Recalls. A valuable tool that can be used to recall an elected official for gross misconduct.
I haven't seen enough of this anywhere in Wisconsin to warrant them. My Democratic friends will not like this post. My Republican friends will probably feel sheepish for being so supportive of Democratic Senator recalls last year.
When there was a failed attempt to recall Senator Lassa, I spoke out about recalls in general. The big issue with her recall attempt was that she was one of the Senators who left the state to prevent a quorum from being present to conduct a vote on Act 10. Opponents said this was a dereliction of duty. They accused her and her peers of running away. I disagreed.
Did you know Abraham Lincoln did this while in the Illinois Senate?
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/02/abraham_lincoln_jumped_out_of.html
It's not new. It's politics. The action, though, is probably so poorly viewed by those who disagreed because it was effective.
Until...the Republicans found another way to get around that stonewall. Again, it's politics.
Likewise, the recall of Governor Walker is not right. I've been criticized for being critical of the Governor, but the last I heard, that was still my right as a resident of the State of Wisconsin. I am also an elected official and some people believe that I must have the same views as them on everything to be qualified to be Mayor. Fortunately, none of us have the same views on everything.
The bottom line is that recalls should only be used when there is something seriously illegal going on. In this case, I don't see it. I may not like it and may vocally oppose it as a citizen; but again, that's my right just as you have the right to agree or disagree. Some people would think that if I disagree with the Governor on Act 10, I am not qualified to serve as Mayor and conduct meetings of the council in which roads we rebuild, or which sewers should be lined or how we contribute to a new business that we are trying to recruit to Marshfield.
That's why the Mayor is a non-partisan position. If I used my position as Mayor to preach about politics at the Sate level, then your right, I would definitely be wrong. But that's not what I do. If' I am having a beer and discussing politics, I am more then happy to give you my own personal beliefs. As Mayor, I represent all people and respect that...and you would be hard pressed to find any place where I have ever mentioned anything negative about this or the previous Governor. I've meet him, and as I said before...he's a nice guy. I could certainly have a beer with him and talk football or baseball...probably not too much in politics we will agree on though.
The same was true with the last Governor. Nice guy, but we disagreed on a lot. We disagreed on using tobacco money to fill budget gaps. We disagreed on tort reform issues. We disagreed on school funding formulas.
If you are looking for someone to be a yes man to the Governor or the President, that most certainly isn't me...no matter who is in office. My number one objective as Mayor is to do what is in the best interests of our Community and work with whoever is Governor to make things happen for Marshfield.
We get to recall our elected officials every time their term is up. We have term limits already...they are called elections. So for those of you supporting the recalls, I congratulate you and your willingness to put in so much work, it is commendable, but I disagree...respectfully. For those of you who feel that, as Mayor, I should blindly support who ever is Governor, then I apologize...because you won't get that from me. I will support who ever is duly elected and work to build a relationship with them to make things happen in our Community.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Parliamentary Procedure
Some of you who are used to watching Common council meetings may notice that they are a bit different recently.
Mr. Workinger, the newly elected alderman from the 3rd district has brought to our attention several issues with how we run meetings. We're working through those, though I want to ensure that we still run meetings that are understandable not only to the Council Members, but also to those of you watching at home.
We'll probably stumble a few times as we try to tighten things up a bit, but my position has always been that, at the end of the day, we accomplish what we set out to do. Generally, that is exactly what we do...but we want to make sure we are not making procedural mistakes along the way that could cause problem down the road.
I look forward to learning more about Robert's Rules of Order from Mr. Workinger, yet being able to work to streamline their use in meetings so that people who are considering running for council seats or for Mayor are not intimidated because of their lack of knowledge about them.
So, hang in there with us. I don't intend to make the meetings dull and boring (anymore than they have to be) and I still expect people to find something to laugh about at meetings.
Chris
Mayor@ci.marshfield.wi.us
Mr. Workinger, the newly elected alderman from the 3rd district has brought to our attention several issues with how we run meetings. We're working through those, though I want to ensure that we still run meetings that are understandable not only to the Council Members, but also to those of you watching at home.
We'll probably stumble a few times as we try to tighten things up a bit, but my position has always been that, at the end of the day, we accomplish what we set out to do. Generally, that is exactly what we do...but we want to make sure we are not making procedural mistakes along the way that could cause problem down the road.
I look forward to learning more about Robert's Rules of Order from Mr. Workinger, yet being able to work to streamline their use in meetings so that people who are considering running for council seats or for Mayor are not intimidated because of their lack of knowledge about them.
So, hang in there with us. I don't intend to make the meetings dull and boring (anymore than they have to be) and I still expect people to find something to laugh about at meetings.
Chris
Mayor@ci.marshfield.wi.us
Another day, Another Redundant Post...
This is three days in a row I have been the obsession of Mr. Noble. A new personal best.
http://scottkennethnoble.blogspot.com/
Once gain, Mr. Noble has nothing new. Over a year ago, when Act 10 was being pushed through on its way to law, there were a lot of vocal supporters and opponents...in case you haven't noticed, there still are!
As I stated in my previous post, I am a Part-time Mayor. It's the form of government we've had in Marshfield for a long time. It allows anyone to become Mayor, not just someone with nothing else to do. It's not a full time job and as such doesn't pay a full time wag, though we compensate the Mayor adequately and have at the same level for about a decade. The bottom line is that a full time employed person can be Mayor, a parent, a business owner...anyone. It's not limited to just those who are looking for a job or are retired.
Back to my point...
When Act 10 was introduced, it upset a lot of people, certainly State employees, and I happen to be a State of Wisconsin employee. I work full time for the university of Wisconsin - Marshfield/Wood County campus as the IT Manager, a position I have had for almost 12 years after having previously worked in the private sector. It's a good job. I enjoy the people I work with. Like most State jobs, the benefits were excellent, which is why, in most cases, a lower salary was often agreed to in contract negotiations in exchange for maintaining the good benefits.
Times changed. The economy collapsed, people lost jobs and as a result State revenues dropped. That meant something had to give. I'm not a pro-union guy. I always disliked the fact that no matter how hard you worked, you got the same raise, usually 1 or 2% in the "good old days" that the person who did the bare minimum...it's called a salary ceiling. Its not right. Good employees should be able to be rewarded and below average employees should be inspired to work harder.
What bothered me about Act 10 was the presumption that everyone was over paid. What upset me more was the process that was used to push Act 10 through. I know many Republicans who also felt that, while it may have been legal, it didn't pass the "gut test". Still, I am happy to be employed with good benefits and a good salary. Everyone is enduring tough times.
At the time, people were raging on both sides of the issues. I struggled to express my personal opinions and keep my opinions as Mayor balanced, because I represent all residents of Marshfield, including those who felt strongly that this was the right thing to do and the right way to do it.
Mr. Noble, through a mutual friend on Facebook, lifted some comments and has posted them over and over again (I guess he can't find anything new) on his blog. It honestly feels a little bit like Junior High..."I heard in study hall that Tommy hates Mikey and I found a note by his locker that said that too!" Time to move on. I guess when the property tax rate is declining, the levy is stable, the city debt is declining and the overall budget is smaller year after year, there isn't much left for him to complain about on substance, so he takes to personal positions and attacks, like calling his neighbors blowhards and such.
I know many of you are reading this because you found a link on his blog. Welcome. Many of you may identify with the Tea Party. I'm here to tell you something that may surprise you. I am not in complete disagreement with you. I do tend to lean more toward the left on many things, especially social issues. I tend to lean center/right on foreign issues and economic issues. I've never voted straight ticket in my life and I never will. I've voted for Republicans in races for President, Governor and Senate and I've voted for Democrats as well. I've even voted for third part candidates in the past. It all depends on the person and how I think they will do representing or leading. I'm not an issue voter and never will be.
Government has gotten too big. At all levels. I hate it when the Federal or State governments tell local units how they will or will not do something. I favor smaller government and reform to social safety nets like welfare. In my opinion, the verdict is out on Health Care Reform. Like Act 10, the individual mandate doesn't pass my "gut check", but I do understand that it is there because without it, the program will fail. I supported Congressman Duffy's stance that he would only vote to repeal it once a replacement plan was in place. In the end, he voted to repeal it before a new plan was in place, but in his defense, he then created his own plan.
What Mr. Noble fails to be able to do when in a position of leadership, such as when he served for 10 months on the common council, is create support for any of his ideas. He takes a "my way or the highway" approach, and it doesn't work. In his time in the council, he got nothing passed. The only thing that he did get passed was funding for signs in the Historic neighborhoods, and only after I helped him do that, hoping that he would see that through consensus building we could accomplish the things that he wanted.
When he lost his election, I appointed him to various boards in the city. I've appointed several people with differing viewpoints from mine to committee's in the city. I'm not a fan of rubber stamp committees and want a real discussion about topics with all viewpoints represented. I've appointed some of Scott's supporters to committees, because they bring a valuable perspective to the table. I value your input and respect your positions.
In the end, I asked Mr. Noble to resign from these committees because he maintained the headstrong approach on everything he did. While on historic preservation, he accused me of "breaking the law" when I approved a permit for a home in a historic neighborhood to install a skylight. There was so much red tape involved when you owned a home in the historic neighborhood that it would often take 4-6 weeks to get the okay to do anything...to your own house! We've changed that by clarifying the laws (which, in the end, showed that I didn't not do anything "illegal"). Shortly after his outburst there, there was another incident in which there was an outburst in front of residents. When I appoint people to committees, I expect them to bring their own views to the table and discuss disagreements in an orderly and respectful fashion. When they blow up in front of residents, they have put a black mark on the reputation of this community. For that, I asked Mr. Noble to resign and had emails from council members asking that an item be put on the agenda to have him removed. He chose to resign because he "could work for a "Mayor" like me any further". That's fine. We all moved on. I've always regretted that Scott couldn't make this work, because he has good ideas, but a very poor approach to building consensus so they can become anything more and ideas.
So yes, I wasn't happy about Act 10. I lived though. I made adjustments just like many of you have had to do to my family budget. We scaled back. I've posted previously that, while Mr. Noble assumes I was in Madison "protesting and caring a sign of Governor Walker with a Hitler mustache", he is wrong. I was in Madison during the protests one day, but did not participate. I did go and watch and took some pictures, no signs, no chanting...just my camera. When the Lassa recall was attempted by Mr. Noble, I spoke in opposition to recalls in general. I did not sign Governor Walkers recall either. I firmly believe that a person elected by the people should be allowed to serve out their term...Republican or Democrat.
I guess the point here is that I have moved on from that issue. Mr. Noble can not. If he finds one fault, and we all have them, he bangs that drum over and over again. I think the best approach here is to simply do what the previous Mayor wrote about yesterday on his website, and that is to just ignore him. He's only looking for a reaction, and so, this will be my last post directly about Mr. Noble. I wish him well on future elections and endeavors, but we have a community to continue to move forward.
http://scottkennethnoble.blogspot.com/
Once gain, Mr. Noble has nothing new. Over a year ago, when Act 10 was being pushed through on its way to law, there were a lot of vocal supporters and opponents...in case you haven't noticed, there still are!
As I stated in my previous post, I am a Part-time Mayor. It's the form of government we've had in Marshfield for a long time. It allows anyone to become Mayor, not just someone with nothing else to do. It's not a full time job and as such doesn't pay a full time wag, though we compensate the Mayor adequately and have at the same level for about a decade. The bottom line is that a full time employed person can be Mayor, a parent, a business owner...anyone. It's not limited to just those who are looking for a job or are retired.
Back to my point...
When Act 10 was introduced, it upset a lot of people, certainly State employees, and I happen to be a State of Wisconsin employee. I work full time for the university of Wisconsin - Marshfield/Wood County campus as the IT Manager, a position I have had for almost 12 years after having previously worked in the private sector. It's a good job. I enjoy the people I work with. Like most State jobs, the benefits were excellent, which is why, in most cases, a lower salary was often agreed to in contract negotiations in exchange for maintaining the good benefits.
Times changed. The economy collapsed, people lost jobs and as a result State revenues dropped. That meant something had to give. I'm not a pro-union guy. I always disliked the fact that no matter how hard you worked, you got the same raise, usually 1 or 2% in the "good old days" that the person who did the bare minimum...it's called a salary ceiling. Its not right. Good employees should be able to be rewarded and below average employees should be inspired to work harder.
What bothered me about Act 10 was the presumption that everyone was over paid. What upset me more was the process that was used to push Act 10 through. I know many Republicans who also felt that, while it may have been legal, it didn't pass the "gut test". Still, I am happy to be employed with good benefits and a good salary. Everyone is enduring tough times.
At the time, people were raging on both sides of the issues. I struggled to express my personal opinions and keep my opinions as Mayor balanced, because I represent all residents of Marshfield, including those who felt strongly that this was the right thing to do and the right way to do it.
Mr. Noble, through a mutual friend on Facebook, lifted some comments and has posted them over and over again (I guess he can't find anything new) on his blog. It honestly feels a little bit like Junior High..."I heard in study hall that Tommy hates Mikey and I found a note by his locker that said that too!" Time to move on. I guess when the property tax rate is declining, the levy is stable, the city debt is declining and the overall budget is smaller year after year, there isn't much left for him to complain about on substance, so he takes to personal positions and attacks, like calling his neighbors blowhards and such.
I know many of you are reading this because you found a link on his blog. Welcome. Many of you may identify with the Tea Party. I'm here to tell you something that may surprise you. I am not in complete disagreement with you. I do tend to lean more toward the left on many things, especially social issues. I tend to lean center/right on foreign issues and economic issues. I've never voted straight ticket in my life and I never will. I've voted for Republicans in races for President, Governor and Senate and I've voted for Democrats as well. I've even voted for third part candidates in the past. It all depends on the person and how I think they will do representing or leading. I'm not an issue voter and never will be.
Government has gotten too big. At all levels. I hate it when the Federal or State governments tell local units how they will or will not do something. I favor smaller government and reform to social safety nets like welfare. In my opinion, the verdict is out on Health Care Reform. Like Act 10, the individual mandate doesn't pass my "gut check", but I do understand that it is there because without it, the program will fail. I supported Congressman Duffy's stance that he would only vote to repeal it once a replacement plan was in place. In the end, he voted to repeal it before a new plan was in place, but in his defense, he then created his own plan.
What Mr. Noble fails to be able to do when in a position of leadership, such as when he served for 10 months on the common council, is create support for any of his ideas. He takes a "my way or the highway" approach, and it doesn't work. In his time in the council, he got nothing passed. The only thing that he did get passed was funding for signs in the Historic neighborhoods, and only after I helped him do that, hoping that he would see that through consensus building we could accomplish the things that he wanted.
When he lost his election, I appointed him to various boards in the city. I've appointed several people with differing viewpoints from mine to committee's in the city. I'm not a fan of rubber stamp committees and want a real discussion about topics with all viewpoints represented. I've appointed some of Scott's supporters to committees, because they bring a valuable perspective to the table. I value your input and respect your positions.
In the end, I asked Mr. Noble to resign from these committees because he maintained the headstrong approach on everything he did. While on historic preservation, he accused me of "breaking the law" when I approved a permit for a home in a historic neighborhood to install a skylight. There was so much red tape involved when you owned a home in the historic neighborhood that it would often take 4-6 weeks to get the okay to do anything...to your own house! We've changed that by clarifying the laws (which, in the end, showed that I didn't not do anything "illegal"). Shortly after his outburst there, there was another incident in which there was an outburst in front of residents. When I appoint people to committees, I expect them to bring their own views to the table and discuss disagreements in an orderly and respectful fashion. When they blow up in front of residents, they have put a black mark on the reputation of this community. For that, I asked Mr. Noble to resign and had emails from council members asking that an item be put on the agenda to have him removed. He chose to resign because he "could work for a "Mayor" like me any further". That's fine. We all moved on. I've always regretted that Scott couldn't make this work, because he has good ideas, but a very poor approach to building consensus so they can become anything more and ideas.
So yes, I wasn't happy about Act 10. I lived though. I made adjustments just like many of you have had to do to my family budget. We scaled back. I've posted previously that, while Mr. Noble assumes I was in Madison "protesting and caring a sign of Governor Walker with a Hitler mustache", he is wrong. I was in Madison during the protests one day, but did not participate. I did go and watch and took some pictures, no signs, no chanting...just my camera. When the Lassa recall was attempted by Mr. Noble, I spoke in opposition to recalls in general. I did not sign Governor Walkers recall either. I firmly believe that a person elected by the people should be allowed to serve out their term...Republican or Democrat.
I guess the point here is that I have moved on from that issue. Mr. Noble can not. If he finds one fault, and we all have them, he bangs that drum over and over again. I think the best approach here is to simply do what the previous Mayor wrote about yesterday on his website, and that is to just ignore him. He's only looking for a reaction, and so, this will be my last post directly about Mr. Noble. I wish him well on future elections and endeavors, but we have a community to continue to move forward.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Fulltime Vs. Part-time Mayors
In response to:
http://scottkennethnoble.blogspot.com/2012/04/mike-meyers-is-blowhard-establishment.html
Mr. Noble is really rattled. Apparently he is more upset then I thought about people disagreeing with his ideas. Now he's resorted to following me and taking pictures. Kind of creepy.
His latest investigative journalism has been taking pictures of my empty parking space at City Hall. I remember the day he took a picture like this because I was watching him from 6th floor in City Hall. Someone came to my office and asked why Scott Noble was sitting in the parking lot. I had a meeting on 6th floor in a few minutes, so I went down and watched until the meeting started. He sat in the parking lot for 15 minutes or so, then got out and took pictures of my parking spot and pictures of the sign that says "Reserved for Mayor". I figured he'd be blogging about me not being at City Hall, but he never did...until now. He should have checked the bike rack that day, because I was ridding bike, as I often do during the warmer months. This picture obviously was more recent as there is snow on the ground, so he's right. I wasn't there.
Even if I wasn't there, I'm not sure what his point is.
Marshfield has a long history of having a government that can allow an average resident rise to the level of Mayor and still have a family and a full time job. Some of our most successful Mayors were business owners in town. We've discussed having a full time Mayor in the recent past. Stevens Point, Wisconsin Rapids and Wausau all have Full time Mayors. We don't, and we don't need one. I can not understand why it would be advantageous to pay an elected Mayor $65,000-$75,000 per year and still have to have an administrator (which many/most communities do) when we accomplish the same thing with a part time Mayor that is paid $22,500 and a full time City Administrator. Flat tax rates, decreasing debt, decreasing annual budget, decreasing borrowing. Seems to me that we are doing something right. Yet, Mr. Noble likes to refer to me as a tax and spend liberal. He usually throws in something about me being Anti-Walker in the mix too. I've addressed that in previous posts and won't go any further then to say that I m not Anti-Walker, but do disagree with many of his policies and methods.
Let's discuss this Mayor vs. Administrator a little further.
Do you think that anyone who lives in a community should be able to be elected Mayor? I do. Anyone should be able to do it, if they are willing and the voters agree to give them that honor. Do you think everyone who has ever been Mayor, wanted to be Mayor or will be Mayor is qualified to navigate through state statutes, create a roughly $40M annual budget, create a $30M five year capital projects plan, negotiate with unions, negotiate contracts, negotiate development agreements with new businesses or develop policies for how the government can be most efficient? I sure don't. They Mayor plays a major role in these, but the Administrator has the expereince and expertise to make sure all the T's are crossed and I's dotted.
That's why we hire a professional Administrator. Someone to take care of the things and lookout for the long term viability of our community. Their main job is to make sure that, no matter who happens to be in elected office, the community remains solvent and prosperous for the long term. Having an Administrator allows any one of us to be Mayor and do all of the things I mentioned above, all the while knowing we have a professional handling the financial and legal matters.
Even if the Mayor was a full time position, you wouldn't see my car parked at City Hall all day. The last place the Mayor needs to be, most of the time, is City Hall. The Mayor needs to be out meeting with people, cutting ribbons, welcoming groups, hosting potential businesses, talking with residents about concerns, visiting other city buildings, etc... I can guarantee you that if my car was there 40 hours per week Mr. Noble would be upset that I never get out and visited businesses or did my duties as Mayor.
It's true that I sometimes can't make my schedule work. When that happens, we have a council president who can do a ribbon cutting or preside over a meeting. In 4 years I have missed exactly 3 Council Meetings. One I was on vacation and away. The two others, which were more recent, were because I was in Washington DC with Marshfield Utilities and the other was so that I could attend my 3rd grade daughters Winter Concert at Madison Elementary. She was in Kindergarten when I was first elected and because concerts are always on the second Tuesday of December, I had never made it to see her, but was able to watch on video. 3rd grade is the last year she does a Winter concert, then 4-6grades do the spring concert. I promised that I would be at her last concert...and I was.
The job of the Mayor is not to be an administrator. In fact, we have a great City Administrator. The job of the Mayor is to represent the residents of the City of Marshfield. This is done in many ways, but sitting behind a desk in City Hall is not one of them.
If you would like to visit me at City Hall, my office hours are:
Tuesday 8:00am-12:00pm
Thursday 12:00pm - 4:00pm
I am available by appointment at anytime that is most convenient to you. You can contact me at mayor@ci.marshfield.wi.us or at 715-384-2919
http://scottkennethnoble.blogspot.com/2012/04/mike-meyers-is-blowhard-establishment.html
Mr. Noble is really rattled. Apparently he is more upset then I thought about people disagreeing with his ideas. Now he's resorted to following me and taking pictures. Kind of creepy.
His latest investigative journalism has been taking pictures of my empty parking space at City Hall. I remember the day he took a picture like this because I was watching him from 6th floor in City Hall. Someone came to my office and asked why Scott Noble was sitting in the parking lot. I had a meeting on 6th floor in a few minutes, so I went down and watched until the meeting started. He sat in the parking lot for 15 minutes or so, then got out and took pictures of my parking spot and pictures of the sign that says "Reserved for Mayor". I figured he'd be blogging about me not being at City Hall, but he never did...until now. He should have checked the bike rack that day, because I was ridding bike, as I often do during the warmer months. This picture obviously was more recent as there is snow on the ground, so he's right. I wasn't there.
Even if I wasn't there, I'm not sure what his point is.
Marshfield has a long history of having a government that can allow an average resident rise to the level of Mayor and still have a family and a full time job. Some of our most successful Mayors were business owners in town. We've discussed having a full time Mayor in the recent past. Stevens Point, Wisconsin Rapids and Wausau all have Full time Mayors. We don't, and we don't need one. I can not understand why it would be advantageous to pay an elected Mayor $65,000-$75,000 per year and still have to have an administrator (which many/most communities do) when we accomplish the same thing with a part time Mayor that is paid $22,500 and a full time City Administrator. Flat tax rates, decreasing debt, decreasing annual budget, decreasing borrowing. Seems to me that we are doing something right. Yet, Mr. Noble likes to refer to me as a tax and spend liberal. He usually throws in something about me being Anti-Walker in the mix too. I've addressed that in previous posts and won't go any further then to say that I m not Anti-Walker, but do disagree with many of his policies and methods.
Let's discuss this Mayor vs. Administrator a little further.
Do you think that anyone who lives in a community should be able to be elected Mayor? I do. Anyone should be able to do it, if they are willing and the voters agree to give them that honor. Do you think everyone who has ever been Mayor, wanted to be Mayor or will be Mayor is qualified to navigate through state statutes, create a roughly $40M annual budget, create a $30M five year capital projects plan, negotiate with unions, negotiate contracts, negotiate development agreements with new businesses or develop policies for how the government can be most efficient? I sure don't. They Mayor plays a major role in these, but the Administrator has the expereince and expertise to make sure all the T's are crossed and I's dotted.
That's why we hire a professional Administrator. Someone to take care of the things and lookout for the long term viability of our community. Their main job is to make sure that, no matter who happens to be in elected office, the community remains solvent and prosperous for the long term. Having an Administrator allows any one of us to be Mayor and do all of the things I mentioned above, all the while knowing we have a professional handling the financial and legal matters.
Even if the Mayor was a full time position, you wouldn't see my car parked at City Hall all day. The last place the Mayor needs to be, most of the time, is City Hall. The Mayor needs to be out meeting with people, cutting ribbons, welcoming groups, hosting potential businesses, talking with residents about concerns, visiting other city buildings, etc... I can guarantee you that if my car was there 40 hours per week Mr. Noble would be upset that I never get out and visited businesses or did my duties as Mayor.
It's true that I sometimes can't make my schedule work. When that happens, we have a council president who can do a ribbon cutting or preside over a meeting. In 4 years I have missed exactly 3 Council Meetings. One I was on vacation and away. The two others, which were more recent, were because I was in Washington DC with Marshfield Utilities and the other was so that I could attend my 3rd grade daughters Winter Concert at Madison Elementary. She was in Kindergarten when I was first elected and because concerts are always on the second Tuesday of December, I had never made it to see her, but was able to watch on video. 3rd grade is the last year she does a Winter concert, then 4-6grades do the spring concert. I promised that I would be at her last concert...and I was.
The job of the Mayor is not to be an administrator. In fact, we have a great City Administrator. The job of the Mayor is to represent the residents of the City of Marshfield. This is done in many ways, but sitting behind a desk in City Hall is not one of them.
If you would like to visit me at City Hall, my office hours are:
Tuesday 8:00am-12:00pm
Thursday 12:00pm - 4:00pm
I am available by appointment at anytime that is most convenient to you. You can contact me at mayor@ci.marshfield.wi.us or at 715-384-2919
Monday, April 23, 2012
Blowhard, Establishment Propogandist's...
Breaking: #Mike #Meyers is a #Blowhard #Establishment #Propagndist and #Outright #Liar #Crony #buddy of @chrismeyer76 scottkennethnoble.blogspot.com/2012/04/mike-m…
That's a mouthful...but what does it mean?
Let's dissect this.
Clearly, Scott is upset about a post on Mike Meyers website, probably the one in which he forested the election outcome for school board. The funny thing is, Mr. Noble's name never appears in the entry written by Mike, something Mike is very good about. When exercising his freedom of speech, as Mr. Noble does every day, Mike makes it a point to generally not call out people by name. Clearly, you can see that is not the case on Mr. Noble's site, where he uses personal attacks and hashtags like #blowhard to describe his target. That's fine...freedom of speech.
CORRECTION: Mr. Noble commented that his name is indeed mentioned in the blog by Mike and he's right. Mike Meyers clearly names the two school board candidates that he felt would not win the election, and Mr. Noble was one of them. He refered to him as "Mr. Noble" not with terms such as #blowhard #propagandist, or #establishment. He was also right about the election, at least overall.
blowhard [ˈbləʊˌhɑːd] Informal
n
a boastful person
adj
blustering or boastful
I'm not sure what Mr. Noble saw that was boasting or blustering in the post by Mike Meyers. I guess Mike said he did want to run for school board at some point, maybe stating that you want to run for elected office is "boasting"?
es·tab·lish·ment play_w2("E0218700") (
-st
b
lsh-m
nt)
-stblsh-mnt) n.
1.
a. The act of establishing.
b. The condition or fact of being established.
2. Something established, as:
a. An arranged order or system, especially a legal code.
b. A permanent civil, political, or military organization.
c. An established church.
d. A place of residence or business with its possessions and staff.
e. A public or private institution, such as a hospital or school.
3. often Establishment An established social order, as:
a. A group of people holding most of the power and influence in a government or society. Often used with the.
b. A controlling group in a given field of activity. Often used with the.
I can only guess that Mr. Noble is referring to the 3a definition of Establishment. Meaning that Mike Meyers is part of a group of people who hold power and influence in the city of Marshfield, even though Mike is now a private citizen, no longer in an elected position and working in the private sector. The exact same thing is true about Mr. Noble. Former alderman, now a private citizen. People can voice their political views in a number of ways, even people who were formally involved in politics or that still are! Mr. Noble himself has hopes of going to the Republican National Convention to cast his vote for Rick Santorum. I congratulate him on that. I love to see citizens getting involved. I wish more people would!
prop·a·gan·da (pr
p
-gnd)
p-gnd) n.
1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.
3. Propaganda Roman Catholic Church A division of the Roman Curia that has authority in the matter of preaching the gospel, of establishing the Church in non-Christian countries, and of administering Church missions in territories where there is no properly organized hierarchy.
So, by propaganda, I assume Mr. Noble means that Mike is telling the world his opinion on political matters on his website. This information is designed to tell people what his perspective on things is. This makes it propaganda. Yep, probably right.
What does that make Mr. Noble website? I know he uses words like "News" and "breaking news" to give the opinion it is actually practicing journalism, but clearly it is an opinion page, just like mine and just like Mike Meyers. He's free to do it and so is Mike and anyone else who would like to. It's covered under freedom of speech. It's in the Bill of Rights. in fact, it is the first thing mentioned in the Bill of Rights! Clearly this is not okay with Mr. Noble. His opinions and propaganda are okay and helping fight the good fight for Liberty, but other opinions are blowhard-establishment-propaganda.
By the way -
liberty [ˈlɪbətɪ]
n pl -ties
1. the power of choosing, thinking, and acting for oneself; freedom from control or restriction
2. the right or privilege of access to a particular place; freedom
3. (often plural) a social action regarded as being familiar, forward, or improper
4. (often plural) an action that is unauthorized or unwarranted in the circumstances he took liberties with the translation
5. (Transport / Nautical Terms)
a. authorized leave granted to a sailor
b. (as modifier) liberty man liberty boat
at liberty free, unoccupied, or unrestricted
take liberties (with) to be overfamiliar or overpresumptuous
take the liberty (of or to) to venture or presume (to do something)
I think the best part of the tweet is that Mr. Noble ended it by mentioning me. I guess he clearly wants to associate either me with Mike or Mike with me. That's fine. I am Mayor, Mike is a former Mayor. I'm sure we both have people who don't like our approach, but I believe we both try/tried to work with everyone. It doesn't matter if you are a republican, Democrat, Whig, Green Party member, or Independant (or anything else), at the end of the day, we are all humans; and interpersonal communication is a key part to getting SOMETHING done. The approach that Mr. Noble uses does not take into account the human factor in which you must learn to communicate with people individually. You can't just beat everyone over the head with you club and expect them to fall in line behind you.
I know one of the things I pride myself on is working with everyone on the council. It can be hard at times because we are a small group of 11 people, elected to manage a City of almost 20,000 people. We all need to work together, compromise and make decisions and then move on to the next issue. Mr. Noble was selected by the council to fill in for about a year after his alderman resigned, and I think he knows that you can get very little done with a rigid agenda and demanding demeanor.
But, I guess like everything, it is a matter of perspective.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
More on Guns...
So, Mr. Noble wants to continue sparring over my membership in the Mayors Against Illegal Guns organization because he feels they are working behind the scenes to destroy, or at least greatly diminish, the second amendment.
First off, as I said in my last post, whenever you are a member of any organization, there are times when the organization does things that you don't generally agree with. You state your mind. You can quit the organization anytime, but if the prevailing goals of the organization are something you still feel are valid, then you continue on.
I'm guessing that your church or a club that you are a member of has from time to time taken a stance that you don't necessarily agree with. Do you quit or continue on after stating your feelings on the matter?
A simple search through the Wikipedia entry on Mayors Against Illegal Guns finds a few interesting facts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayors_Against_Illegal_Guns
From Wikipedia:
The coalition is composed of mayors from both major political parties, the Progressive Party, and the Green Party,[5] and its statement of principles has received the endorsement of the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National Conference of Black Mayors.
In April 2008, Wal-Mart—the largest retailer of firearms in the U.S.—voluntarily adopted a number of new sales practices at the behest of Mayors Against Illegal Guns to "help ensure that guns do not fall into the wrong hands." [36] Senior Vice President J.P. Suarez stated that Wal-Mart signed the 10-point code of the "Responsible Firearms Retailer Partnership" to help the corporation "fine tune the things we're already doing and further strengthen our standards." He added, "We hope other retailers will join us in adopting the code."[37]
The "Responsible Firearms Retailer Partnership" has since become a model for Heeding God's Call, a coalition of faith organizations in Philadelphia that has encouraged local gun dealers to adopt the 10-point code.[38]
I'm still baffled by why Mr. Noble and the NRA would take the position that keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is wrong. Why in the world would any responsible, law abiding gun owner feel that this is an infringement on their rights?
As I said in my last post, I own guns myself. I used to hunt (when I was younger and had time) and still enjoy shooting for recreation. I would never support any effort to prevent citizens from owning guns of any kind. As I said in a much earlier post, if you want to own a Howitzer, feel free...shoot it to your hearts content on the weekend, I think that's great.
Advocating for the sharing of information between government agencies is, in my opinion, a no-brainer. Anyone remember 9/11? One of the biggest things we learned was that information was not shared between government agencies leading up to those attacks. Why should ATF records be off limits to law enforcement officers who are trying to break up a gun traffic ring? (Tiahrt Amendment)
Speaking of the Tiahrt Amendment, did you know that one of the dumbest things that has been done in the recent past by our federal government (and yes, this is a criticism of the Obama Administration) is to allow the sale of guns to drug lords in Mexico in an effort to trace them back so they could figure out where the guns (and therefore, the drugs) were going (Google Operation Fast and Furious)? Guess where they found the guns? On the streets of the good 'ol U.S. of A. It would seem that because the ATF was in charge of this "let's sell them guns and see what happens" debacle, that it would be easy to track these guns down and get rid of them. You'd be wrong.
The Tiahrt amendment prevents the ATFs records from being shared with local law enforcement. Our police could encounter one of those guns on the street today and not know that it is part of this "experiment" and that it was potentially used in the commission of a crime, possibly one against you or your family...and the supplier was Uncle Sam.
Moving on, I'm still confused by a few things...
Why is it that when the Federal Government passes a law that Joe Citizen supports (doesn't matter if he/she is a Republican or a Democrat) those who disagree are "unpatriotic", "don't respect the constitution", or some other dribble that is meant to try and discredit their view; but if the federal mandate/law is something that citizen doesn't like, then the Federal Government is accused of creating a "Nanny State"?
It's just like how local politicians dance with the use of the words "tax" and "user fee". If you don't know the difference, here it is. If we are talking about a payment for something....and I support that payment as the means to fund the activity (maybe it is a tool booth, or fee to use the public swimming pool), then I call it a "user fee". If I don't like it, then I call it a "tax".
Mayors Against Illegal Guns opposes Federal Laws that require states to adopt standardized laws. There was a lot of discussion when our country was founded about the rights of individual states. That is something that most conservatives used to scream at the top of their lungs..."don't tread on me", "States Rights", "Local Control". I really liked those conservatives...
Thune Amendment). I guess he is advocating a "Nanny State" and doesn't believe local residents are able to create their own laws that take into account traditions and culture and must be told what to do by the Federal Government (so long as the Federal Government mandates something he agrees with).
He would further have you believe that I am part of the problem and that I want to take away your guns. Read my other posts. Simply not the case. I support every ones right to own guns. I take the obligation of protecting the public seriously; and illegal guns in the hands of criminals is a problem.
At the end of the day, I realize that Mr. Noble simply needs another conspiracy theory to keep life interesting, and that is fine. I will maintain that my interest in the organization is for the purpose of supporting efforts to reduce the proliferation of illegal guns and prevent criminals from giving guns a bad name. No more, no less.
That's just the liberal in me...get the bad guys, leave the good guys alone...and don't tell us what to do.
"One legislator accused me of having a nineteenth-century attitude on law and order. That is a totally false charge. I have an eighteenth-century attitude. That is when the Founding Fathers made it clear that the safety of law-abiding citizens should be one of the government's primary concerns". - Ronald Reagan
First off, as I said in my last post, whenever you are a member of any organization, there are times when the organization does things that you don't generally agree with. You state your mind. You can quit the organization anytime, but if the prevailing goals of the organization are something you still feel are valid, then you continue on.
I'm guessing that your church or a club that you are a member of has from time to time taken a stance that you don't necessarily agree with. Do you quit or continue on after stating your feelings on the matter?
A simple search through the Wikipedia entry on Mayors Against Illegal Guns finds a few interesting facts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayors_Against_Illegal_Guns
From Wikipedia:
The coalition is composed of mayors from both major political parties, the Progressive Party, and the Green Party,[5] and its statement of principles has received the endorsement of the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National Conference of Black Mayors.
In April 2008, Wal-Mart—the largest retailer of firearms in the U.S.—voluntarily adopted a number of new sales practices at the behest of Mayors Against Illegal Guns to "help ensure that guns do not fall into the wrong hands." [36] Senior Vice President J.P. Suarez stated that Wal-Mart signed the 10-point code of the "Responsible Firearms Retailer Partnership" to help the corporation "fine tune the things we're already doing and further strengthen our standards." He added, "We hope other retailers will join us in adopting the code."[37]
The "Responsible Firearms Retailer Partnership" has since become a model for Heeding God's Call, a coalition of faith organizations in Philadelphia that has encouraged local gun dealers to adopt the 10-point code.[38]
I'm still baffled by why Mr. Noble and the NRA would take the position that keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is wrong. Why in the world would any responsible, law abiding gun owner feel that this is an infringement on their rights?
As I said in my last post, I own guns myself. I used to hunt (when I was younger and had time) and still enjoy shooting for recreation. I would never support any effort to prevent citizens from owning guns of any kind. As I said in a much earlier post, if you want to own a Howitzer, feel free...shoot it to your hearts content on the weekend, I think that's great.
Advocating for the sharing of information between government agencies is, in my opinion, a no-brainer. Anyone remember 9/11? One of the biggest things we learned was that information was not shared between government agencies leading up to those attacks. Why should ATF records be off limits to law enforcement officers who are trying to break up a gun traffic ring? (Tiahrt Amendment)
Speaking of the Tiahrt Amendment, did you know that one of the dumbest things that has been done in the recent past by our federal government (and yes, this is a criticism of the Obama Administration) is to allow the sale of guns to drug lords in Mexico in an effort to trace them back so they could figure out where the guns (and therefore, the drugs) were going (Google Operation Fast and Furious)? Guess where they found the guns? On the streets of the good 'ol U.S. of A. It would seem that because the ATF was in charge of this "let's sell them guns and see what happens" debacle, that it would be easy to track these guns down and get rid of them. You'd be wrong.
The Tiahrt amendment prevents the ATFs records from being shared with local law enforcement. Our police could encounter one of those guns on the street today and not know that it is part of this "experiment" and that it was potentially used in the commission of a crime, possibly one against you or your family...and the supplier was Uncle Sam.
Moving on, I'm still confused by a few things...
Why is it that when the Federal Government passes a law that Joe Citizen supports (doesn't matter if he/she is a Republican or a Democrat) those who disagree are "unpatriotic", "don't respect the constitution", or some other dribble that is meant to try and discredit their view; but if the federal mandate/law is something that citizen doesn't like, then the Federal Government is accused of creating a "Nanny State"?
It's just like how local politicians dance with the use of the words "tax" and "user fee". If you don't know the difference, here it is. If we are talking about a payment for something....and I support that payment as the means to fund the activity (maybe it is a tool booth, or fee to use the public swimming pool), then I call it a "user fee". If I don't like it, then I call it a "tax".
Mayors Against Illegal Guns opposes Federal Laws that require states to adopt standardized laws. There was a lot of discussion when our country was founded about the rights of individual states. That is something that most conservatives used to scream at the top of their lungs..."don't tread on me", "States Rights", "Local Control". I really liked those conservatives...
Thune Amendment). I guess he is advocating a "Nanny State" and doesn't believe local residents are able to create their own laws that take into account traditions and culture and must be told what to do by the Federal Government (so long as the Federal Government mandates something he agrees with).
He would further have you believe that I am part of the problem and that I want to take away your guns. Read my other posts. Simply not the case. I support every ones right to own guns. I take the obligation of protecting the public seriously; and illegal guns in the hands of criminals is a problem.
At the end of the day, I realize that Mr. Noble simply needs another conspiracy theory to keep life interesting, and that is fine. I will maintain that my interest in the organization is for the purpose of supporting efforts to reduce the proliferation of illegal guns and prevent criminals from giving guns a bad name. No more, no less.
That's just the liberal in me...get the bad guys, leave the good guys alone...and don't tell us what to do.
"One legislator accused me of having a nineteenth-century attitude on law and order. That is a totally false charge. I have an eighteenth-century attitude. That is when the Founding Fathers made it clear that the safety of law-abiding citizens should be one of the government's primary concerns". - Ronald Reagan
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
ILLEGAL Guns
Well, I've made the "Breaking news" of Scott Noble once again...though I'm not sure what it is he is complaining about.
The title of this new post is "Marshfield Mayor Makes National Anti-Gun List". Sounds terrible, especially if you are a fan of guns! The Mayor must be a raging liberal!
What is wrong with this former military, gun owning, crazy leftist, liberal Mayor anyway?
Hold on there, Mr. Noble. Let's look at what the list actually is...
Mayors Against ILLEGAL Guns
"The issue of illegal guns is not conservative or liberal; it is an issue of law and order -- and life or death. We support the Second Amendment and the rights of citizens to own guns"
"What binds us together is a determination to fight crime, and a belief that we can do more to stop criminals from getting guns while also protecting the rights of citizens to freely own them. "
http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/about/about.shtml
That word, "Illegal", is kind of important.
So what does this socialist group of constitution hating "leaders" propose?
Coalition Co-Chairs Urge the U.S. Senate to Reject Bills That Would Override State Laws on Concealed, Loaded Guns
Maintain State control. This seems to be a central issue for conservatives that has been eroded. States rights to allow, or not allow, are being weakened. This is true at the local level too. The bottom line is that I support any legislation that allows laws to be crafted to meet the needs of the people they impact daily. That means that the federal government should stay out of State issues and the State should stay out of local issues.
Fix Gun Checks: Delete Online Outlaws Urges Websites to Crack Down on Illegal Gun Sales
Can't pass a background check? Google it. Want a gun? Buy it online. Now who, do you suppose, would want to do that? A criminal maybe? Someone who even staunch gun supporters agree should not be allowed to have a gun? Conceal and Carry Laws are being passed on the premise that there are so many criminals out there with guns that the average law-abiding citizen needs to protect themselves. If that is true, then we really need to stop criminals from getting guns...illegal guns. It's not preventing you, the law-abiding citizen from buying a gun. Buy away! Stop by sometime and talk to me about it, especially if it is a World War II era gun. register it, license it and proudly display and use it.
If you're buying a Glock off the street and out of someones trunk, we're looking to shut you down...you are the reason that guns have gotten a bad rap.
Coalition Co-Chairs Star in Super Bowl Ad Promoting Common Sense Reforms to Keep Guns Out of the Hands of Criminals
Not sure what to say here...does anyone want to speak up for people who have made the choice to be a criminal and lose their rights? Is Mr. noble advocating for the "right" of a convicted felon to own a firearm?
This organization took a stand on the Fast and Furious debacle in which OUR government, using OUR tax dollars, provided guns to Mexican drug lords in an effort to track their use. As it turns out, those guns got back into our country and are now being used to kill American Citizens. Why isn't Mr. Noble OUTRAGED about this? He's advocating that this position, and those mentioned above are "Anti-Gun" when it is clear to see that they are Anti ILLEGAL Gun.
Like any membership organization, there are things that I greatly agree with and some that I don't always agree with. Overall, the goal of this organization is to cut down on the number of illegal guns entering communities and reduce firearms violence.
As a former member of the military, I have spent a great deal of time around guns. They are part of our culture in Wisconsin. I have a great respect for them and own some myself. All are legal.
While I personally didn't understand the urgency with the conceal and carry law in Wisconsin, I have told many people that, in the end, it didn't greatly concern me, because nothing really changed...you could always open carry, so all the law did was allow you to conceal that weapon. I did support the ban on weapons in City hall, a measure that was decided by the council with a unanimous vote (two members were absent). When you come to visit me, or anyone else at City hall, we won't be packing heat and you don't need to be either. Have a heated discussion with us, but leave the gun in the car.
I do support business owners being allowed to independently decide if they want to allow conceal and carry in their establishments.
It would seem that Mr. Noble likes to pick and choose which adjectives he includes in his Blog entries in an effort to try and paint the picture the way he wants it to be seen, and not necessarily the way it really is.
Eroding constitutional freedoms? Really? I take great offense to that. I joined the military to defend this country and uphold the constitution. I was fortunate to serve at a time when I wasn't deployed or ever in combat. That is not true nearly 20 years later for most of our military. That is what bothers me the most about his post today. The accusation that this is an anti-gun list when it is a list of mayors who agree with legal gun owners that Illegal guns are the real problem.
Your turn, Mr. Noble. Please help me understand how this organization is infringing on the rights of anyone. It expressly supports and maintains the legal gun ownership should be protected and efforts should be directed toward getting rid of access to illegal guns and maintaining the rights of states and local municipalities to create and enforce their own laws.
Pretty liberal, huh?
The title of this new post is "Marshfield Mayor Makes National Anti-Gun List". Sounds terrible, especially if you are a fan of guns! The Mayor must be a raging liberal!
What is wrong with this former military, gun owning, crazy leftist, liberal Mayor anyway?
Hold on there, Mr. Noble. Let's look at what the list actually is...
Mayors Against ILLEGAL Guns
"The issue of illegal guns is not conservative or liberal; it is an issue of law and order -- and life or death. We support the Second Amendment and the rights of citizens to own guns"
"What binds us together is a determination to fight crime, and a belief that we can do more to stop criminals from getting guns while also protecting the rights of citizens to freely own them. "
http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/about/about.shtml
That word, "Illegal", is kind of important.
So what does this socialist group of constitution hating "leaders" propose?
Coalition Co-Chairs Urge the U.S. Senate to Reject Bills That Would Override State Laws on Concealed, Loaded Guns
Maintain State control. This seems to be a central issue for conservatives that has been eroded. States rights to allow, or not allow, are being weakened. This is true at the local level too. The bottom line is that I support any legislation that allows laws to be crafted to meet the needs of the people they impact daily. That means that the federal government should stay out of State issues and the State should stay out of local issues.
Fix Gun Checks: Delete Online Outlaws Urges Websites to Crack Down on Illegal Gun Sales
Can't pass a background check? Google it. Want a gun? Buy it online. Now who, do you suppose, would want to do that? A criminal maybe? Someone who even staunch gun supporters agree should not be allowed to have a gun? Conceal and Carry Laws are being passed on the premise that there are so many criminals out there with guns that the average law-abiding citizen needs to protect themselves. If that is true, then we really need to stop criminals from getting guns...illegal guns. It's not preventing you, the law-abiding citizen from buying a gun. Buy away! Stop by sometime and talk to me about it, especially if it is a World War II era gun. register it, license it and proudly display and use it.
If you're buying a Glock off the street and out of someones trunk, we're looking to shut you down...you are the reason that guns have gotten a bad rap.
Coalition Co-Chairs Star in Super Bowl Ad Promoting Common Sense Reforms to Keep Guns Out of the Hands of Criminals
Not sure what to say here...does anyone want to speak up for people who have made the choice to be a criminal and lose their rights? Is Mr. noble advocating for the "right" of a convicted felon to own a firearm?
This organization took a stand on the Fast and Furious debacle in which OUR government, using OUR tax dollars, provided guns to Mexican drug lords in an effort to track their use. As it turns out, those guns got back into our country and are now being used to kill American Citizens. Why isn't Mr. Noble OUTRAGED about this? He's advocating that this position, and those mentioned above are "Anti-Gun" when it is clear to see that they are Anti ILLEGAL Gun.
Like any membership organization, there are things that I greatly agree with and some that I don't always agree with. Overall, the goal of this organization is to cut down on the number of illegal guns entering communities and reduce firearms violence.
As a former member of the military, I have spent a great deal of time around guns. They are part of our culture in Wisconsin. I have a great respect for them and own some myself. All are legal.
While I personally didn't understand the urgency with the conceal and carry law in Wisconsin, I have told many people that, in the end, it didn't greatly concern me, because nothing really changed...you could always open carry, so all the law did was allow you to conceal that weapon. I did support the ban on weapons in City hall, a measure that was decided by the council with a unanimous vote (two members were absent). When you come to visit me, or anyone else at City hall, we won't be packing heat and you don't need to be either. Have a heated discussion with us, but leave the gun in the car.
I do support business owners being allowed to independently decide if they want to allow conceal and carry in their establishments.
It would seem that Mr. Noble likes to pick and choose which adjectives he includes in his Blog entries in an effort to try and paint the picture the way he wants it to be seen, and not necessarily the way it really is.
Eroding constitutional freedoms? Really? I take great offense to that. I joined the military to defend this country and uphold the constitution. I was fortunate to serve at a time when I wasn't deployed or ever in combat. That is not true nearly 20 years later for most of our military. That is what bothers me the most about his post today. The accusation that this is an anti-gun list when it is a list of mayors who agree with legal gun owners that Illegal guns are the real problem.
Your turn, Mr. Noble. Please help me understand how this organization is infringing on the rights of anyone. It expressly supports and maintains the legal gun ownership should be protected and efforts should be directed toward getting rid of access to illegal guns and maintaining the rights of states and local municipalities to create and enforce their own laws.
Pretty liberal, huh?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)