| Subject: “Where’s the Beef” |
Author:
 Facta_Non_Verba
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 12:58:06 12/26/11 Mon
In an article “Car back in city hands” councilman-elect Joe Milish compared the misappropriation of city property to that of buying a package of hamburger at the grocery checkout. He likened buying $3.99 worth of hamburger and having it ring up at .99 as no fault to the buyer, because it was a computer error. As I see it the buyer has a moral obligation to correct the computer error, just as I know that Milish would want the same computer error to be fixed if it occurred on his first city council paycheck. Then again maybe for Milish that would depend on which way the decimal point moved. I ask if there would be a more accurate analogy? What if someone removed the sticker form the .99 hamburger and placed it on the $3.99 hamburger then went through the checkout, does that not make more sense to why the buyer did not correct the error. But wait, Milish left out the most important part of the story, why did the city sell the hamburger, I mean cars, for $50 to him in the first place. That’s right Milish made it appear to council that the junk cars were going to be used to help a non-for profit organization, so the most accurate analogy would be that the deceiver asked the Grocer for old “junk” hamburger for a non-for profit organization to feed hungry animals, to which the Grocer agrees to sell the cars, I mean hamburger for .99. Then when no one is looking, the deceiver gets good hamburger worth $3.99 and tells the clerk at the checkout that the Grocer said he could buy the hamburger for .99 for a non-for profit organization; the clerk believes the deceiver and sells him the hamburger. Now that the deceiver has all this hamburger for the hungry animals what does he do, that’s right, he keeps it for his own use.
Now that Milish has supposedly “returned” the cars to the city does that make it all go away. Are all parties happy, is the issue behind us now or are we just trying to keep it off the front page of the newspaper? I for one say that it is not over and that we keep it on the front page and on the council floor till this and all of the closed-door politics are made public. I for one want to see to it that this sends a message to our new council that this kind of behavior is going to stop. Is the City to just “eat” the loss, after all it is tax dollars that were lost, yours money and mine. Something to think about next time you write out your property tax check. How much money did the City loss? Is the City paying to have the vehicles towed back to the city? Because, it is to my understanding, the once drivable vehicle now has no transmission. The City has loss the use of the vehicle, the value of the vehicle has decreased, and the wear and tear that has occurred over the better part of one year that the vehicle was not in city’s hands. Not to say how much was spent on attorney fees and the immeasurable amount of loss in the disappointment of our city government. If one wants to be the better one, do not stop at just giving the vehicles back, do the right thing and repay the Taxpayers for our losses. Facta non Verba.
I would also like to thank the “lame duck” council members who did vote to seek the truth with outside legal counsel, even though it is to my understanding that none of the recommendations were used in favor of sweeping it under the rug now that the vehicles are “back in city hands”, even though the vehicles had not physically been returned at the time of the newspaper article. Also the Dearborn County Register needs recognized for not “keeping it off the front page”, if it was not for them showing the public the truth the next four year may have been business as usual.
Thank you,
Christopher L. Powell
(812)290-1403
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 