Forum Home  |  Politics & Government  |  Candidates & Elected Officials

Fey / Walker refuse duty to serve out their 4 year council terms.

by fredo
on 2/6/2012 @ 1:44pm
Both council members are running for an additional elective (27th Legislature) office although they haven't finished the job they pledged to perform on behalf of the city voters.
Fey's term isn't over on council until December, 2013 and Walker just ran for election last November. Her term isn't over until December 2015. Neither one of these elected officials warned the voters that they didn't intend to serve their ENTIRE elective terms. When they quit they effectively disenfranchise the voters who selected them for office. This is so commonplace on the city council I'm surprised more people don't see the problem. This makes four acknowledged quitters in just the last 3 or four years (Strickland, Anderson, Fey, Walker). After they leave office we get appointees. That's just wrong.

by L.S.Erhardt on 2/6/2012 @ 10:13pm
It's standard practice from 747 Market all the way to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

by fredo on 2/6/2012 @ 10:33pm
Well I dunno if it's a "standard" practice, but around here it seems more common than one might expect. Walker just ran for a FOUR year seat on the council  three months ago and she's already itching to get out of her obligation? Doesn't speak very favorably about her level of dedication.

by L.S.Erhardt on 2/6/2012 @ 11:02pm
How many congress critters/senate slime/gubernatorial grunge opt to run for higher office during the middle of their respective terms?

by cisserosmiley on 2/7/2012 @ 7:47am
Just because it happens doesn't mean we shouldn't call it out and help it be punished. Fey lost his last leg election, he will lose again. I will vote for whoever the nicest candidate is.

by fredo on 2/7/2012 @ 7:56am
 " How many congress critters/senate slime/gubernatorial grunge opt to run for higher office during the middle of their respective terms?"

Yes, I get it Thorax. Lot's of elected leaders ditch their pre-existing obligations to run for other offices. And for the record, while Fey IS in the middle of his term, Walker ISN'T. She was just sworn into office one month ago.

People let their dogs crap on our local sidewalks but I don't think we should celebrate just because it's so common. 

by tacoma1 on 2/7/2012 @ 8:06am
Odds are at least one of em will stick around and finish their term. They both can't win.

Besides its just an elected city council position. It's not a prison sentence. I'm ok If they can get out early for good behavior.

by fredo on 2/7/2012 @ 8:52am
 " I'm ok If they can get out early for good behavior."

When these candidates run for for city council seats they tell the voters it would be a "privilege" to serve as their council representative. You're saying it's not really a privilige, it's more like a prison sentence that they didn't wish to become involved with. 

by tacoma1 on 2/7/2012 @ 8:59am

I said specifically that it's not. a prison sentence. Learn to read.

by thriceallamerican on 2/7/2012 @ 9:04am
I don't see a problem in anyone running for an office that they think they could be an asset in. If that means leaving a current elected position, the voters have the choice of whether they think the benefit of that candidate in the new position outweighs that they serve in their current office.

IMHO the real question is whether it is appropriate to have the council appoint replacements for members who leave in the middle of their term.

Fredo, would you be more happy if there were a process by which a special election filled the vacant seat?

by fredo on 2/7/2012 @ 9:23am
  "Fredo, would you be more happy if there were a process by which a special election filled the vacant seat?"

As a matter of fact, yes! Provided the departing office holder pays the cost of the election. Why should the taxpayers pick up an extra expense occasioned by these narcissitic carpetbaggers? 

by fredo on 2/7/2012 @ 9:26am
tacoma1, I think I understood your posting.. as well as anyone possibly could.

You said it wasn't a prison sentence, then you said they should get out early for good behavior which is something that happens to people who have prison sentences.  When you make a confused analogy don't be surprised if people misinterpret what you were trying to say.

by tacoma1 on 2/7/2012 @ 9:35am
I'll use smaller words for u next time.

Since it isn't a prison sentence, they should be allowed to leave if they choose to. And if they did a good job (ie good behavior) voters can reward them with another job.

by fredo on 2/7/2012 @ 9:42am

  I'll settle for coherance.

by fredo on 2/7/2012 @ 9:56am

Oh I get it. When you said "good behavior" you meant to say "good job" That makes a little more sense. Thanks. 

by cisserosmiley on 2/7/2012 @ 12:38pm
It is wrong to use citizens hopes for a hard working council team as a springboard to political advancement. Voters should examine extremely closely the effectiveness of elected leaders who spend our time running for other offices. Do the right thing and resign first!

by tacoma1 on 2/7/2012 @ 12:48pm
It sounds as if you want unambitious politicians to run for office. I don't think that animal exists.

by cisserosmiley on 2/7/2012 @ 1:00pm
I can hope for fellow citizens of high energy and substance, as well as patience in their total contribution to our community.

by fredo on 2/7/2012 @ 4:37pm
What's amusing to me is that Fey and Walker have played key rolls in running the city budget into the toilet the last four years and now they want to transfer  that special "skill" to the legislature. Fat chance. Give Jim Merritt the opportunity.

by L.S.Erhardt on 2/7/2012 @ 4:41pm
Appoint me to fill one of their vacated council positions!

by JesseHillFan on 2/7/2012 @ 7:29pm
I voted for the kook (Robert Hill). Not that it mattered though as he is going to prison.