The article in ThisWeek (Dispatch) 5/30/09 entitled “Newark eyes federal funds for ice arena, treatment plant” demonstrates the irresponsibility with which bureaucrats and special interest groups are willing to gobble tax money.
Two such forces are grabbing for Community Development Block Grant funds, neither of which would, as HUD declares are the purposes of such grants, “develop viable communities by providing decent housing, a suitable living environment and opportunities to expand economic opportunities, principally for low- and moderate-income persons.”
Promoters of the local ice arena have their hands out for $226,355 for upgrades to allow non-hockey events.
Newark’s treatment plant is Jonesing for $293,000 to convert methane gas and reuse it as a natural-gas substitute. This, plus another $293,000 in matching funds from already over-burdened taxpayers.
But what about those low- and moderate-income folks who will never care about either project, but would just like to see Newark’s neighborhoods repaired and sanitized and their utility bills and taxes reduced?
Council members Shirley Stare and Irene Kennedy raised objections during the service committee meeting where preliminary deliberations were made. But, according to ThisWeek, “Newark Mayor Bob Diebold expects his request to skate right through city council Monday, when he'll ask to spend hundreds of thousands in proposed grant money on the ice arena and wastewater-plant upgrades.”
He’s probably right. There are, you see, no forces, save a few bloggers, who give a crap about low- and moderate-income folks or their neighborhoods or their utility bills and taxes.
Showing posts with label Stare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Stare. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
All but three Council members voted responsibly on paving debt
Except for John Uible, Don Ellington, and Ed Houdeshell, Newark City Council turned in a responsible vote for Newark citizens when it decided not to borrow money to pave streets. Those same three were among the six council members who stuffed voters with the additional $10 tax to city residents' auto licenses for the purpose of paving city streets.
That tax was the brainchild of Mayor Diebold - along with the one about charging Newark citizens for rides to the hospital in city-owned equipment already paid for by taxes - who now wants to compound the costs to residents by borrowing money to pave streets.
That plan may not have been okayed by Council anyway, but an Advocate article by Amy Picard 7/17/08 perhaps sealed its fate by pointing to previous irresponsibility by city officials in paying off debt. Here's the link.
This issue of street paving has been on the front burner for many months. It seems we heard it in every argument about adding more fees/taxes to the cost of living in Newark.
Here it is, July 22nd and they still don't know where to get money for this, the most basic and consistent costs of keeping a city in order. The Advocate report - another good one by Amy - is here and it is recommended reading because certain of the Council members were shown to be truly responsible, as they were elected to be. Rick Henderson, Ryan Bubb, Shirley Stare, and David Rhodes all made good points in this report.
City mayors and Council members come and go, but debt to taxpayers lives on. Only the responsible among our elected officials seem to care, while the others continue to play the Game of Chicken with voters (will they remember what we did to them by the time I run for re-election?).
That tax was the brainchild of Mayor Diebold - along with the one about charging Newark citizens for rides to the hospital in city-owned equipment already paid for by taxes - who now wants to compound the costs to residents by borrowing money to pave streets.
That plan may not have been okayed by Council anyway, but an Advocate article by Amy Picard 7/17/08 perhaps sealed its fate by pointing to previous irresponsibility by city officials in paying off debt. Here's the link.
This issue of street paving has been on the front burner for many months. It seems we heard it in every argument about adding more fees/taxes to the cost of living in Newark.
Here it is, July 22nd and they still don't know where to get money for this, the most basic and consistent costs of keeping a city in order. The Advocate report - another good one by Amy - is here and it is recommended reading because certain of the Council members were shown to be truly responsible, as they were elected to be. Rick Henderson, Ryan Bubb, Shirley Stare, and David Rhodes all made good points in this report.
City mayors and Council members come and go, but debt to taxpayers lives on. Only the responsible among our elected officials seem to care, while the others continue to play the Game of Chicken with voters (will they remember what we did to them by the time I run for re-election?).
Friday, May 16, 2008
Councilman Marmie: friend of citizens
Last week Newark City Council voted to stuff Newark City taxpayers by skimming off another $10 per auto license sale, even after taxpayers had voted overwhelmingly against such a tax. I wrote about it here.
In comments before council voted, Shirley Stare of the 2nd Ward mentioned this referendum vote as part of the reason she wouldn't support any more tag tax. Doug Marmie spoke at length about reasons why more taxes for street paving was a bad choice.
The fact that citizens had already spoken on the matter was my main reason for opposing it, but Doug said this is only one of several reasons council should give it a thumbs-down; it didn't make any sense from a governmental and business standpoint anyway.
1- The city had a savings that could have been used for paving but the administration asked that it be moved to a different category.
2 - Borrowing for a depreciating asset is bad business. (The mayor plans to borrow money for street paving and use the tag tax to pay off the interest on this loan.)
3 - We need a long-term plan (for street maintenance) and the city doesn't have one. This would include prioritizing repair expenditures.
4 - Citizens are already paying taxes to repair streets.
5 - Voters don't want this additional tax.
6 - City government should show people what it can do with the additional $5 tag tax that's already been passed by council before asking for more.
7 - You don't just throw money at this kind of problem and hope it's going to get resolved. You need a plan for spending on paving and there is none.
8 - It's not fair to citizens who are already struggling to make ends meet to ask for more taxes. This adds more to the cost of living in Newark.
9 - The tag-tax legislation under consideration does not limit expenditure of that money exclusively to paving, as has been the impression given by statements issued to the press.
Doug was thorough in his assessment and he delivered his thoughts in an understandable and sincere manner.
There were six council members who simply ignored his facts. They are David Rhodes (Councilman-at-large), Ed Houdeshell (First Ward), John Uible (Fourth Ward), Carol Floyd (Seventh Ward), Irene Kennedy (Councilman-at-large) and Don Ellington (Fifth Ward).
These people are counting on the majority of their constituents not being aware of their stand against facts in this matter and their vote for the tag tax and/or forgetting it by next election day.
There were three council members who felt the will of the people should override the temptation for yet another Diebold-sponsored tax grab. Voting in favor of democracy were Ryan Bubb (Councilman-at-large), Shirley Stare (Second Ward) and Doug Marmie (Sixth Ward).
I am greatly impressed by the position and the class of Councilman Marmie, and by his willingness to stand before his peers and tell them how many ways this legislative proposition was bad business and bad government. He proved to be, in this instance, a very good friend of the citizens of Newark.
In comments before council voted, Shirley Stare of the 2nd Ward mentioned this referendum vote as part of the reason she wouldn't support any more tag tax. Doug Marmie spoke at length about reasons why more taxes for street paving was a bad choice.
The fact that citizens had already spoken on the matter was my main reason for opposing it, but Doug said this is only one of several reasons council should give it a thumbs-down; it didn't make any sense from a governmental and business standpoint anyway.
1- The city had a savings that could have been used for paving but the administration asked that it be moved to a different category.
2 - Borrowing for a depreciating asset is bad business. (The mayor plans to borrow money for street paving and use the tag tax to pay off the interest on this loan.)
3 - We need a long-term plan (for street maintenance) and the city doesn't have one. This would include prioritizing repair expenditures.
4 - Citizens are already paying taxes to repair streets.
5 - Voters don't want this additional tax.
6 - City government should show people what it can do with the additional $5 tag tax that's already been passed by council before asking for more.
7 - You don't just throw money at this kind of problem and hope it's going to get resolved. You need a plan for spending on paving and there is none.
8 - It's not fair to citizens who are already struggling to make ends meet to ask for more taxes. This adds more to the cost of living in Newark.
9 - The tag-tax legislation under consideration does not limit expenditure of that money exclusively to paving, as has been the impression given by statements issued to the press.
Doug was thorough in his assessment and he delivered his thoughts in an understandable and sincere manner.
There were six council members who simply ignored his facts. They are David Rhodes (Councilman-at-large), Ed Houdeshell (First Ward), John Uible (Fourth Ward), Carol Floyd (Seventh Ward), Irene Kennedy (Councilman-at-large) and Don Ellington (Fifth Ward).
These people are counting on the majority of their constituents not being aware of their stand against facts in this matter and their vote for the tag tax and/or forgetting it by next election day.
There were three council members who felt the will of the people should override the temptation for yet another Diebold-sponsored tax grab. Voting in favor of democracy were Ryan Bubb (Councilman-at-large), Shirley Stare (Second Ward) and Doug Marmie (Sixth Ward).
I am greatly impressed by the position and the class of Councilman Marmie, and by his willingness to stand before his peers and tell them how many ways this legislative proposition was bad business and bad government. He proved to be, in this instance, a very good friend of the citizens of Newark.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
City Council votes 6-3 to stuff voters again
Newark voters got stuffed again by the Needy Magic Nanny, this time for a $10 bill with every auto license they ever have to buy in Newark for the rest of their lives.
By a vote of 6-3 (one absent), council increased the city tax on auto licenses even though voters earlier held a referendum on this matter and rejected it soundly.
By replacing the unwanted charge, six of your Newark City Council members - with the blessing of Mayor Diebold - gave you the their dimpled middle digits, right in your face. Take that, stupid! You're not going to remember this on election day.
Isn't that right, David Rhodes (Councilman-at-large), Ed Houdeshell (First Ward), John Uible (Fourth Ward), Carol Floyd (Seventh Ward), Irene Kennedy (Councilman-at-large) and Don Ellington (Fifth Ward)?
And thank you, Advocate, for naming names in the report of May 6.
Voting in favor of democracy were Ryan Bubb (Councilman-at-large), Shirley Stare (Second Ward) and Doug Marmie (Sixth Ward).
About her vote, Shirley said “In 2005, the citizens soundly defeated the bill that was on the ballot. I am speaking for people in my ward, and I just do not think if they were here tonight they would support it.”
Wouldn't it be wonderful if all office-holders would think of their obligations to the people who put them in office above all else, thus maintaining a true representative government for, of, and by the people?
In case you don't know who your representatives on council are (in addition to the at-large councilmen), there's a ward map on the city's web site at this link.
Probably all browsers have the same capability as mine does to increase the size of the screen image until the lines of the streets and ward numbers are large enough to read. Otherwise, call the board of elections at 670-5080 or e-mail them at this form.
Anyone who cares to communicate with their representatives to Council about this or anything else can get the contact information here.
By the way, this vote will be a great memento when you to decide how you'll vote next election. I have elsewhere described the Game of Chicken played by office-holders who bet on short memories of voters. Whenever they can be stopped from winning this game, an improvement in government is guaranteed.
By a vote of 6-3 (one absent), council increased the city tax on auto licenses even though voters earlier held a referendum on this matter and rejected it soundly.
By replacing the unwanted charge, six of your Newark City Council members - with the blessing of Mayor Diebold - gave you the their dimpled middle digits, right in your face. Take that, stupid! You're not going to remember this on election day.
Isn't that right, David Rhodes (Councilman-at-large), Ed Houdeshell (First Ward), John Uible (Fourth Ward), Carol Floyd (Seventh Ward), Irene Kennedy (Councilman-at-large) and Don Ellington (Fifth Ward)?
And thank you, Advocate, for naming names in the report of May 6.
Voting in favor of democracy were Ryan Bubb (Councilman-at-large), Shirley Stare (Second Ward) and Doug Marmie (Sixth Ward).
About her vote, Shirley said “In 2005, the citizens soundly defeated the bill that was on the ballot. I am speaking for people in my ward, and I just do not think if they were here tonight they would support it.”
Wouldn't it be wonderful if all office-holders would think of their obligations to the people who put them in office above all else, thus maintaining a true representative government for, of, and by the people?
In case you don't know who your representatives on council are (in addition to the at-large councilmen), there's a ward map on the city's web site at this link.
Probably all browsers have the same capability as mine does to increase the size of the screen image until the lines of the streets and ward numbers are large enough to read. Otherwise, call the board of elections at 670-5080 or e-mail them at this form.
Anyone who cares to communicate with their representatives to Council about this or anything else can get the contact information here.
By the way, this vote will be a great memento when you to decide how you'll vote next election. I have elsewhere described the Game of Chicken played by office-holders who bet on short memories of voters. Whenever they can be stopped from winning this game, an improvement in government is guaranteed.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
City council creates more with less
In a long overdue move, Newark City Council voted Tuesday to stop duplication of government services by agreeing to cooperate with, and become part of, a new Licking County Combined General Health District. It required some letting go of turf and power, a tough pill for city government.
But they did it. As new Councilman Ryan Bubb put it for the Advocate reporter, “I’d like the city to do more with less, and I believe we did that with the merging of the health departments. Simply put, there is less government without losing services."
Exactly, and hooray.
Voting in favor besides Bubb were Ellington, Marmie, Henderson, Rhodes, Uible, Kennedy, Houdeshell, and Floyd. That's all of them except Shirley Stare whose concern for city employees outweighed her concern for improved government services.
There has been uneasiness about distribution of power in makeup of the new county health board, as well as apprehension among city health department employees over who will get what and how much loss of turf and power the employee union might suffer when dust settles and jobs are divvied.
All of which is secondary to the overall significance - which is, as Bubb said, doing more with less government.
Council has made a good start. It's up to employees to put away selfish interests and make this thing work.
But they did it. As new Councilman Ryan Bubb put it for the Advocate reporter, “I’d like the city to do more with less, and I believe we did that with the merging of the health departments. Simply put, there is less government without losing services."
Exactly, and hooray.
Voting in favor besides Bubb were Ellington, Marmie, Henderson, Rhodes, Uible, Kennedy, Houdeshell, and Floyd. That's all of them except Shirley Stare whose concern for city employees outweighed her concern for improved government services.
There has been uneasiness about distribution of power in makeup of the new county health board, as well as apprehension among city health department employees over who will get what and how much loss of turf and power the employee union might suffer when dust settles and jobs are divvied.
All of which is secondary to the overall significance - which is, as Bubb said, doing more with less government.
Council has made a good start. It's up to employees to put away selfish interests and make this thing work.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
City council makes a good beginning in '08
City Council turned an important corner last night when it voted to restrict the perks of the city safety director. By a vote of 8-2 it struck from the new budget the provision that was to pay driving expenses between Newark and Grove City, in a city vehicle purchased by safety-levy tax money.
The expense money was written into the budget in such a way that Kathleen Barch could replenish it at will from other funds in the service department budget. In other words, an open check book.
Most interesting to me was who among council members would take issue with this during the council session, if anybody, and who would vote to remove it, if anybody, and who continue to be a good ol' boy to Ms. Barch, if anybody.
Here's the way it went on the score sheet and this is one of those "read this before the next election" issues:
David Rhodes, at-large councilman, moved to eliminate the perk, and every council member except Don Ellington and John Uible voted for doing so. Voting in favor were Bubb, Kennedy, Houdeshell, Stare, Henderson, Marmie, and Floyd. President of council, Marc Guthrie, had earlier expressed concern over the benefit.
Also encouraging is the fact that the Advocate reporter, Amy Picard, cornered the two who voted against the measure and made them explain themselves. Ellington justified his vote, in part, by trying to blame Mayor Diebold (he "should have discussed it with Barch"); Uible said, in part, that "perks such as transportation are necessary for the best talent."
Further, the mayor did not speak against the council decision and that's a very good thing.
From out here where citizens sit, the score card looks great for 08. Council started by turning a corner. It has done what's right for taxpayers, rather than spend more tax money on employee perks. And the Advocate nailed it with a good report.
The expense money was written into the budget in such a way that Kathleen Barch could replenish it at will from other funds in the service department budget. In other words, an open check book.
Most interesting to me was who among council members would take issue with this during the council session, if anybody, and who would vote to remove it, if anybody, and who continue to be a good ol' boy to Ms. Barch, if anybody.
Here's the way it went on the score sheet and this is one of those "read this before the next election" issues:
David Rhodes, at-large councilman, moved to eliminate the perk, and every council member except Don Ellington and John Uible voted for doing so. Voting in favor were Bubb, Kennedy, Houdeshell, Stare, Henderson, Marmie, and Floyd. President of council, Marc Guthrie, had earlier expressed concern over the benefit.
Also encouraging is the fact that the Advocate reporter, Amy Picard, cornered the two who voted against the measure and made them explain themselves. Ellington justified his vote, in part, by trying to blame Mayor Diebold (he "should have discussed it with Barch"); Uible said, in part, that "perks such as transportation are necessary for the best talent."
Further, the mayor did not speak against the council decision and that's a very good thing.
From out here where citizens sit, the score card looks great for 08. Council started by turning a corner. It has done what's right for taxpayers, rather than spend more tax money on employee perks. And the Advocate nailed it with a good report.
Saturday, November 3, 2007
New facts raise a serious question about Stare investigation
An Advocate report today gives a new dimension to the role of Newark Law Director Doug Sassen in the charge of solicitation brought against Frank Stare, a city council candidate.
Thanks to the Advocate's aggressive and timely reporting, the hidden facts behind this series of events have been made public. Authorities had these facts in hiding and the paper had to make a public records request to get to a voice stress analysis report, "along with transcripts and recordings made during the investigation," in the words of today's Advocate report.
These records indicate that there was "sufficient stress" on a couple questions asked of the accuser "to indicate possible deception" about whether Stare asked her if she "play(ed) for money" and whether he grabbed her and whether he tried to kiss her.
The Advocate also reported that "Stare can be heard on a taped interview with police saying he is "absolutely" willing to take a polygraph test multiple times but also adding he did not have full faith in their accuracy." Also that Stare "told police ... he would like to consult with an attorney if the case was moving forward."
Nevertheless, Sassen told the Advocate that "the totality of that report in our opinion was supporting of the victim's statement."
Question still to be answered:
Why would none of this information have been provided voluntarily if the goal were not to place Frank Stare in the worst possible light before the election Tuesday?
Thanks to the Advocate's aggressive and timely reporting, the hidden facts behind this series of events have been made public. Authorities had these facts in hiding and the paper had to make a public records request to get to a voice stress analysis report, "along with transcripts and recordings made during the investigation," in the words of today's Advocate report.
These records indicate that there was "sufficient stress" on a couple questions asked of the accuser "to indicate possible deception" about whether Stare asked her if she "play(ed) for money" and whether he grabbed her and whether he tried to kiss her.
The Advocate also reported that "Stare can be heard on a taped interview with police saying he is "absolutely" willing to take a polygraph test multiple times but also adding he did not have full faith in their accuracy." Also that Stare "told police ... he would like to consult with an attorney if the case was moving forward."
Nevertheless, Sassen told the Advocate that "the totality of that report in our opinion was supporting of the victim's statement."
Question still to be answered:
Why would none of this information have been provided voluntarily if the goal were not to place Frank Stare in the worst possible light before the election Tuesday?
Thursday, November 1, 2007
What happens if Frank Stare wins the election?
Speculation is bubbling about whether the accusation of soliciting against council candidate Frank Stare will kill his voter support.
What if it doesn't, and what if he wins the election, and then is found guilty of the charge?
My understanding is that he would be forced off council and the Democrats would appoint his replacement. If Stare wins, there is a 5-5 tie between Democrats and Republicans, and Marc Guthrie, council president, ends up as tie-breaker, and that would be very very healthful for the way council conducts its business.
What if it doesn't, and what if he wins the election, and then is found guilty of the charge?
My understanding is that he would be forced off council and the Democrats would appoint his replacement. If Stare wins, there is a 5-5 tie between Democrats and Republicans, and Marc Guthrie, council president, ends up as tie-breaker, and that would be very very healthful for the way council conducts its business.
Let's put complainants through a lie detector
What is the big problem about running the complainant - and every complainant in a he-said-she-said accusation - through the lie detector? And do it before there is a charge put on public record?
Think about it. Any man and every man is a sitting duck as long as accusers have nothing to lose.
Stare's yet-to-be-proved guilt or innocence aside, to me, the law seems very tilted, and it's time to make adjustments.
Think about it. Any man and every man is a sitting duck as long as accusers have nothing to lose.
Stare's yet-to-be-proved guilt or innocence aside, to me, the law seems very tilted, and it's time to make adjustments.
Interesting detail missing from the Stare affidavit
An interesting bit of information was skipped over by Steven C. Vanoy and Ken Ballantine, Newark City police detectives, in their affidavit charging city council candidate Frank Stare with soliciting.
The Advocate has on its website a PDF file of the Stare arrest affidavit and charge. Here's the link. It runs seven typed pages of sometimes excruciating detail, but of course the name of the alleged victim and all information about her had been blacked out in the Advocate's copy.
So detailed is this report that it even mentions minutiae such as this: "After a brief pause in which paper could be heard shuffling around in the background..." Also, "... facial expression was one of shock and/or being stunned." Also, Stare's home address.
But in all that detail, they forgot - or maybe not - to mention exactly what it was that bothered the complainant when she "informed Fulton she did not like the way in which the NPD officer handled the complaint on 10-12-07."
Another Advocate article makes mention of this problem. This is the article that credits Scott Fulton, director of the Licking County Municipal Court Probation Department, with bringing the complaint to the attention of Newark Law Director Doug Sassen. In it there is another mention of the officer who took the report.
"The officer who took the report has been cleared of any wrongdoing, Newark Safety Directory Kathy Barch said, declining to say anything else about the criminal investigation."
Whatever the officer said that pissed off the complainant may indicate something about the complaint or the complainant. Maybe not, but it seems strange that this information - at least as important as "paper could be heard shuffling" - escaped the keen reporting skills of detectives who authored the report.
The Advocate has on its website a PDF file of the Stare arrest affidavit and charge. Here's the link. It runs seven typed pages of sometimes excruciating detail, but of course the name of the alleged victim and all information about her had been blacked out in the Advocate's copy.
So detailed is this report that it even mentions minutiae such as this: "After a brief pause in which paper could be heard shuffling around in the background..." Also, "... facial expression was one of shock and/or being stunned." Also, Stare's home address.
But in all that detail, they forgot - or maybe not - to mention exactly what it was that bothered the complainant when she "informed Fulton she did not like the way in which the NPD officer handled the complaint on 10-12-07."
Another Advocate article makes mention of this problem. This is the article that credits Scott Fulton, director of the Licking County Municipal Court Probation Department, with bringing the complaint to the attention of Newark Law Director Doug Sassen. In it there is another mention of the officer who took the report.
"The officer who took the report has been cleared of any wrongdoing, Newark Safety Directory Kathy Barch said, declining to say anything else about the criminal investigation."
Whatever the officer said that pissed off the complainant may indicate something about the complaint or the complainant. Maybe not, but it seems strange that this information - at least as important as "paper could be heard shuffling" - escaped the keen reporting skills of detectives who authored the report.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Unidentified accuser puts Frank Stare's career in jeopardy
Frank Stare's is another case of what could be a career-ending accusation by an unnamed woman with a troubled past.
Frank, a candidate for Newark City Council, asked for a polygraph and it has so far been denied, or at least delayed until after the charges were brought, which is a little suspect. No, a lot suspect, and especially so in view of the timing just before the election.
Stare quite possibly will lose the election because of this accusation, whether it turns out to be true or not.
This case exemplifies the unfairness by which men can be anonymously accused and that accusation be publicized while the accuser hides in a cloak of presumed lilly white innocence. These days, that makes as much real-world sense as the law prohibiting beer sales on Sunday and the one prohibiting gambling profits to anyone other than the state.
Frank, a candidate for Newark City Council, asked for a polygraph and it has so far been denied, or at least delayed until after the charges were brought, which is a little suspect. No, a lot suspect, and especially so in view of the timing just before the election.
Stare quite possibly will lose the election because of this accusation, whether it turns out to be true or not.
This case exemplifies the unfairness by which men can be anonymously accused and that accusation be publicized while the accuser hides in a cloak of presumed lilly white innocence. These days, that makes as much real-world sense as the law prohibiting beer sales on Sunday and the one prohibiting gambling profits to anyone other than the state.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Co-chairmen of Friends of Frank Stare Committee announced
Former Newark Mayor Frank Stare announced today that Charlie Franks and Johnny John will co-chair the Friends of Frank Stare Committee for Stare's bid for council-at large.
"I'm very proud to have these two community leaders and local businessmen be a part of my campaign," stated Stare.
Stare, who served 14 years on the city council before becoming Newark's only three-term mayor, said he will soon launch a very intense grassroots campaign, touching every part of the city.
"I have always loved the door-to-door part of campaigning and I look forward to seeing all the Newark residents once again," stated Stare.
"I'm very proud to have these two community leaders and local businessmen be a part of my campaign," stated Stare.
Stare, who served 14 years on the city council before becoming Newark's only three-term mayor, said he will soon launch a very intense grassroots campaign, touching every part of the city.
"I have always loved the door-to-door part of campaigning and I look forward to seeing all the Newark residents once again," stated Stare.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Stare announces, Advocate dredges
Yesterday, Frank Stare announced his candidacy for city Council-At-Large. Today the local Gannett paper ran the story. The web-site version summarized in four paragraphs Frank's 30-year political history. The next six paragraphs were devoted to Frank's DUI arrest six and one-half years ago. One of those paragraphs allowed the county Republican party chairman to call Frank "an embarrassment to the city."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
