Our City Council is an Embarrassment
No character

Lockport, IL

#22 Feb 10, 2013
Puh lease wrote:
<quoted text>
That's Pete's problem! We need people in this city who take their jobs seriously. If he knew his wife was gonna squirt another one out he shouldn't have run for his position. Is he gonna not show when one of his spawn gets the sniffles? Where does it end?
Colarelli only shows when it's convenient for him. I think he's a DOUCHE!
So, what have you got against a family man with a family? You proved what a lowlife you really are. You are saying people that have a lot of kids should not be in public service. Well, I know lots of them that are and what about people running for city council that run around with married men????? Got an answer to that one, Mr. Morals? Pete is a fine alderman and I being a family man know the rigors of just geting home and having a family to take care of. He is doing one hell of a job! Instead of scrutiny we need applause. I say applause is needed! You would do well working in a rest home where people need help. You have such a lack of character that no one on here equals you. Go back to your hole.
No character

Lockport, IL

#23 Feb 10, 2013
First of all I will address your statements. People that take this city seriously...are you referring to denise, tom, dick or yourself? If so, that is truly a farce. If screaming and belittling are what you are known for, yes, that fits. If on here, being a lowlife and belittling Pete and older women are what you do best, yes, that fits. If you are referring to the aldermen taking their job seriously and belittling and showing NO respect for the residents, yes, that fits. So don't talk about seriously. Pete takes his job very seriously or he would not have been there for part of the meeting and been truthful (something you do not know about) as he did. I say, good for you, Pete, You know that family comes first (that is when you have a family). The no gooder on here does not know what a family is. He therefore cannot see the caring attitude you portrayed for the public. The public understands and he does not. He is a greedy old man selfish to the core.
Just the council

United States

#24 Feb 10, 2013
Huh?

"Our City is an Embarrassment"

That looks better, and is far more accurate.
No Balls

Homer Glen, IL

#25 Feb 10, 2013
No character wrote:
First of all I will address your statements. People that take this city seriously...are you referring to denise, tom, dick or yourself? If so, that is truly a farce. If screaming and belittling are what you are known for, yes, that fits. If on here, being a lowlife and belittling Pete and older women are what you do best, yes, that fits. If you are referring to the aldermen taking their job seriously and belittling and showing NO respect for the residents, yes, that fits. So don't talk about seriously. Pete takes his job very seriously or he would not have been there for part of the meeting and been truthful (something you do not know about) as he did. I say, good for you, Pete, You know that family comes first (that is when you have a family). The no gooder on here does not know what a family is. He therefore cannot see the caring attitude you portrayed for the public. The public understands and he does not. He is a greedy old man selfish to the core.
I've got a better idea for you and that rabbit mother*****. Go f*** yourselves!
Chumbalone

Downers Grove, IL

#26 Feb 11, 2013
thoughts or ideas wrote:
<quoted text>
If that is your best shot, I feel sorry you.
Could not find any more words than that in your childrens books?.
The original poster made some comments, I agree with some disagree with some. Until all the facts are out for the second ward, I would not comment anymore wether Smith should stay. While I have always been a fan of a clean sweep, no incumbents, that is proving to be possibly unwise thinking. Peretta at least remains level headed during a meeting, possibly just a front, but at least for appearance sake shows respect. Something that the HEAD COWARD and lapdogs are not capable of doing. Son that line of thinking Smith will probably be best to get re-elected as well. After that then a clean sweep.
Lockport Local, you did a good job of running down the characters of each sitting council member. Remember folks even took jabs at Colllarelli. That is a sign of true honesty.
In defense of Pete for leaving, remember he was taught by the best of them in the last 2 yrs.
Also talk of policital campaigning, why wasn't Turner rambling about Denise even tho she is not personally campaigning, she is supporting the old majority thinking. Notice how it was always we in her comments when defending themselves against the email. Nice 20 minutes wasted, trying to prove their points for the next election. Ok for them, but don't let a taxpayer go the podium and ask questions. Just like when she used time defending herself for her comments on the parking increase costs.
She has no room to talk ever again, in my book after voting ABSTAIN on a issue of who was going to take over temporary for the mayor on 1 night! That is so pathetic.
Remember wether you voted for her or not, she was elected to vote on issues, not attend a meeting to ABSTAIN her vote.
It's very interesting that you complain about abstaining from voting for Marynowski...and then state that she was elected to VOTE ON ISSUES. Do you remember all the vetoes that were issued by Trivedi and his mentor Colarelli ??? Doing so dis-enfranchised the residents of the wards that voted those alderman to the council. Right or wrong...those residents got screwed. Can't have it both ways...so don't moan about an abstention when a veto took away the vote of people that were FAIRLY ELECTED.
Lockport Local

Lockport, IL

#27 Feb 11, 2013
Chumbalone wrote:
<quoted text> It's very interesting that you complain about abstaining from voting for Marynowski...and then state that she was elected to VOTE ON ISSUES. Do you remember all the vetoes that were issued by Trivedi and his mentor Colarelli ??? Doing so dis-enfranchised the residents of the wards that voted those alderman to the council. Right or wrong...those residents got screwed. Can't have it both ways...so don't moan about an abstention when a veto took away the vote of people that were FAIRLY ELECTED.
The "Sreamer's" vote of abstaining was petty. Vetoes have to do with what issues come before the council. Don't distract from the issues. You are like old Saul when you do that.
Bennie

Lockport, IL

#28 Feb 11, 2013
Lockport Local wrote:
<quoted text>The "Sreamer's" vote of abstaining was petty. Vetoes have to do with what issues come before the council. Don't distract from the issues. You are like old Saul when you do that.
That is what happens when you elect unqualified people to this important post. The abstain queen better enjoy her time on there as she will never get elected again. She is a proven puppet. We want people that are intelligent, young, not owing homage to some old guy that has grudges on there. It is coming to a quick ending in April. The voters are smart and wiser this time around.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#29 Feb 11, 2013
Chumbalone wrote:
<quoted text> It's very interesting that you complain about abstaining from voting for Marynowski...and then state that she was elected to VOTE ON ISSUES. Do you remember all the vetoes that were issued by Trivedi and his mentor Colarelli ??? Doing so dis-enfranchised the residents of the wards that voted those alderman to the council. Right or wrong...those residents got screwed. Can't have it both ways...so don't moan about an abstention when a veto took away the vote of people that were FAIRLY ELECTED.
You are really clueless. ABSTAINING is not the same as VETO. If you veto something you are still taking a stand that the people that elected that person to do. While those that elected the ABSTAINING QUEEN to vote, are the ones getting screwed, for she shows up and doesn't vote either way. Take a stand right or wrong.
All she had to do was vote NO if she didn't agree with Peretta assuming the role for the night. Maybe she should have made a motion to have herself take the spot. Oh thats right, that was probably never discussed at Rocco's before the meeting. Very simple, Yes/No.

Very similiar to the other useless excuse for a human being Van Dyke, who during the whole time of the last council, always, repeat always pushed for the ultra-violet method for fixing wells 5&8, NOT ONCE, repeat NOT ONCE did that useless excuse ever step up to the plate and stand in favor of closing those wells. But listen to the windbag now, he makes it sound like all along he was for closing the wells but didn't have the votes. He falls right into the same category as the ABSTAINING QUEEN, HEAD COWARD. Will have to work on a moniker for him next. I know maybe FORKED TONGUE.

Forget about the other old guy, only way he speaks if someone wakes him up. Just go put your head back on the microphone and fall asleep again Ald Kelly, the HEAD COWARD will tell you when to vote.
Lockport

Lockport, IL

#30 Feb 11, 2013
thoughts or ideas wrote:
<quoted text>
You are really clueless. ABSTAINING is not the same as VETO. If you veto something you are still taking a stand that the people that elected that person to do. While those that elected the ABSTAINING QUEEN to vote, are the ones getting screwed, for she shows up and doesn't vote either way. Take a stand right or wrong.
All she had to do was vote NO if she didn't agree with Peretta assuming the role for the night. Maybe she should have made a motion to have herself take the spot. Oh thats right, that was probably never discussed at Rocco's before the meeting. Very simple, Yes/No.
Very similiar to the other useless excuse for a human being Van Dyke, who during the whole time of the last council, always, repeat always pushed for the ultra-violet method for fixing wells 5&8, NOT ONCE, repeat NOT ONCE did that useless excuse ever step up to the plate and stand in favor of closing those wells. But listen to the windbag now, he makes it sound like all along he was for closing the wells but didn't have the votes. He falls right into the same category as the ABSTAINING QUEEN, HEAD COWARD. Will have to work on a moniker for him next. I know maybe FORKED TONGUE.
Forget about the other old guy, only way he speaks if someone wakes him up. Just go put your head back on the microphone and fall asleep again Ald Kelly, the HEAD COWARD will tell you when to vote.
You are almost right about Van Dyke's past history on improving the water in Lockport. His initial position was to bring in Lake Michigan water. Then, when that idea was dismissed because it would be too expensive he changed his mind. When given the options he went for the least expensive. Then his position about ultra violet is as you state.

You are correct, he never ever had a position to close the wells.

Of course, that was during the first two years of his term when he actually was a pretty good alderman. However, the past two years he has been a disaster.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#31 Feb 11, 2013
Lockport wrote:
<quoted text>
You are almost right about Van Dyke's past history on improving the water in Lockport. His initial position was to bring in Lake Michigan water. Then, when that idea was dismissed because it would be too expensive he changed his mind. When given the options he went for the least expensive. Then his position about ultra violet is as you state.
You are correct, he never ever had a position to close the wells.
Of course, that was during the first two years of his term when he actually was a pretty good alderman. However, the past two years he has been a disaster.
Imagine that, another informed taxpayer who remembers. Thank you.

Now lets hear from Chumbalone how we are either Pete, Ron, Joe etc. OR that ABSTAINING is the same as vetoing. Guess the veto was the right thing to do, for they could not get enough votes to overturn it. If was such a good thing to do, they would have had the votes to overturn.

They could not even convince 1 member extra to change their minds. Maybe, just maybe had the slime 5 played ball better, they would have been able to convince 1.

Again thank you for the update.

Chumbalone

Downers Grove, IL

#32 Feb 11, 2013
thoughts or ideas wrote:
<quoted text>
You are really clueless. ABSTAINING is not the same as VETO. If you veto something you are still taking a stand that the people that elected that person to do. While those that elected the ABSTAINING QUEEN to vote, are the ones getting screwed, for she shows up and doesn't vote either way. Take a stand right or wrong.
All she had to do was vote NO if she didn't agree with Peretta assuming the role for the night. Maybe she should have made a motion to have herself take the spot. Oh thats right, that was probably never discussed at Rocco's before the meeting. Very simple, Yes/No.
Very similiar to the other useless excuse for a human being Van Dyke, who during the whole time of the last council, always, repeat always pushed for the ultra-violet method for fixing wells 5&8, NOT ONCE, repeat NOT ONCE did that useless excuse ever step up to the plate and stand in favor of closing those wells. But listen to the windbag now, he makes it sound like all along he was for closing the wells but didn't have the votes. He falls right into the same category as the ABSTAINING QUEEN, HEAD COWARD. Will have to work on a moniker for him next. I know maybe FORKED TONGUE.
Forget about the other old guy, only way he speaks if someone wakes him up. Just go put your head back on the microphone and fall asleep again Ald Kelly, the HEAD COWARD will tell you when to vote.
Look doofus....I know the difference. The poster made the statement about Marynowski being elected to VOTE...not ABSTAIN. Marynowski was FAIRLY ELECTED as an alderman....and therefore allowed to vote or abstain. The poster was pissed off because she ABSTAINED from voting instead of casting a vote. My reference to the mayoral veto was to inform the un-informed that by issuing the veto it DEPRIVED...do you understand....DEPRIVED duly elected alderman their "votes" from being allowed because the "minority" block did not like the fact that the "majority" of votes went against them. They did it multiple times. That silly action DEPRIVED the people who ELECTED those alderman...their voice. SO when Marynowski DID vote.....her vote was taken away by the silly use of a veto because the mayor and his group did not get THEIR way. Right or wrong...that was a true embarassment.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#33 Feb 11, 2013
Chumbalone wrote:
<quoted text> Look doofus....I know the difference. The poster made the statement about Marynowski being elected to VOTE...not ABSTAIN. Marynowski was FAIRLY ELECTED as an alderman....and therefore allowed to vote or abstain. The poster was pissed off because she ABSTAINED from voting instead of casting a vote. My reference to the mayoral veto was to inform the un-informed that by issuing the veto it DEPRIVED...do you understand....DEPRIVED duly elected alderman their "votes" from being allowed because the "minority" block did not like the fact that the "majority" of votes went against them. They did it multiple times. That silly action DEPRIVED the people who ELECTED those alderman...their voice. SO when Marynowski DID vote.....her vote was taken away by the silly use of a veto because the mayor and his group did not get THEIR way. Right or wrong...that was a true embarassment.
So with that line of thinking, where does the voters who voted for the mayor and the minority get there justice if they don't approve of a vote and want it vetoed. Remember if it was such a great thing, the majority should have been able to convince at least one of them to switch their vote. Evidently their supporters wanted them to vote that way, and they did not want to DEPRIVE their constiuents of their views. That knife goes both ways.

Voting like the ABSTAINING QUEEN did, which is not voting at all, is what really DEPRIVES her constiuents of a say so. Even if her vote did not change anything, her constiuents vote would have been heard. Instead the ABSTAINING QUEEN has now set the precedence. She doesn't attend public meetings, and chooses not to vote.

What a poltiician. Just another useless blob in society.

So please quit being like the HEAD COWARD and spin/deflect by discussing veto issues in the same breath as ABSTAINING.

Like comparing apples to bowling balls.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#34 Feb 11, 2013
Chumbalone wrote:
<quoted text> Look doofus....I know the difference. The poster made the statement about Marynowski being elected to VOTE...not ABSTAIN. Marynowski was FAIRLY ELECTED as an alderman....and therefore allowed to vote or abstain. The poster was pissed off because she ABSTAINED from voting instead of casting a vote. My reference to the mayoral veto was to inform the un-informed that by issuing the veto it DEPRIVED...do you understand....DEPRIVED duly elected alderman their "votes" from being allowed because the "minority" block did not like the fact that the "majority" of votes went against them. They did it multiple times. That silly action DEPRIVED the people who ELECTED those alderman...their voice. SO when Marynowski DID vote.....her vote was taken away by the silly use of a veto because the mayor and his group did not get THEIR way. Right or wrong...that was a true embarassment.
The votes are not "taken away" they are on record as to what they voted for or against so the people's voices are heard. The mayor has the option to veto the vote if it is in his mind in the best interest of the city. The city council has the option to override that veto,if in the city councils mind that mayor's decision was faulty. It's called checks and balances basic civics courses will tell you that.

The issue is she choose to abstain from a simple matter of electing a chairman for the evening. Was there some sort of conflict that precluded her from voting? If so why didn't she disclose it? As as been mentioned before if she had a conflict with anything that might seem dubious she has the obligation to abstain, but a chairman for the evening and she chose that to abstain from that issue? That is almost as bad as voting present.
Honor and Integrity

Lockport, IL

#35 Feb 11, 2013
Chumbalone wrote:
<quoted text> Look doofus....I know the difference. The poster made the statement about Marynowski being elected to VOTE...not ABSTAIN. Marynowski was FAIRLY ELECTED as an alderman....and therefore allowed to vote or abstain. The poster was pissed off because she ABSTAINED from voting instead of casting a vote. My reference to the mayoral veto was to inform the un-informed that by issuing the veto it DEPRIVED...do you understand....DEPRIVED duly elected alderman their "votes" from being allowed because the "minority" block did not like the fact that the "majority" of votes went against them. They did it multiple times. That silly action DEPRIVED the people who ELECTED those alderman...their voice. SO when Marynowski DID vote.....her vote was taken away by the silly use of a veto because the mayor and his group did not get THEIR way. Right or wrong...that was a true embarassment.
Look Chum Doofas or whatever name from any location you are using today, the people were not and are not represented by this group. They were lied to in order to get in independently. They do not vote independently they vote with Kelly, the head lappy. It is not going to happen again. You better get out your Robert's Rules and one of the things this so called groupie slate has all done...is disrespect the Mayor. If there was another Mayor they would not get away with it because he would put them in their place...good! They think they are so important that they can disrespect him. He has let it go from the first day and it is his own fault. He thought they were his friends, and he found out they are friends of each other...not him. They are a true emarrassment to this community as well as everyone who voted for them. Hopefully, each voter will weigh his votes and talk to these people running. If they are NOT independents then they should not be voted in. If they came to your door talking up the GANG then vote them out.
Some other thoughts

Bolingbrook, IL

#36 Feb 11, 2013
We need a constructive solution to solve the problems in our city. The solution is to elect a city council AT LARGE and do away with wards. How come there are 6 people on the council that I cannot vote for or against? These 6 other people that are not my aldermen make decisions that affect my life and the lives of the people all over the city. My vote needs to count for everyone on the council, not just the 2 in my ward.
Someone

Lemont, IL

#37 Feb 11, 2013
Some other thoughts wrote:
We need a constructive solution to solve the problems in our city. The solution is to elect a city council AT LARGE and do away with wards. How come there are 6 people on the council that I cannot vote for or against? These 6 other people that are not my aldermen make decisions that affect my life and the lives of the people all over the city. My vote needs to count for everyone on the council, not just the 2 in my ward.
Or the public needs a way to remove ineffective council by a vote!
Lockport Opinion

Lockport, IL

#38 Feb 11, 2013
EJCDad wrote:
<quoted text>
The votes are not "taken away" they are on record as to what they voted for or against so the people's voices are heard. The mayor has the option to veto the vote if it is in his mind in the best interest of the city. The city council has the option to override that veto,if in the city councils mind that mayor's decision was faulty. It's called checks and balances basic civics courses will tell you that.
The issue is she choose to abstain from a simple matter of electing a chairman for the evening. Was there some sort of conflict that precluded her from voting? If so why didn't she disclose it? As as been mentioned before if she had a conflict with anything that might seem dubious she has the obligation to abstain, but a chairman for the evening and she chose that to abstain from that issue? That is almost as bad as voting present.
Can we please get this post bronzed and framed for the doofus that is the multi-named poster on here?

Remember, this rule has to go both ways, even when the group you don't like is in charge.
Chumbalone

Downers Grove, IL

#39 Feb 12, 2013
thoughts or ideas wrote:
<quoted text>
So with that line of thinking, where does the voters who voted for the mayor and the minority get there justice if they don't approve of a vote and want it vetoed. Remember if it was such a great thing, the majority should have been able to convince at least one of them to switch their vote. Evidently their supporters wanted them to vote that way, and they did not want to DEPRIVE their constiuents of their views. That knife goes both ways.
Voting like the ABSTAINING QUEEN did, which is not voting at all, is what really DEPRIVES her constiuents of a say so. Even if her vote did not change anything, her constiuents vote would have been heard. Instead the ABSTAINING QUEEN has now set the precedence. She doesn't attend public meetings, and chooses not to vote.
What a poltiician. Just another useless blob in society.
So please quit being like the HEAD COWARD and spin/deflect by discussing veto issues in the same breath as ABSTAINING.
Like comparing apples to bowling balls.
This COUNTRY and form of government is based on RULE BY MAJORITY....as well as towns and villages. It's quite simple.You and the other knuckleheads can't see it. The REASON the veto was used is because the "minority" group did not get their way (5 to 3 vote) so they used a veto to stop what a majority of duly elected council members voted to do. Had nothing to do with anything except "not getting their way". YOU and the FEW OTHERS may not see it that way....but that's the way it went down. The 5 votes may not have been right or wrong...but the bottom line was that situation created more animosity and grief for this council and ALL the residents. If we continue to allow this type of nonsense to go on....NOTHING and I MEAN NOTHING will ever get done. I guess if a majority existed with Colarelli and his "lapdogs" was formed and voted for all sorts of things that may not be necessary for Lockport....will that be OK ??? It's all about who is in control.....and Trivedi and Colarelli were NOT in the majority so they played a card. We cannot continually have the tail wagging the dog. It is very obvious that you and some others will NEVER be convinced that this form of OBSTRUCTIONISM is WRONG on either side of an issue. So be it...go and continue to keep your big heads in the sand.
Wake up Lockport

Lockport, IL

#40 Feb 12, 2013
Chumbalone wrote:
<quoted text> This COUNTRY and form of government is based on RULE BY MAJORITY....as well as towns and villages. It's quite simple.You and the other knuckleheads can't see it. The REASON the veto was used is because the "minority" group did not get their way (5 to 3 vote) so they used a veto to stop what a majority of duly elected council members voted to do. Had nothing to do with anything except "not getting their way". YOU and the FEW OTHERS may not see it that way....but that's the way it went down. The 5 votes may not have been right or wrong...but the bottom line was that situation created more animosity and grief for this council and ALL the residents. If we continue to allow this type of nonsense to go on....NOTHING and I MEAN NOTHING will ever get done. I guess if a majority existed with Colarelli and his "lapdogs" was formed and voted for all sorts of things that may not be necessary for Lockport....will that be OK ??? It's all about who is in control.....and Trivedi and Colarelli were NOT in the majority so they played a card. We cannot continually have the tail wagging the dog. It is very obvious that you and some others will NEVER be convinced that this form of OBSTRUCTIONISM is WRONG on either side of an issue. So be it...go and continue to keep your big heads in the sand.
This is one of the biggest heads in Lockport speaking. He does not even talk out of the side of his mouth. He admits they all vote one way on everything. There is no hope when people do not vote independently as they were elected to do. Do you really think this group of lapdogs is planning on being any different in the future if elected. The Mayor has NO respect with them in power. The Mayor has to be gutsy. Other wise this poopyface is going to run the town and keep running it into the ground! Elect Steve for integrity and transparency and accountability which I assure you he will have and has had. Regardless of the smear campaign they have put on so far, Steve is clear that he is for the people and you can vote for Vandemeer and Deskin and the reliable people that you have NO doubts about. Don't forget to read their biographies and vote like it is going to count...because it is! We need progress but most of all, we need honesty! We have not had it since this group came in...review the tapes and see for yourself. If you have not gotten answers, then you know how to vote! Don't be lied to! Now they are calling the minority lapdogs. If that isn't a joke, I don't know what is!
Wake up Lockport

Lockport, IL

#41 Feb 12, 2013
Forgot to say vote for Brian Smith. He is close to his family and lives within a block of me. We are all proud of him. He is a gentleman with values. He is a family man and very very interested in his community. Vote for him email him and I know you will hear back. He answers everyone unlike the big heads and poopyfaces!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Joliet Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
still? 2 min Dennyk 48
Swing and a miss HRC! 1 hr Facts are Facts 2
Music awards show-fat women 1 hr Appalled 4
Mr Sulu vs Roy Moore 1 hr Dennyk 77
You can not out-run your sins! 14 hr LMAO 17
CBS2 takes down Tessone Motors 14 hr U a clueless mofo 10
Why I hate Democrats 22 hr Thats Nothing 3

Joliet Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Joliet Mortgages