Councilman DeJohn Proposes Council Districts

By  | 

By Dave Freneaux
(For an Editorial on this subject, see "The Elephant in the Room" under Editorials.)

    In an interview with Central Speaks, Council Member Louis DeJohn shared that he is moving forward with an Ordinance which would create five City Council Districts for the 2014 Central City Council elections.  Mr. DeJohn says many Central citizens have made it clear that they want each area of the city to have a single Council Member who lives in their area to be elected by that area and represent their needs to the Council.  With all five current Council Members living in School Board District 1, citizens in other areas of Central have expressed that they were not well represented in the current "At Large" Council election format.  This Ordinance will be introduced at next Tuesday’s Council meeting, but by law no discussion or action will be taken until the following Council meeting on July 12th.

    Council Members LoBue, Messina and Washington campaigned in favor of Districts in 2010, and Council Members Moak and DeJohn have since come out in support of Districts.  Mr. DeJohn further notes that the City Council recently unanimously approved $20,000 for the hiring of a demographer, which is a required step in the process of creating of Districts.  The process of creating districts of equal population and then having the Districts approved by the Justice Department does take time, which is the reason Council Member DeJohn is introducing this Ordinance at this time.


  1. Mike Mannino

    June 23, 2011 at 5:37 pm

    How did Mr Dejohn get involved in this when Mr Messina led the committee ?

    • dave

      June 23, 2011 at 5:55 pm

      As I understand it Mr. Messina chaired a committee to gather research about Districts and Term Limits for the Mayor. Mr. DeJohn stated that with the amount of work to be done to accomplish this, he felt it needed to get started. The Council unanimously voting to fund a demographer sent a pretty clear signal that everyone was ready to get the process started.
      Mike, I figured you would be supportive of this since you also wanted five single member districts.

  2. Keith Holmes

    June 23, 2011 at 8:14 pm

    Although Mr Messina led the committee, any councilman can put any proposal they wish on the agenda for consideration. Whether it is five or seven, I strongly support individual districts. I think Dave’s arguement to leave it at five makes rational sense but I also would agree going to seven is not going to break the bank. I think getting a proposal out on the table for open discussion is timely. Before you task a demographer to draw districts, the issue of how many needs to be decided. It takes a year or more to get the whole process done and approved by the Dept of Justice so there is no need putting it off. I applaud Mr. DeJohn of getting the process started.

  3. Mike Mannino

    June 23, 2011 at 8:48 pm

    I fully support Dave and always had. Mr Dejohn has not. This smells of politics. Mr. Messina has held off on this until the City Services contract was finished. We have 3 years to another election so what would a few weeks have mattered ??. Seems like it could have waited instead of undermining Mr Messina !

    • dave

      June 23, 2011 at 9:32 pm

      I just don’t see how it undermines anyone. The Council did not form a committee, the Mayor did. The committee was not asked to recommend, they were asked to research. The committee was asked to report to the Mayor, not the Council. Mr. Messina campaigned on Districts, now he has the chance to vote for Districts. Mr. DeJohn is a new convert to Districts, he campaigned in support of Divisions. I don’t see Louis DeJohn as the type to do something just to get attention. I believe he wants 5 Districts and is doing what it takes to make it happen.

  4. Another Central Residnet

    June 23, 2011 at 9:50 pm

    Can’t wait for the next election. Time to clean house a little more and get rid of two more council members who have been on the council too long. Hopefully districts will make a couple have to go against each other but I bet somehow the districts will be cut so certain ones will not have to run against each other.

    • dave

      June 23, 2011 at 9:55 pm

      It is my hope that the demographer will be hired and specifically NOT told where current Council Members live. Central needs Districts that are configured PURELY on the basis of fair and equal representation, and nothing else.

  5. Mike Mannino

    June 23, 2011 at 10:26 pm

    Dave that excuse is laughable and purely partisan ! GIVE ME A BREAK ! If someone had done that to Mr Dejohn, we all know what he would have said. What possible legitimate reason could there possibly be for first jumping on the district bandwagon, and second, coming out with a ordinance when everyone was fully aware this was being worked by a committee whose work is finished and ready to be presented ? Let me answer that. THERE IS NONE !!!

    • dave

      June 23, 2011 at 10:39 pm

      Mike, You declaring something laughable or partisan does not male it so. Perhaps you should approach the problem from the opposite direction and tell us all why it is so important to you that Mr. Messina be credited with introducing an ordinance. Our Council members should not care who gets credit for introducing legislation. They should only be concerned with passing good legislation. I am willing to consider that Mr. Messina is a Council Member in order to serve, not to get credit.

      So Mike, why is it so important to you that Mr. Messina be the Council Member to introduce this legislation?

  6. Mike Mannino

    June 24, 2011 at 7:25 am

    Dave its another one of those pesky little honor, ethics, and just down right principal issues that keep getting in the way of some peoples agenda. Once again as I have said about many other issues, it matters not who is involved. It could be the reverse rolls and I would still come down on the same side. Now tell me why ANYONE on the council would jump in at the end of a committee’s work and recommend something that may or may not be in conflict with what the committee came up with. Sounds like grand-standing no matter how you look at it. I hope Mr Messina voices his strong disapproval for Mr Dejohns actions when this comes up !!!!

    • dave

      June 24, 2011 at 8:36 am

      Louis DeJohn has, over his tenure as a Council Member, has consistently placed the needs of Central first. He spent the majority of the last six months, as did others, dedicating most of his spare time to hammering out a contrat for City Services. I have not seen a pattern in his behaviour as a Council Member that indicates he is in this for attention, or grandstanding as you call it. I’m not saying I always agree with him o r that he is perfect, but that is just not consistent with who he has shown himself to be. You may hope that Me. Messina voices his strong disapproval when this comes up, but I would rather hope that Mr. Messina would instead sit down with Mr. DeJohn, express his concerns, hear Mr. DeJohn’s thoughts on the matter, and work together to give the people Districts if they agree it is what the people want. That is certainly less entertaining than a showdown at a Council meeting, but it is far more productive and professional. Consider also that the two of them may be unable to discuss this due to a possible rolling quorum and a violation of open Meetings depending on who they have each discussed this wiith already. There is often more to an issue than is obvious. I choose to give them all the benefit of the doubt until they give me reason to do otherwise.

      As to any intent on the part of Mr. DeJohn to move in a direction that may or may not be in conflict with a committee’s work, that committe’s sole charge was to research, not to vote, and that committee was the Mayor’s committee, not the Council’s committee. There was never any intent for them to “report” or “recommend” anything to the Council. Feel free to check that out.

  7. Mike Mannino

    June 24, 2011 at 10:14 am

    As the old saying goes, you have more excuses than Carters has liver pills. How many people do you think swallow this line of thinking Dave. Do you think we are stupid out here ?

    And if you are correct that there was never any intent for this committee to “report out”, it comes as news to those of us that spent quite a few hours on this. And I’m sure it will be quite a surprise to Mr. Messina who gave us a final copy that was to be presented at a council meeting. No matter what, if thats not the intent, its a slight of hand that irritates the hell out of people like me and many others. Why in the heck would a committee be assembled if there was no intent to bring this to the council ? Not buying it.

    • dave

      June 24, 2011 at 12:49 pm

      Well Mike, the only thing I know about the formation of the committee was what was said in open Council meeting when the Mayor announced it. I believe it was December 14th. The committee was charged with researching Term Limits and Districts. I attended the first two meetings and was on vacation for the last one, but had it taped. They are all three on CentralSpeaksTV.

      As to what you were told when you were asked to be on the committee, I have no idea. Only you and the person who asked you can vouch for that.


    June 24, 2011 at 11:18 am

    I think this is an effort to avoid the other subject this committee was to report out on. Term Limits. Where is Mr Dejohns proposal on that ?

    • dave

      June 24, 2011 at 12:51 pm

      My understanding is that term limits cannot be decided by the City Council. That is a matter for the voters.

  9. Keith Holmes

    June 24, 2011 at 11:36 am

    Mike, I have not been involved at all in the council. I have not been to one meeting. I barely know either Mr. Messina or Mr. DeJohn and can honestly say I am not involved in all of the issues in Central politics. Saying that, I find it hard to believe there is any other motive on Mr. DeJohn’s part. He has a legitimate right and responsibility to present anything he feels is in the best interest of the city of Central. I only side with him on this issue because I do not believe there should be at large members on the council which was the outcome of the “committee” you keep referring too. Our city is small enough to be fairly represented by individual districts. That is the best way to give equal representation to all of our citizens. How can you be so inflammatory over such a difference of opinion. I take it you are in favor of at large members on the council. If so, that is a fair opinion. Just state it so and be done with it. Making all these accusations and degrading the character of another person is not necessary.

    Lets keep above the fray and give Central the image we want to be proud of.

  10. Mike Mannino

    June 24, 2011 at 11:47 am

    Keith you are very wrong about me. I campaigned on Districts and Term Limits and whole heartedly support. Mr Dejohn was in violent opposition. I was also a member of the committee that all members thought were serving on to bring a recommendation to the council which Dave now claims to not be the case.

    Now my gripe here is that Mr Dejohn seems to have hijacked this committees efforts for some reason. I’m wondering if its to sidetrack the other subject we addressed which is term limits. ( recommendation was 2 terms for Council, 3 for Mayor and Police Chief)

    I strongly encourage you to get involved in Politics in Central because all is not as it may appear if you are not watching close. I do come off as somewhat agressive, that i admit but some of this just blows my mind as to the arrogance, lack of respect and common courtesy among these officials. Though Dave claims to not be in favor of Mr Messina making a big deal out of this, I differ in my opinion because Mr Dejohn is known for this type behavior and needs to be called out in public. Mr Messina is the type that will do it and rightly so in my opinion.

    As far as staying above the fray, that is giving in to the tactics that have become commonplace out here. I cant sit back and watch the circus without voicing my opinion.

  11. Mike mannino

    June 24, 2011 at 1:10 pm

    Right you are Dave. The recommendation was to put it on a ballot before the next election so it would be in affect.

    • dave

      June 24, 2011 at 1:20 pm

      So maybe the last post on this thread between us is that we found something to agree on: term limits have to go to a vote of the people.

  12. Mike mannino

    June 24, 2011 at 1:36 pm

    High Five !!

  13. Alton R Ashford

    June 24, 2011 at 6:09 pm

    “Holy Shenanigans Batman, foiled again by “THE DARK SIDE.”

  14. Mike Mannino

    June 24, 2011 at 7:26 pm

    Straight from the horses mouth. The Mayor is holding the committee report that Mr Messina gave to him when we completed our work. He was told it was going to be brought up after teh City Services contract was complete.

    Now no matter your viewpoint, there are some furious elected officials out there and the reason is because Mr Dejohn HIJACKED this. So again, I ask why ???? What is the point, knowing that there is a recommendation ready to be presented. Give me some logical reason, not just because he can. There is a serious lack of judgement by some elected officials in this administration. Always creating controversy because they just dont get the right and wrong concept nor do they seem to care. And it doesnt look good for you to support it. But thats your call. I dont know if this will continue for three more years. Dont think people out here can take much more.

  15. Alton R Ashford

    June 24, 2011 at 8:25 pm

    Dave, if you read into things like some others do around Central, I would say you have just been threatened?

  16. Jimbo

    June 24, 2011 at 9:49 pm

    Sorry Mike, It is the way of the world as descibed by Webster. Did you really think it would be any different in Central.

    Definition of POLITICS
    1a : the art or science of government b : the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy c : the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government
    2: political actions, practices, or policies
    3a : political affairs or business; especially : competition between competing interest groups or individuals for power and leadership (as in a government) b : political life especially as a principal activity or profession c : political activities characterized by artful and often dishonest practices
    4: the political opinions or sympathies of a person
    5a : the total complex of relations between people living in society b : relations or conduct in a particular area of experience especially as seen or dealt with from a political point of view

  17. Mike Mannino

    June 24, 2011 at 9:54 pm

    Holy Toledo Alton ! What kind of interpretation is that ? Must be on the same wavelength that those of you that think this is OK operate on. Definitely not the one I’m on thank goodness ! If I must explain, my comment of people out here cant take much more is not directed at Dave nor is it a threat. But I think you know that.

  18. Mike Mannino

    June 24, 2011 at 9:57 pm

    @ Jimbo, actually, no but some profess it to be. Thats why I will no longer pretend, just fight the battles the normal, old fashioned way. Just had to flush the hypocrites out first.

    • dave

      June 24, 2011 at 11:15 pm

      Mike, let me first address reasonable debate on an issue:

      Smells, laughable, partisan, grandstanding, excuses, stupid, slight of hand, hijacked, lack of judgement, hypocrite, furious, circus, need to be called out, arrogance, lack of respect.

      These are the words you have used so far in your posts on this thread. It is really hard to have intelligent political debate when the responses are basically pure emotion.

      How about let’s all discuss the actual events and exchange ideas rather than making this a war?

    • dave

      June 24, 2011 at 11:25 pm


      So here is how I see it: A council member headed up a Mayor’s committee to research an issue. Everyone has read the opinions expressed by the committee because it was published in a newspaper. Another council member introduced legislation on that same issue. If two more Council Members agree with him, it will pass. If not, it will fail. If it passes, the Council has spoken. If it fails and another Council Member wants to introduce alternate legislation, he is free to do so. Then, that ordinance will pass or fail. Simple, unemotional, business of legislating.

      Sticking to pure and reasonable discussion, what else is needed to resolve this piece of legislation?

  19. Alton R Ashford

    June 24, 2011 at 10:31 pm

    Holy “Ray is being a smart-ass” Mike. I know full well you wouldn’t threaten Dave, even though you and your facebook friends believe he runs with the Dark Side.

  20. Mike Mannino

    June 24, 2011 at 11:17 pm

    LOL Ray. I just calls em like I sees em. The evidence is pretty clear to me. And thats fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion. But no sense in trying to deny it. If someone takes a position, they need to man up when it turns out they are wrong. In this case, to me, based on my beliefs, it is wrong for someone, anyone, to jump into an issue that has already been looked at and a report ready to share. To be clear, the report is a recommendation from a citizen;s committee and is not binding. But its a starting point for discussion at which time, Mr dejohn could have voiced his opinion instead of this grandstanding act he pulled. I just dont get it with some of these guys. It seems like when there are 2 options, one that will result in civil, procedural discussion, the other controversy, they take the option sure to generate the most turmoil. Not healthy for the community and they need to stop and think. There is no need for things to always be handled this way.

  21. Mike Mannino

    June 25, 2011 at 1:02 am

    Dave sometimes its not what you do, its how you do it. Obviously, this is the way its going to play out. So why create the drama by interupting a process in progress ? Honestly, do we really need to do things this way with the environment we have out here ? We were headed to the same conclusion without the grandstanding. Needless games being played and I just dont understand why. We all say we want peace but the some of this stuff seems deliberate and counter to that goal.

    • dave

      June 25, 2011 at 6:55 am

      Thanks for the analytical response. I have watched EVERYONE in City and School Board government do things for “political reasons” for several years now, but we DID elect them all to represent us in a POLITICAL process. Our form of government has some down sides, but it is, in my opinion, the best in the world. Sometimes what we choose to interpret as “political” is just an elected official trying to get a job done. We tend to label things as “political” just because we don’t agree with their position on an issue or how they saw best to get the job done that WE elected them to do.

      I can’t know all of the reasons DeJohn may have for the introduction of this ordinance at this time, but I can tell you that the body of work he has brought to the table over these six years says to me that he is doing what he feels is best for Central.

      The conflict is usually born not out of the action, but the reaction. It is still simple for me. If the majority of the Council does not support the proposed ordinance, it will fail, no drama, just a failed ordinance. If it passes, we have districts. Who proposed the ordinance should not matter. If getting credit for the introduction was DeJohn’s sole reason for introducing it, I would be disappointed. If Messina objects to the introduction simply because hid did NOT get credit for it, I would be equally disappointed. I say let them vote and move on.

  22. Alton R Ashford

    June 25, 2011 at 7:15 am

    Holy “Look in the Mirror” Mike, sometimes its not what you say, its how you say it. Obviously, this is the way its going to play out. So why create the drama ? Honestly, do we really need to say things this way with the environment we have out here ? We were headed to the same conclusion without your grandstanding. Needless play on words and I just dont understand why. We all say we want peace but, some of the stuff you say seems deliberate and counter to that goal.

  23. Mike Stephens

    June 25, 2011 at 7:27 am

    Could the real problem be that it is easier to sit back and place blame and point fingers than to LEAD? Nothing in our plan of government prevents ANY councilman or the council from appointing a committee to adress any issue that they choose. Any councilman can introduce any ordinance or resolution that they choose WHENEVER they choose. Any councilman can amend any ordinance or resolution that is introduced.
    Messina led by chairing the committee. Dejohn led by introducing the
    resolution which is supported by YOU and I ( 5 vs 7).
    Seems like the person playing politics is YOU even though you have publically stated that your house is for sale and you plan to build outside of Central. If its not politics , what is it? Grand Standing?

  24. Alton R Ashford

    June 25, 2011 at 8:12 am

    Mike, last year Councilman DeJohn made a request that the portion of permit fees dedicated to the city be eliminated. This action would reduce permit fees. A City Services sub-committee on Permits, chaired by Pete Firmin, researched and compiled data detailing the impact of lowering fees. It was determined that the fees could be reduced 15% by eliminating the cities share. The City Services Committee voted in favor of eliminating the cities share. Here is my question to you? When Councilman Lobue introduced an ordinance at a City Council meeting to lower fees immediately, after the sub-committee had revealed its findings and only a few months prior to a new City Services Contract to be structured, was he playing politics, did he hijack the process, or was it a serious lack of judgement?

  25. Mike Mannino

    June 25, 2011 at 11:21 am

    So Mike if all thats true, what do I stand to gain by asking that we do things right ? You and I can violently disagree about some things yet I respect you greatly and consider you a friend. There is a right way and wrong way to do things.

    Ray if thats the way it went down, I wouldnt support that either. I honestly dont remember much about that whole mess so if you say it and thats the correct scenario, its wrong. Personally, I thought we were too close to a new contract for either one to bother with it considering the distraction it created. I dont know if we saved very much. Secondly, I’m not an elected official.

  26. Alton R Ashford

    June 25, 2011 at 3:19 pm

    Mike, deep down I know you are a reasonable person. I would go as far to say that your principles are not unlike mine or the vast majority of people that live in Central. The only beef I truly have with you is that you are a chronic skeptic and can’t give someone the benefit of the doubt. You jump to conclusions too quickly and rant eloquent. There are times you confess to being too aggressive and direct for the majority of peoples taste. If that is the case why not work on thoughtful responses to people you have and issue with instead of always being in attack mode. Though I have not actually met you other than conversations on this CS web page, I feel I have to call you out sometimes so that the reasonable person with logic can come out. Hope to shake your hand one day. I met Dave for the first time about a month ago and am sure it will be just as pleasant meeting you. Now that emotional stuff is out of the way. lets have a little fun. I was trying to think of a name for your “Posse” that counters the “Dark Side”. Do you have a preference. LOL

  27. Kim Fralick

    June 25, 2011 at 10:09 pm

    Okay here is the compromise: Let’s not assume that all of Central politics is underhanded. But let’s also not assume that it is squeaky clean either. I personally think that C Messina should have been the one to go forward with the ordinance as he was the one who worked with the committee. It just makes plain common sense to me. Also since C Dejohn so vehemently opposed it before, it does have the ” look” of something fishy. Maybe he should have issued a public response that although he was initially opposed,
    He will honor the wishes of the citizens of Central. I also believe that if the people of Central have expressed their desires, it is futile to continue to print and or discuss why this may be a wrong decision.

    • dave

      June 25, 2011 at 10:30 pm

      Kim, I believe you are right on a number of fronts: I believe, as you hint, that there is politics in politics, and that no one is without motives, but I agree that there is nothing “dirty” going on in our City government. As to DeJohn stating that he previously was not a suporter of Districts, he has done so in print twice with Central Speaks. In the June 2nd issue of in a front page article Council Member DeJohn shared, and we reported, that his decision to support Districts is because he heard the people’s support for it. The article reads in part: “Three Council Members, LoBue, Messina and Washington, were elected on a platform supporting a move to Districts. Central’s other two Council Members, DeJohn and Moak, have recently stated that they have heard the people’s support for Districts and that they too can support a move to City Council elections by District.”

      Mr. DeJohn told CentralSpeaks in last week’s interview that he will state today to anyone who asks that he favored Divisions during the 2010 Municipal Election Campaign. Divisions are essentially city wide at-large elections with each Council Member being assigned a District to represent. He shares that his move to supporting Districts is his response to the people’s wishes.

      Additionally, in March the following was reported in an article about the District Research Committee: “On the campaign trail in 2010 Tony LoBue, Wayne Messina and Ralph Washington stated that they were in favor of moving away from “At Large” elections and moving to Districts. In separate interviews this week Council Members Louis DeJohn and Aaron Moak both stated that they see the merits of moving to Districts, but more importantly, they have heard the people of Central come out strongly in favor of Districts as well. As such, they are in support of such a change.”

      Kim, I most definitely agree with your assessment that with everyone in Central pretty much in agreement, it IS futile to discuss how it got on the agenda for the Council meeting. Let our Council Members now discuss it and vote. Maybe the questions raised here will improve future Council agenda issues.

      Thanks for your comments.


  28. Mike Mannino

    June 25, 2011 at 11:26 pm

    Ray I asincerely appreciate your comments because they were made in a way as to not chastise but to suggest as an opportunity to be less polarizing. Believe me, I have tried to do exactly what you say but in this environment, it doesnt work. I also have tried to compromise on many issues but I have to tell you that I really believe on some issues, there is no middle ground, there is no compromise. Either you support or you dont. I spend a lot of time observing politics at all levels. Its sad to say but the polititians that tend to get the most done routinely use what many consider negative tactics. But they work to expose how far off base their opponents position is. Unfortuantely, we have some people in office that are so far away from what we want them to do, it takes this kind of tactic to get them to move in the direction I feel most of us want. If that makes me the bad guy, I’m willing to take the bullet so that this community will not be changed in a way that we dont want. I dont voice my opinion for any other reason other than to do my part to makes sure my 3 1/2 grandkids ( so far) will grow up in an environment that my kids did. Safe, wholesome, godfearing, neighborly, quiet community. Thats not where we are going right now.

  29. Mike Mannino

    June 25, 2011 at 11:56 pm

    Heres a novel idea. Vote for the people that most closely align with your beliefs. There were many candidates that were for districts and term limits along with several other things that these 2 did not support. A Central PD is another big one. Neither of these 2 are in favor of making this PD viable. They are just fine with EBRSO because as one of them stated, “we dont have enough crime to justify”. I would rather know where my councilmans head is on issues rather than have to change their mind once in office. Thats backwards thinking.

    • dave

      June 26, 2011 at 5:45 am

      I am glad that both DeJohn and Moak are open minded enough to listen to their constituents. They did not take a poll of the voters on the issue of Districts prior to the last election, and neither did the other three candidates. They were all asked a spontaneous question on the issue at the Indian Mound candidates forum. They gave their personal preference, and they were elected. Since that election they have apparently received feedback from the people they represent and now support districts for that reason.

      The alternative would be to have elected officials that simply do what they want and ignore the desires if those they represent. You may want that but I prefer Council Members who are open-minded.

    • dave

      June 26, 2011 at 5:58 am

      On the Police Department issue, the fact that some people seem to either not understand or ignore is that it would be impossible for Central to have a Police Department without imposing property and or sales taxed to support it. We simply don’t have the budget for it.
      I wish those calling for a Police Department would also explain how to fund it. There are many things I would like Central to have that we cannot afford. They would have to also support new taxes if they are being completely informed and honest about it.
      Finally, please tell me who said we don’t have the crime to justify a Police Department and when they said it. I have either audio or video of every public meeting and forum since qualifying in January of 2010. That would be an interesting statement to actually go back and listen to, especially to know the context in which it was said. If we are going to attribute a quote to a Council Member, let’s back it up.

  30. Mike Mannino

    June 26, 2011 at 10:48 am

    The statement was made at one of the debates by Mr Dejohn I believe and by the way was the concensus of most of the council at the time. I would really have to do some digging to find it but just go back and look at CCN with the questionaire that was published right before the election. And I have laid out many times a strategy to start a PD to deal with minor crime. We still have to use the state police for anything that involves utilizing a crime lab. And not 1 cent of tax increases. That was before the money that we saved with City Services which I have been saying for over a year was possible.

    You always like to quote your wise men Dave so I’m going to quote my wise old granmother. She always told me you can find a million excuses why not to do something when you dont want to do it. I think that applies hear.

    • dave

      June 26, 2011 at 12:47 pm

      First you say: “Neither of these 2 are in favor of making this PD viable. They are just fine with EBRSO” Corrrect me if I read this wrong, but I think you must be referring to Council Members DeJohn and Moak. Your statement makes it seem like they are the only two who favored keeping the EBR Sheriff as our primary law enforcement in Central. Fact is, ALL NINE Council candidates in the 2010 election went on record as wanting to keep the Sheriff’s Office as the priamry law enforcement out here, including you.
      Then you say “I would rather know where my councilmans head is on issues rather than have to change their mind once in office. Thats backwards thinking.” Well, I guess that means that no one can now favor a full police department since they campaigned on using the Sheriff’s Office. I actually disagree in that I do believe Council Members can consider an ever-changing landscape of events and change their stance on an issue, much like DeJohn and Moak did on Districts.
      I get it, you want a more active Police Department. That’s fine, but instead of telling me who might not be in favor of it, especially by singling out politicians you don’t support when they all had the same stance, do your research, crunch the numbers, state your case and let’s debate it. I might be in favor, but I have seen no evidence we can pull it off. Let’s keep the issues separated from the personalities. Please show me how we can afford to support a Central Police Department. You might start with Chief Browning. He knows what is and is not possible at this point, and I think he might surprise you.
      I would still like to know where the quote from DeJohn came from. Your use of quotation marks would indicate a pretty specific recollection of the statement. Please give me some direction as to when and where it was said and I will give it to you in context.

  31. Mike Mannino

    June 26, 2011 at 1:06 pm

    Go look in CCN, the candidates questionaire. Dave I mean this sincerely. As many times as I have been right about what I tell you, what is it going to take for you to take me serious and as someone who may know a little about what I’m talking about ?

    • dave

      June 26, 2011 at 1:17 pm

      Already did. That is what my last post was about. It was two papers before the election, March 18th. Unless I misread it, it pretty clearly puts all candidates in support of keeping EBRSO as primary law enforcement. What are you suggesting is in there that I’m not seeing?
      Still want to know source of the quote you attribute to DeJohn.

  32. Mike Mannino

    June 26, 2011 at 2:46 pm

    Not disagreeing on that but I think most of us agreed we couldnt take it all over. Some said we couldnt do any of it. Read the rest. AS far as the quote, Im not exactly sure but I believe it may have been at the Chamber forum. Trust me, it was said because several of us looked at each and shook our heads as soon as it was said,

  33. Alton R Ashford

    June 26, 2011 at 11:14 pm

    Mike, I’m glad you took my words as they were intended. You have the potential to help improve on and/or enhance the good things going on in this community. So as a tribute to you for all the hell we give you(some deservedly so) and for you providing debating issues here is an edited/enhanced speech from a favorite movie of mine. I’ll answer the question. You want answers? You can’t handle the truth! We live in a city that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded. Who’s gonna do it? You Mayberry? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for CH2M Hill and you curse me. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That CHMHill’s loss while unfortunate for some, saves tax dollars: and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves tax dollars. You don’t want the truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about at Cooking for Central, New Years Eve and Mardi-Gras Balls, you want me on that wall–you need me on that wall. I use words like “public record, “hidden agenda” and “BREC is a sham”. I use these words as the backbone of time spent defending the city. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a person who chooses to hide his identity with a fake name and questions the manner in which I speak. I would rather you just said nothing and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you man up and state your name and stand ready to post. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think about me. Oh and BTW, your gosh damn right I ordered a complete public records request!

  34. MIke Mannino

    June 27, 2011 at 7:40 am

    Ray that is fantastic ! I love it. That really does sum it up for me in a way I could never articulate.

  35. Kim Fralick

    June 28, 2011 at 4:22 pm

    Dave, I do not want to be misquoted. I don’t believe you intentionally did this, but I need to clear up some things that you agreed with me on.
    “Kim, I believe you are right on a number of fronts: I believe, as you hint, that there is politics in politics, and that no one is without motives, but I agree that there is nothing “dirty” going on in our City government.”
    I believe there are some “dirty” things going on, I just don’t believe it involves all of the “politicians”
    What I actually said was, “Let’s not assume that all of Central politics is underhanded. But let’s also not assume that it is squeaky clean either”

    Secondly when I said, “I also believe that if the people of Central have expressed their desires, it is futile to continue to print and or discuss why this may be a wrong decision.” I was talking specifically about the article How Central Compares: Just the Facts and the conversation surrounding it.
    Lastly, I stand corrected about DeJohn and issuing a statement. I do however stand behind my opinion that he is the wrong person “for the job”. All people can be very fickle at times. But when someone other than ourselves is, it unfortunately makes us uneasy with their sudden change in opinion, idea or motive. That is just human nature and not an accusation of any type.

  36. Kim Fralick

    June 28, 2011 at 4:28 pm

    Now, my last comment. There are extremes on “both sides”. A wise Central citizen will seek to know how there can be this much disparity in ideas, opinions and thoughts. I think he would come to the conclusion that the “rosy” bed of leadership in this community contains some thorns. This is true of every city, state and country.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *