Now see this is so negative.....but....hillarious !!!

peopleschoice wrote:

Now see this is so negative.....but....hillarious !!!

Potstirrer!!!!!!

peopleschoice wrote:

Now see this is so negative.....but....hillarious !!!

And you're stupid I don't care who you are talking about.

It's bad to have someone on council that hates the town she is serving in such a bad way. It's even worse that this person won't go to the people who work for the city to try and get answers. When she does get answers and they aren't what she wants to hear she goes to someone else to try and contradict the answers she got from the city workers. Why in the hell would someone who hates Richmond so bad want to serve on council? This woman is doing nothing but trying to make Richmond look bad. She doesn't want to hear anything that may be positive on the part of the city. And for 911 to be such a big concern for the people of Richmond, how many people attended the public forum on Tuesday? And were most called on by her to attend?

Personal grudges, but some of them are not her own.

I wonder when she will get to work designing the new sewer plant. I'm sure she knows better then the experts on that too.

Woww wrote:

It's bad to have someone on council that hates the town she is serving in such a bad way. It's even worse that this person won't go to the people who work for the city to try and get answers. When she does get answers and they aren't what she wants to hear she goes to someone else to try and contradict the answers she got from the city workers. Why in the hell would someone who hates Richmond so bad want to serve on council? This woman is doing nothing but trying to make Richmond look bad. She doesn't want to hear anything that may be positive on the part of the city. And for 911 to be such a big concern for the people of Richmond, how many people attended the public forum on Tuesday? And were most called on by her to attend?

Perhaps someone should mention the issue at church if we want more of Richmond to attend the forum. Worked before.

guestA wrote:

<quoted text> Perhaps someone should mention the issue at church if we want more of Richmond to attend the forum. Worked before.

Thank goodness it did, or there would have been some drastic changes at that meeting.

Woww wrote:

And for 911 to be such a big concern for the people of Richmond, how many people attended the public forum on Tuesday? And were most called on by her to attend?

Speaking of 911, the contract is for 1 year, correct? So we pay about the same this year as it would cost us to have our own dispatch center, and then what happenes after we give it away? What do you think the contract will cost once the city has no other options? It will go through the roof.

Woww wrote:

It's bad to have someone on council that hates the town she is serving in such a bad way. Why in the hell would someone who hates Richmond so bad want to serve on council? This woman is doing nothing but trying to make Richmond look bad.

She seems like she wants to give the whole city away to the county.

What did the new crew think they would accomplish by printing the salaries of the city employees in the paper?

Ohhhhh wrote:

What did the new crew think they would accomplish by printing the salaries of the city employees in the paper?

That's the price you pay when you work for government. Your salary becomes public knowledge.

Ohhhhh wrote:

What did the new crew think they would accomplish by printing the salaries of the city employees in the paper?

They want to cut out insurance and retirement, so they are trying to make a case that the employees make too much money. Since when is wroker comp insurance an employee benefit?

Guest wrote:

<quoted text>
They want to cut out insurance and retirement, so they are trying to make a case that the employees make too much money. Since when is wroker comp insurance an employee benefit?

They can't cut out retirement.....it's a permanent benefit, FOREVER, if you work for the city. If you don't believe me, call lagers. WC is a benefit if you are injured. Why would they want to cut out insurance? That's the reason some people work. Unless things get really bad, and they may, that wouldn't be a smart thing to do.

Why would a person that lives in Richmond, has a business in Richmond and gives her time to serve on the city council, which is a thankless job, want to destroy Richmond? Does that make any sense? It doesn't to me. Somebody please explain that to me. I think she just has the guts to ask questions and upsets the "applecart". I really don't know why people are so upset with her. Maybe I'm wrong, because I hardly know her. Even it she's wrong, maybe it's starts people to thinking on some issues. If she's wrong, there are 7 other council persons. I'd rather have a person ask questions than sat there like a bump on a stump!

Norton wrote:

Why would a person that lives in Richmond, has a business in Richmond and gives her time to serve on the city council, which is a thankless job, want to destroy Richmond? Does that make any sense? It doesn't to me. Somebody please explain that to me. I think she just has the guts to ask questions and upsets the "applecart". I really don't know why people are so upset with her. Maybe I'm wrong, because I hardly know her. Even it she's wrong, maybe it's starts people to thinking on some issues. If she's wrong, there are 7 other council persons. I'd rather have a person ask questions than sat there like a bump on a stump!

You have to remember that asking questions goes against everything the city employees stand for.

My third grader asks lots of questions, but I doubt if she would make a good councilperson.

Norton wrote:

<quoted text>
They can't cut out retirement.....it's a permanent benefit, FOREVER, if you work for the city. If you don't believe me, call lagers. WC is a benefit if you are injured. Why would they want to cut out insurance? That's the reason some people work. Unless things get really bad, and they may, that wouldn't be a smart thing to do.

Hasn't your hero Stanley has already said that insurnace is on the chopping block in next budget? And I did some checking online, as you suggested, and no, Lagers is not required. The state says you have to have Lagers if you have a plan, but you can have no retirement.

Guest wrote:

<quoted text>
You have to remember that asking questions goes against everything the city employees stand for.

That is an ignorant statement. Maybe Westbrook's comments were right on.....asking GOOD questions is a good thing.

Norton wrote:

Why would a person that lives in Richmond, has a business in Richmond and gives her time to serve on the city council, which is a thankless job, want to destroy Richmond? Does that make any sense? It doesn't to me. Somebody please explain that to me.!

And yet there she is, doing it at every meeting!

Guest wrote:

<quoted text>
Hasn't your hero Stanley has already said that insurnace is on the chopping block in next budget? And I did some checking online, as you suggested, and no, Lagers is not required. The state says you have to have Lagers if you have a plan, but you can have no retirement.

I don't care what you checked on line when you have a lagers retirement plan you have it forever!! Call lagers or e-mail lagers and you will find out the truth. Once you sign up with lagers you're stuck with it! I don't have any heroes either. At least not at city hall. What in the world are you talking about...."the state says you have to have a plan, but you can have no retirement"? What does that mean? Doesn't the city already have lagers retirement? If so, and I think they do, they're bound to have it unless they go bankrupt. Ask the county.....don't they have lagers?