First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Doris Borgelt

Arnold, MO

#1 Jun 25, 2013
It used to be, for the sake of transparency, daily police reports, monthly red light camera reports, weekly progress on projects in the city or happenings in city hall along with monthly attorney billings were delivered to the in boxes of sitting council members.
Now, council would not know if there is a crime problem to alert their constituents, have no idea whether the the red light cameras are operating or not, have no idea what is going on in the city or why our illustrious city attorney is billing $16 or $17 thousand dollars for in any given month. The entry log was eliminated, because "they" don't want you to know who is going in to City Hall on a regular basis. When taking a look at all of these things, it should make everyone ask, WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#2 Jun 25, 2013
Doris Borgelt wrote:
It used to be, for the sake of transparency, daily police reports, monthly red light camera reports, weekly progress on projects in the city or happenings in city hall along with monthly attorney billings were delivered to the in boxes of sitting council members.
Now, council would not know if there is a crime problem to alert their constituents, have no idea whether the the red light cameras are operating or not, have no idea what is going on in the city or why our illustrious city attorney is billing $16 or $17 thousand dollars for in any given month. The entry log was eliminated, because "they" don't want you to know who is going in to City Hall on a regular basis. When taking a look at all of these things, it should make everyone ask, WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?
You mean that YOU are no longer getting the reports. Then again, you're no longer an elected official.

Where are you getting your "information" from?
Give it a Rest

Arnold, MO

#3 Jun 25, 2013
Look before you leap. Did she say SHE was no longer receiving the reports? No.

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#5 Jun 25, 2013
Well, when information is leaked and the insurance threatens to find the leak and go after them you have to wonder if the action isn't the City trying to prevent another lawsuit.

Also, are they afraid that privacy might be violated or people will be publicly humiliated before their trial should certain people get their hands on that information and then the City is sued again? You have to wonder with all of the confidential information leaks happening. Maybe if people were not trying to dig up confidential information on those they don't like and using it against them in public forums they wouldn't have to worry about this.
OMG

Arnold, MO

#6 Jun 25, 2013
You are one ignorant piece of work. Information was leaked by the city attorney, the city administrator and the Mayor on a weekly basis to the local papers. Information belongs to the public, it is not the City of Arnold's to give or withhold. They have had many illegal closed sessions.
Fed Up Taxpayer

Anonymous Proxy

#7 Jun 25, 2013
ArnoldCC wrote:
Well, when information is leaked and the insurance threatens to find the leak and go after them you have to wonder if the action isn't the City trying to prevent another lawsuit.
Also, are they afraid that privacy might be violated or people will be publicly humiliated before their trial should certain people get their hands on that information and then the City is sued again? You have to wonder with all of the confidential information leaks happening. Maybe if people were not trying to dig up confidential information on those they don't like and using it against them in public forums they wouldn't have to worry about this.
I'll bet you're calling for Snowden to be arrested for treason, too. He, like others on here, are digging and releasing ILLEGAL activities by the ones in charge or powers that be. That is a GOOD thing! The administration should be representing the people in PUBLIC. That means they should do the publics business in PUBLIC! What a novel idea! If they did that, then the PUBLIC wouldn't have to wonder how there spending OUR money and using OUR resources. And maybe then, they wouldn't be accused of so many back room deals and shenanigans.

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#8 Jun 25, 2013
OMG wrote:
You are one ignorant piece of work. Information was leaked by the city attorney, the city administrator and the Mayor on a weekly basis to the local papers. Information belongs to the public, it is not the City of Arnold's to give or withhold. They have had many illegal closed sessions.
Not according to the insurance company as reported in the Leader.
Not So Fast

Arnold, MO

#9 Jun 25, 2013
Letusnamenames wrote:
<quoted text>
Not according to the insurance company as reported in the Leader.
You need to explain this, as this blanket statement is not true.
Think About This

Arnold, MO

#10 Jun 25, 2013
ArnoldCC wrote:
Well, when information is leaked and the insurance threatens to find the leak and go after them you have to wonder if the action isn't the City trying to prevent another lawsuit.
Also, are they afraid that privacy might be violated or people will be publicly humiliated before their trial should certain people get their hands on that information and then the City is sued again? You have to wonder with all of the confidential information leaks happening. Maybe if people were not trying to dig up confidential information on those they don't like and using it against them in public forums they wouldn't have to worry about this.
"The City of Arnold leaks confidential information continuously. They do it to glorify themselves and manipulate public opinion. They do it to humiliate their political opponents. They try to keep things hidden from the public that should be shared with the public. It's OK for them to violate one's privacy, they could care less as long as they are the ones doing it. The city, the city administrator, Mayor and city attorney do not dislike unauthorized leaks of confidential information as long as they can blame someone else for leaking it.

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#11 Jun 25, 2013
Think About This wrote:
<quoted text>"The City of Arnold leaks confidential information continuously. They do it to glorify themselves and manipulate public opinion. They do it to humiliate their political opponents. They try to keep things hidden from the public that should be shared with the public. It's OK for them to violate one's privacy, they could care less as long as they are the ones doing it. The city, the city administrator, Mayor and city attorney do not dislike unauthorized leaks of confidential information as long as they can blame someone else for leaking it.
You really need to read your paper. I read the story and it clearly said the insurance company said info was leaked as stated above. I can guess what info was leaked.
Think About This

Arnold, MO

#12 Jun 25, 2013
You really need to read to get your head out of your anal cavity. The insurance company can only parrot what the city administrator, Mayor and city attorney have said. The insurance company did not do it's own investigation, it relies solely on what it is fed by the city.

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#13 Jun 25, 2013
They said info was leaked and they would go after who did it. Sounds to me like they did their own investigation.
Think About This

Arnold, MO

#14 Jun 25, 2013
Would that be anything like the investigation they did into Sonia Adams and the infamous letter they accused her of writing? They assured that all costs associated with all of the lie detector tests and the investigation would be recovered from the person who wrote the letter disparaging the department after the Hartzell hanging. Seems nothing was recovered from anyone. Sonia Adams was pursued relentlessly and when it was discovered that she in fact did NOT write the letter, the person who did write the letter was not pursued at all. No one apologized to Sonia Adams publicly after dragging her through the media, do you see a pattern?

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#15 Jun 26, 2013
Think About This wrote:
Would that be anything like the investigation they did into Sonia Adams and the infamous letter they accused her of writing? They assured that all costs associated with all of the lie detector tests and the investigation would be recovered from the person who wrote the letter disparaging the department after the Hartzell hanging. Seems nothing was recovered from anyone. Sonia Adams was pursued relentlessly and when it was discovered that she in fact did NOT write the letter, the person who did write the letter was not pursued at all. No one apologized to Sonia Adams publicly after dragging her through the media, do you see a pattern?
And you all have stooped to their level by dragging their names through the mud when they were never convicted making you all no better than them.

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#17 Jun 26, 2013
remember when wrote:
<quoted text>So what you are saying is...it's ok for the mayor, the chief and the attorney to publicly convict who ever they want and it's not ok for anyone else ?
It's called leading by example. Too bad you're not a real leader.
Yeah Well

Arnold, MO

#18 Jun 26, 2013
Letusnamenames wrote:
<quoted text>
It's called leading by example. Too bad you're not a real leader.
Too bad you exist.

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#19 Jun 26, 2013
Yeah Well wrote:
<quoted text>Too bad you exist.
Too bad you have to wish ill will on people you don't like or who expose you for who you really are. Just shows you don't have the stuff to back up what you preach. A good mayoral candidate would be totally open and honest and help all citizens and not wish them ill will under any circumstances. I think we have just proven you are not mayoral material with this statement.
Yeah Well

Arnold, MO

#20 Jun 26, 2013
Wahhh, wahhh, wahh. Following your lead.

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#21 Jun 26, 2013
Yeah Well wrote:
Wahhh, wahhh, wahh. Following your lead.
No you're not. I don't wish ill will on people. That is something totally your own. You should be ashamed of yourself. Keep posting though, it is letting everyone see who the real fool is, and one hint...it's not me. Ha!
Hello

Arnold, MO

#22 Jun 26, 2013
You definitely are a fool! What they are trying to do to Ken Moss,and that they tried to pass off Mrs. Ott as crazy, didn't work out well for them,$450,000 to her! It will work the same way for Mr. Moss.
But that has nothing to do with the theme of this thread. What was available to the council before April of this year, is no longer available to them. What are they trying to hide?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Carondelet Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Fox C6 Board of Education : Discussion 2 hr ArnoldCC 659
Election in Ward 3 (Mar '12) 2 hr ArnoldCC 51
Plea to Arnold Sewer Customers 20 hr Oh Boy 167
Arnold Historical Society and Culvers Thu ArnoldCC 8
Flo supports Wes? Wed Gen-Y Voter 8
Accident Wed Sad 4
Education EXPERT. Speaking in STL Oct 21 Stephanie 1
Carondelet Dating
Find my Match

Carondelet Jobs

Carondelet People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Carondelet News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Carondelet

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]