Sunday, September 06, 2009

Not that he actually wrote it, mind you. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to intimidate the elderly.

City council president Dan Coffey took to the Tribune yesterday in an effort to explain why his political opponents are the source of the council's inability to take substantive action on virtually anything -- except, of course, Coffey's personal jihad against his political opponents.

Incidents not first time for vocal group at City Council meetings

After reading Steve Kozarovich’s opinion in the “Cheers and Jeers” column Aug. 26, I felt I needed to respond so the people in our community would know what happened at our City Council meeting.

4 comments:

Jeff Gillenwater said...

Coffey's letter provides an excellent opportunity for both his fellow council members and any reporters who were present at the meeting to correct the record that he misrepresents.

Randy said...

This is reposted from an earlier recitation of the facts at John Gonder's blog.

Traditionally, the council chair has the responsibility to restore order. In the past, he (and it's always a he) demonstrated his seriousness by calling on the assistance of the police officer in attendance, who serves as a damper on passions, and most often as a final warning.

That Mr. Coffey chose not to issue a warning will come back to bite him.

In fact, John, Mr. Price escalated things beyond the norm. If Mr. Price perceives something to be out of line, it is his responsibility to call it to the attention of the council president and ask him to restore order.

Randy said...

Instead, Mr. Price began yelling at a member of the public during public comment period. That is completely out of control, though not out of character.

Whatever audible words or grunts emanated from Mr. Baylor's quarter, they pale in comparison to the REGULAR disruptions caused by Denhart at every council meeting she has ever attended. Rogers protestations were mild denials of slander - slanders being allowed, if not encouraged, by the council.

One should never expect to come to a public council meeting and be slandered from the podium. At a minimum, the council president should have invited Mr. Baylor to respond.

Instead, and because Mr. Price was complicit in the ongoing slander, Mr. Price loudly and forcefully singled out Mr. Baylor, breaking all rules of procedure.

Only at that point, after being engaged by a council member, did Mr. Baylor do anything to draw attention to his plaint. He was practically invited to respond when Mr. Price broke protocol. For that, he was ejected.

Make no mistake about what you report as "Ms. Denhart was wrong to throw an insult your way regarding the sidewalk and, mistakenly, the patio." That was far more than an insult. It was an accusation of corrupt conduct, hardly a mere insult.

Denhart should have been off the stage by that time, in any case. Her five minutes had passed. I believe the injustice of being first slandered, then accosted improperly and threateningly, and finally being summarily removed from a public meeting certainly motivated Mr. Baylor's parting shot.

But Mr. Baylor did not start it, and he was not allowed to finish it. NO ONE can rightfully say that they believed that Mr. Baylor's continued presence at the meeting, as a working journalist, no less, would have in any way prevented the council and the public from proceeding with the meeting. NO ONE. Not you. Not Coffey. Not Price.

The ejection was nothing more than a punitive swipe, under color of police power, at a political enemy.

Calling a liar a lying bitch? Who put Roger in the position where he could or would be so angry?

You, John, could have put a stop to it right there if you had insisted on proper procedure. You, John, could have moved to overrule the chair. You cannot say that you believe the council could not have proceeded with Roger remaining in the room.

Now, next meeting, when I stand up to berate Denhart for actually disrupting throughout the course of an entire meeting, I'll at least demand that the chair impose discipline, and it will be far more appropriate than Mr. Price's attack. I honestly thought he was going to physically attack Roger.

Blame ranking?
1. Coffey for not shutting down Denhart when her slanders began.
2. All council members for same.
3. Price for attacking Roger.
4. Coffey for not rebuking Price.
5. All council members for not rebuking Price.
6. Coffey for ejecting Roger.
7. All council members for not stopping it.
8. Roger for crudely hurling an insult, however truthful it might have been.

You say Roger squandered political capital? What, for saying "bitch?" So now, no one will ever listen to Roger again? Come on, you've got to be kidding.

If by "political capital" you mean that Roger might not be given an appointment or a party position by insiders, you may be right. I'm sure he'll lose a lot of sleep over that.

If you mean Roger's previously bright star as a potential elected office holder has dimmed, well, I've never seen Roger express much interest in doing that within the corrupt party structure.

This was mainly a fight between a council member and his constituent, with the ganging on help of the council, the council president, and the police. And the council member started it.

Randy said...

Rather than "refuse to sit down," Mr. Baylor, who was sitting beside my wife, had a LAPTOP in his lap, severely constraining his ability to stand. Mr. Price rose from his seat and I seriously thought Price was going to come after him.

Since Price and Coffey orchestrated the slander, I believe Roger was within his rights to object, however mildly, especially in the 8th minute of Denhart's diatribe. But when the council member engaged battle, it was clearly an invitation to respond, which Roger did.

As a fantasist, Mr. Coffey has a future...if you are willing to suspend disbelief. There were dozens of witnesses, by the way. Ask around if you don't believe my account.