It *is interesting how the spoken will of the citizens of Talent (the Charter)did not seem to apply to those called to uphold it in this case.
This is the crux of the issue:
Citizens must be *represented by their governing entities: not ignored by them.
We very much appreciate you, Darby, and the work that you do in *functional representation. Leaders who rise to their calling and hear the voice of their people are leaders who accomplish great things. It's an honor to see you defending our voice.
What is with Talent Council?
Once again the city council in Talent is called upon to examine the law and in Talent fashion stayed on course, disregard for the law. The Talent City Charter states that The office of a member of the Council becomes vacant: Upon declaration by the Council of the vacancy in case of the incumbentís: e. Conviction of a public offense punishable by loss of liberty. Go to jail, vacate the seat.
Council member McManus, to his credit never denied the second DUII or the driving with suspended license nor did he deny the jail time. The motion; "I move that there is significant cause to vacate the seat IN ACCORDANCE with the charter. Council member Lamb argued that McManus has had issues with the legal system, his sentence was pronounced and he continues to be punished. The Talent City Charter is actually supported by Lambs argument. How in the world do you vote no? How do you argue that he has loss of liberty and then vote that there isn't sufficient cause? I'll tell you how, when the greater part of your argument is what a nice guy McManus is.
So, in Talent, if you are a nice guy, the charter doesn't apply. Welcome to the wild, wild west.