I understand that your blog tends to lean towards the sensational, but there’s a fine line between colorful writing and outright dishonesty. Your piece on Mayor Stockford and his so-called authority is a case in point.
According to the city charter, it’s the Mayor’s job to appoint committee members, with the council’s approval. These appointments should be transparent – the applications are supposed to be in the packet for everyone to see before the council meeting. But this time, the process wasn’t just overlooked; it was completely ignored.
The mayor didn’t nominate anyone in time for the meeting, so the usual reappointment process just rolled on. If he had followed the rules, there wouldn’t be an issue. Blaming the City Clerk for his oversight is a low blow and a lazy excuse.
Now, about the missing application: if the council had stuck to the rules, they would’ve asked to see it. Is the appointee even a resident of the city, as required by charter? Keeping the public in the dark like this is exactly why the rule about applications exists.
Your article missed out some crucial details. Yes, the mayor mentioned Ms. Swan's political activism, but he only brought that up after she made him angry during the meeting. Before that, he simply said she had served long enough – no mention of activism. The irony of course is the Mayor is well aware of Swan’s political activism, which often benefited him over the last decade and the entirety of her past appointments. Yet this “activism” only became an issue when it didn’t benefit him and Swan spoke out against his political behavior.
Also, let’s not forget the mayor’s own political baggage. His group, of which he is an officer of “America First,” had significant fines accessed right before this whole fiasco. That seems pretty relevant to me, but you left it out. Swan of course is closely connected to the group that prevailed against the Mayor’s faction.
The mayor could have been more subtle. He could have just thanked Ms. Swan for her service and left her name off the agenda. But no, he had to go and remove her during the meeting, making it look like a personal vendetta. It’s one thing to say a political activist shouldn’t be on an election board – and I might even agree with that – but when the replacement is also a political activist and chair of the local Women's Republican group, it doesn’t add up.
Being vengeful is a bad look for an elected official. I've been through a similar situation with the city and wish it had been as clear-cut as this. The mayor needs to be held accountable, both in the next election and perhaps even in court. He’s a textbook example of what’s wrong with politics today.
As for the “Hillsdale Review,” I get why you might use a pen name. Writing controversial opinions can be tough. But you need to back up what you say with facts and stand by your words. The real world won’t be as forgiving as your college bubble. Time to step up.
**An Inconvenience or an Inconvenient Truth?**
I understand that your blog tends to lean towards the sensational, but there’s a fine line between colorful writing and outright dishonesty. Your piece on Mayor Stockford and his so-called authority is a case in point.
According to the city charter, it’s the Mayor’s job to appoint committee members, with the council’s approval. These appointments should be transparent – the applications are supposed to be in the packet for everyone to see before the council meeting. But this time, the process wasn’t just overlooked; it was completely ignored.
The mayor didn’t nominate anyone in time for the meeting, so the usual reappointment process just rolled on. If he had followed the rules, there wouldn’t be an issue. Blaming the City Clerk for his oversight is a low blow and a lazy excuse.
Now, about the missing application: if the council had stuck to the rules, they would’ve asked to see it. Is the appointee even a resident of the city, as required by charter? Keeping the public in the dark like this is exactly why the rule about applications exists.
Your article missed out some crucial details. Yes, the mayor mentioned Ms. Swan's political activism, but he only brought that up after she made him angry during the meeting. Before that, he simply said she had served long enough – no mention of activism. The irony of course is the Mayor is well aware of Swan’s political activism, which often benefited him over the last decade and the entirety of her past appointments. Yet this “activism” only became an issue when it didn’t benefit him and Swan spoke out against his political behavior.
Also, let’s not forget the mayor’s own political baggage. His group, of which he is an officer of “America First,” had significant fines accessed right before this whole fiasco. That seems pretty relevant to me, but you left it out. Swan of course is closely connected to the group that prevailed against the Mayor’s faction.
The mayor could have been more subtle. He could have just thanked Ms. Swan for her service and left her name off the agenda. But no, he had to go and remove her during the meeting, making it look like a personal vendetta. It’s one thing to say a political activist shouldn’t be on an election board – and I might even agree with that – but when the replacement is also a political activist and chair of the local Women's Republican group, it doesn’t add up.
Being vengeful is a bad look for an elected official. I've been through a similar situation with the city and wish it had been as clear-cut as this. The mayor needs to be held accountable, both in the next election and perhaps even in court. He’s a textbook example of what’s wrong with politics today.
As for the “Hillsdale Review,” I get why you might use a pen name. Writing controversial opinions can be tough. But you need to back up what you say with facts and stand by your words. The real world won’t be as forgiving as your college bubble. Time to step up.