Meet the Ward Two candidates night, March 26, 2013, 6:00 to 7:00 PM.
Please join us at City Hall in the BOA chambers, starting at 6:00 PM to 7:00 PM on Tuesday, March 26, 2013 to meet your candidates for Alderman, Ward Two, Crestwood.
They will be there from 6:00 until the Board meeting at 7:00 PM, so why not come by and ask the questions you feel are pertinent to Crestwood, and then stay for the BOA meeting?
Jackie Stock and I will be there as monitors, and we look forward to seeing you as well.
Tom Ford
NO. 1099
posted by Crestwood Independent at 05:48
26 Comments:
Is Schelinski still in the running? I thought the city charter didn't allow convicted felons in office.
11:45 AM Blogger: He is still on the ballot, and as far as I know he has said he will not drop out.
I suggest yo come to the program and find out what the real story on him is (The paper didn't have it right,) and ask for yourself why he is staying in the race.
Right or wrong, it takes a great deal of courage to continue so you can get the truth out. Heck I can't even get people to post their name on a Blog much less stand in front of a crowd and explain their past.
Tom Ford
you might, then, want to examine how you speak to anyone who disagrees with you to discover why many do not wish to give you their names. Telling people you're a nice guy doesn't alter the fact that you eviscerate anyone who doesn't agree with your opinions.
Well said 2:06!
Anonymity probably allows some Crestwood city employees and some Crestwood business owners the ability to exchange ideas on this board without the risk of retaliation for expressing opinions that may be unpopular with the powers that be.
@11:45, 12:40
If he wins, he won't be seated, and the mayor will get to nominate someone to fill the seat until the April 2014 election. Your choices in Ward 2 are Ms. Stadter or "mayor's mystery candidate".
Given the past track record of "unknown crestwood officials"
Harassing persons ..anonymous is the way to go'.....
2:06 PM Blogger: Well if you do not have the courage of your convictions I guess you won't sign your name, will you.
If your waiting for me to "moderate" my tone, forget it, I am not going to give an inch to anyone, whomever they are, who runs on emotions instead of facts!
Now, YOU have a choice just like you do on TV, the RADIO, or the NEWSPAPER, either watch, listen, or read. If you stay, fine, if you go, fine too, it's your electricity bill, so............
Oh, and by the way, don't try the snarky approach as I will just delete you, and your manicure will have been wasted for nothing!
Tom Ford
5:07 PM Blogger: You were saying?
Tom Ford
I rest my case.
5:19 AM Blogger: Good, now when do you move on? I am all stocked up with those who have no courage to face anything!
Tom Ford
please explain. What is not being faced?
6:57 AM Blogger: Simple. you want to make any and all comments about your fellow bloggers (or me) from the cheap seats.
You do not however want anyone to know who is making them, ergo you can't. or won't give the person you mock the courtesy of replying to YOU, just some "anonymous" coward in the shadows!
In my book that equates to not facing up to to anyone or anything. You will note that since I started this in 2006 I have never once not signed my name here. When can we expect you to summon the courage to do likewise?
Tom Ford
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
9:05 AM Blogger: I am through playing with you, you had your chance, goodby!
TOM FORD
you realize you just demonstrated what that poster was getting at, right?
2;22 PM Blogger: You do realize that I have had it with sanctimonious fools, right?
Tom Ford
Now that tonight's program is over, I felt that I would post. I hope other people who were on the fence at least took the opportunity to attend and try to educate themselves, rather than relying on what other people say is the truth.
I can also agree with Crestwood Independent, that it does take a great deal of courage to stand in front of a crowd and talk openly about your past.
According to the news, Bill Schelinski is 53 now, and Bill himself admits that he was convicted of the crime nearly 2 decades ago (ie when he was in his mid 30s).
I can understand the thought that if he has paid his dues, he should be able to move on - You get out of jail, you can move on with your life...get a job, get married, etc. However, convicted felons lose (permanently) the right to do certain things, such as own firearms and hold certain public offices.
Even a conviction for a misdemeanor domestic battery prevents a person from owning a firearm, and this was a FELONY domestic battery. He can move on with his life, but he cannot forget. From the get-go, he wasn't even up front about his past. He hasn't been running a campaign as a reformed spousal abuser who is championing against domestic battery. Not that he lied about it, he just didn't say anything possibly in the hope that no one would find out - but they did!!
But this wasn't a misdemeanor charge. It was a felony charge and conviction. We all watch Law & Order - you plead down to a lesser charge - he pled to this felony, what was he charged with that pleading to this felony was better than what he was charged with? More importantly, how BADLY did he beat the bejeezus out of her that he found it desirable to plea (ADMIT) to this felony?
Do you want someone who beat a (supposed) loved one THAT badly representing you in the Ward? We may not know the details, but newspapers can't print stuff without supporting facts (such as the criminal records or police report). But what we do know is the police and the prosecutor wouldn't charge him if there wasn't something to it.
Unfortunately for Bill, the City Charter says he cannot hold the office because of a felony conviction. He didn't deny the conviction when he spoke to the newspaper. People might find him to be a nice guy, but that doesn't change his past or his inability to hold office.
Well said
8:39 PM Blogger: You are correct in your assessment of the issues with regard to the Charter.
I am wondering if we REALLY know what did happen, and if ANYONE was in fact beaten at all?
We need the actual facts as they allegedly happened in 1996. Until then, for me it remains a "he said, She said" incident that I have no knowledge of.
I will invite Mr. Schelinski to come on here and tell his side of the story if he so wishes.
Tom Ford
From the Call this morning. This may well help put this behind us.
http://www.callnewspapers.com/Articles-Impact-News-i-2013-03-27-266019.112112-Candidate-ineligible-to-run-city-officials-say.html
Tom Ford
So Tom, you're asking us to support this convicted felon and perpeutate his excuses about what happen back in '96, the sob story about how his plea of guilty happened, and how he just so happened to miss the part in the City Charter about convicted felons being disqualified from holding office BECAUSE HE'S MOST LIKELY AGAINST THE MALL PROPOSAL? Unbelievable.
9:10 AM Blogger: What, oh what to chalk this remark of yours up to?
First, there is NO PLACE on here that I asked you to support any one, second, I have NEVER asked anyone to vote for....... only to vote!
Well, I guess I am down to you either failed the Evelyn Woods speed reading course, or your not the brightest bulb in the harbor.
UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tom Ford
With Tom on this one--the call endorsed Mr. Schelinski, but I have not seen any endorsements from Tom. I don't think anyone is supporting Mr. Schelinski's election any longer, and if he is no longer a candidate, his past is his business.
The city has a history of cursory investigations....it seems....Especially when it serves their purposes.
@7:45
?
Post a Comment
<< Home