Last week I reported that John Hubbard was removed from last Tuesday night's City Commission meeting. See for yourself if he disrupted the meeting:
http://homepage.mac.com/neiltaylor1/iMovieTheater16.html
http://homepage.mac.com/neiltaylor1/iMovieTheater16.html
20 comments:
Hm. Seemed like the Mayor gave him a reasonable caution, but didn't quite give him a chance to try again. Her order to remove him did seem a bit hasty...but after seeing Mr Hubbard in action on many occasions at these meetings, I can only imagine how tiresome & frustrating his rants can be when you're on the receiving end of his criticisms. He appears to have a long list of grievances & issues, few, if any, that the City Commission is capable of addressing, to the best of my knowledge.
Would I have removed him? Probably. That quickly? Probably not.
The City Commission is incapable of addressing, to the best of my knowledge, any city business.
Are your streets drivable in this weather? Do you have water, sewer, and lights? Do you receive prompt responses to emergency call, fire and police?
THAT is city business - and you are fortunate to have people in place who recognize your needs.
Enough said!
City streets are a joke right now, the state maintained streets in the city are ok. Last time I checked the city had nothing to do with my lights.
Enough Said!
The mayor set a very bad tone for this meeting with her impatience of citizen Hubbard.....Enough said!
Is it just me or is there a kind of sexual chemistry between the Mayor and Hubbard? It would explain some of the tension.
"Is it just me or is there a kind of sexual chemistry between the Mayor and Hubbard? It would explain some of the tension."
John can do better than that.
YEah, Mary Jolly is single and she's just his type.
John Hubbard has good reason to be the way he is. He married my first wife. I don't know what Dona's excuse is, her husband Grant is a good man.
We need to get this back on track.
It makes no difference who is at the podium. The issue here is the First Amendment and were John's rights to freedom of speech violated.
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/First_amendment
He was speaking on topic and didn't say anything that was any worse than what he has said in the past.
If one is an elected official and takes issue with being called "empty-headed" by someone who has been minimized by that official, maybe its time that official rethink being in office.
GFGirl is correct, the issue here is ALL our constitutional rights not the personalities on either side of the podium!
I think he was removed very quickly & it looked rather roughly. I do not feel the mayor gave him a fair chance.
Since I deal with Mr. Hubbard on a fairly regular basis- I think if he received a bit of respect from the mayor he would not be as big of a pain BUT I think he needs to respect her and the commission as well.
He does have many issues on his agenda. He needs to find a more productive way to vent them.
I am sick and tired of the elected thinking they rule over the people in a master/servant relationship.
It is the elected that must respect the public to a higher standard. Respect the public and they will grow to respect you. Get it Stebbins?
I agree with GFGirl, it's time they rethink being in office if not up to the job and responsibilities.
"Mary Jolly is single and she's just his type."
Why are you implying that John might cheat on his wife? mary Jolley was once single but was married and widowed. Single relates to a person who has never married. One can not revert to single after marriage and divorce or widowhood even in Montana.
I could not see the video but calling the commissioners "empty-headed" is completly pertenant.
Everyone is guarenteed 5 minutes by law.
Remember the mayor admitted that she intentionally does not listen to or respond to people even after she promises to do so.
The mayor is in violation of the law, John hubbard, regardless of personality, is not.
I suggest you research the "law." The state Supreme Court has ruled on this.
what was that supream court ruling?
I suggest you read the code of ethics which is also "the law".
The state supream court ruled on great falls code of ethics?
The mayor openly said she "does not listen" and repted demonstrated she will not respond either orally or in writing,and ther will be "no olive branch".
and how exactly has she exercised prudence with taxpayer money?
The Mayor is in violation of the "code of ethics" or "the law", John Hubbard is not.
Anon 6:23
I suggest you research the "law." The state Supreme Court has ruled on this.
Please give us that link in the ruling without it your post is meaningless.......thanks
In an Associated Press story dated 12/19/08 written by Susan Gallagher, the article states, The Spreme Court of the State of Montana concludes that the city may impose reasonable and viewpoint neutral time, place and manner restrictions on speech for the purpose of conducting its council meetings in an efficient and orderly manner."
In that same AP story the Supreme Court also said:
‘‘We agree with the city that it could not lawfully have regulated the particular viewpoints expressed by speakers related to Denke’s 1999 Human Rights complaint during the Feb. 14 council meeting"
For those interested here is the link to the full story:
http://www.helenair.com/articles/2008/12/19/state/75st_081219_supco.txt
Post a Comment