Sunday, January 16, 2011

On the right track

While a few individuals take exception to the way the city is being run. It is great to see that the average citizens understand that our city government and the employees are doing a great job. Our mayor, as well as our council has done a excellent job putting our city on track after the “Shults shuffle”. It takes a Mayor, like Toni Randall, who represents the people (and not a political party as Jerry Shults did) to bring us together and work for the best interests of our city and the citizens. Maybe that is why city elections are non partisan. Check out the citizen’s survey and find out what the citizens think of our great city employees.

15 comments:

Chuck DiFalco said...

Chris, while there are and always will be problems with government, and with those who govern, I feel that elected officials now listen to and act upon what I have to say. Years before, I felt like the issues I brought up before city council fell upon deaf ears. I felt like my ideas and opinions were being summarily dismissed since I was one of the "little people." Since I was not an insider, not one of the "cognoscenti," my well researched articles and speeches, supported by my (registered voter) neighbors, were summarily dismissed. Now, League City government is more like one "of, by, and for the people."

Chris John Mallios said...

Well said Mr. DiFalco !

BHL said...

Aside from a few tangentials and distractions, all in all goals are being pursued and met. We're clearly getting there. The next election should be telling.

Morgan_Campbell said...

The current Mayor, Council and Administration is the least contentious, least politically divided and least agenda driven city management in all my years of living here.

Joe said...

Interesting? Morgan, do you think thats because all of the trouble makers are now in office? Tell me what is being done? How much is the rent on that water view office of hers? If JS did that what would You and CM say? What about ignoring previous traffic studies that the tax payers paid for? What about re-assigning a dept head because he wouldn't pass her building inspections on her condo? What about City crews paving her father in laws private drive (Gun Range Rd)? What about spending upwords of $40,000 for Christmas parties (GDN didn't check all of the budgets, we (LCVFD) have $12k for ours, and I think the PD has about $5k) What about moral here at work being at an all time low? why don't you hear about it? Well because before we had the freedom to talk, now if we do we get fired? Oh an Markus Johns? who is this guy? Do you ever see him at work? We don't? I guess what I am saying is sure it will see quite when nothing is being done. Just my 2 cents.

Morgan_Campbell said...

Quite the contrary Joe, I do not think all of the trouble-makers are in office; we got rid of them.

The City is paying $500,000 in rent for temporary office facilities for the 12-18 months that City Hall will be under renovation. There are limited facilities available within the city that can offer the necessary space during these repairs with most of the available office space located in South Shore Harbor. Does it really bother you that much that the Mayor's temporary office happens to have a water view?

Who re-assigned the department head you refer to? You imply that it was the Mayor herself. I doubt that. You're going to have to name names Joe, for anyone to take you seriously. There is a whistle-blowers act that will protect you but quite honestly, it sounds like you just don't like the Mayor.

I've already made myself quite clear about the Christmas party expenditures and if it is more than the GDN initially reported, I would hope they will do a follow up investigation.

Like I said, this is the smoothest this city has run in my 15 years of living here. There are plenty of pot-stirrers who would love to conjure up a story to run to the paper with, particularly as election time closes in.

BHL said...

Joe,
In the future you might want to check your spelling and punctuation. There are an awful lot of errors. It kind of reminds me of someone else...

P. Moratto said...

Sometimes it looks like we're finally on track, and then you see we've jumped the track and took that old dirt road yet again.
Some things change, but others remain the same. Once again, mercenary forces in the town of friendly oaks and shady folks have shown reign.
Nowadays, we see so many times how "free" doesn't mean free like it used to. Today, it's spelled out in fine print, "fleeced."
Same with LC municipal court, where "dismissed" no longer means "and free to go." If you dare to present compliance as reason for dismissal, you may get dismissed, but in League City that means "dismissed and pay anyway." And not just the $180 or so that a guilty finding would have cost. No, now it'll be "dismissed for $266."
What's more, I still don't have the word "dismissed" on any piece of paper, only a couple of people's word for it. I suppose I could still go to jail, if somebody doesn't remember that they said "dismissed" verbally.
Yep, flashback to the good old days in LC when it was dog eat dog. Okay, if that's how they want to play it.

P. Moratto said...

Proud League City motto:
"You can beat the rap, but you can't beat our ride!"

Chris John Mallios said...

Are you referring to a “deferred adjudication” Mr. Moratto ?

Morgan_Campbell said...

For BHL:
Oh, that Joe. ;-)

BHL said...

Pirate,
Me thinks you should complain to the AG instead of complaining to the blog. If what you say be true, then some judges need to be shown the plank.

P. Moratto said...

CJM: No. Deferred adjudication means guilty with penalty set aside.
In this case, it was the precise opposite -- innocent with penalty imposed anyway.

BHL: Thank you. I just wonder how many other people are getting hosed like this; that's why I "went public" about it.

Joe said...

BHL, really, really, thats all you have? You are such a wise man, or at least think you are.
Morgan, sorry but you are mistaken its hidden, stay tuned.

BHL said...

Joe,
I have plenty more, but why waste it on your spiteful innuendoes?