not impact on those already approved.
After receiving a condensed explanation by the City Administrator
focusing on the fact that individual entrepreneurs would only be allowed one event a year
instead of the several that downtown promoters have been holding; the above
objected to the break with "tradition".
It seems obvious that Councilors had not read the proposed
changes because no one remarked on other positive changes such as these
promoters would be held responsible for all of the City’s cleanup costs and overtime expenses.
Additionally there was stronger language among other things concerning closing
times and noise control.
A cynical sceptic wondered if the objections could be
related to campaign support.
9:36 am, a plug for a specific person is not germane to this day's blog. We are not a forum for other's agenda, especially anons.
ReplyDeleteDoc I just want to say to you I don't know what the anonymous commentator said, but I will say to you the issue with Lamar Mackson will not go away.
ReplyDeleteRenee
Renee that is true until Lamar waives his rights of privacy and demands a public explanation . There is an issue that has not been addressed; his father said he was not given any terminal leave time but out the door!
DeleteUntil we have definitive facts this blog will not be a further forum on the pros and cons of Mackson.
Hi Doc,
ReplyDeleteAre people aware that for those of us working in real world, we can be fired with no excuse and no notice. Let's get real that happens to people all the time..
Bob Bolmer
Oh my, the obstructionist Council members once again show their hands, and as such their never ending commitment to promote the interests of the few, in favor of the interests of our at large population.
ReplyDeleteCitizens, build an iron clad infrastructure to mobilize the registered voters, get out the vote for the next primary, the next election, and all subsequent contests! Unite the many, and varied, forces of vital change. Ready, set, GO!
Hi Doc,
ReplyDeleteIt's too bad the Council didn't choose to put the new "events" ordinance on the agenda. It sounds like it would help keep the City budget down by protecting the City from unjustified additional expenses and would help improve the area residents quality of life. It would be nice for us taxpayers, if the Council focused on keeping budget dollars down all the time, not just when it suits their purposes.
Tom Kaercher
Considering the event proposal, I think this would be a great change. This city is a mess with so many events and traffic jams and noise. I think it is fair and also, what many other towns do, to allow each promoter one event annually. I wish the councilors would read their packets carefully. I don't care what their gripe is about pay. Making promoters responsible for cleanup and policing costs is a boon for taxpayers. I don't attend most of these events, but my taxes make the promoters richer and I have to pay to clean up their mess. This seems to be a nobrainer, which should work well for many of our City Council members. Maybe because it makes sense they are not pushing it. Makes one wonder if anyone gets kickbacks for these things.
ReplyDeleteGet it right doc Rev Brown also VOTED NO against the events ordinance.
ReplyDeleteAnon, even if she had voted YES it would not have a consensus majority to be on the agenda; 6 Councilors present =3:3..
DeleteAnon 11:21, You must admit Rev. Brown thinks for her self and was not hand picked by JG, her late cousin talked her into running. JG knew she would win and gave her the line.Word on the street is JG is not happy with how she sometimes vote and stated he will never endorse her again.This is from a very reliable source. I personally think she should stick to preaching and community service that is her calling. She is out of her element and it shows.I don't care what anyone says clergy and politics is a bad mix.Half the time she looks like she wants to pray, the other half like she wants to cuss. I like her she is a super nice person once you get to know her.Rev. Brown should call it a day after her term is up. Not because of JG but because she is not cut out for foolishness.
ReplyDelete