Meeting was held May 1st the ongoing investigation and some very interesting facts emerged. At the last meeting they sent a letter to the prosecutor office asking if they had any action pending on Monroe Gray. That office replied that they could not comment on this legally. But the committee got the feeling that the prosecutor’s office was looking into the fact of ghost employment by Mr. Gray. But this may not be the case until or if the prosecutor’s office comes forth.
There was question of why Mr. Gray as a sub-contractor was doing work for the Waste Water management, because city counsel voted on their contract.
To me it seems that the two democratic members of this committee kept trying to say that the investigation of Monroe Gray has been taken care of earlier by the ethic committee. Councilor William Oliver said even these allegations surfaced doing an election year by a political opponent. Now what this has to do with any allegation committee is beyond me. He stated that not one person from the public is present at this meeting. (I was at another meeting Mr. Oliver or I would have been there). Mr. Oliver again pointed out that he thought these charges were politically motivated by the opposite party. Councilor Bateman moved by motion to end the investigation of Monroe Gray, second by Councilor Oliver. Councilor Pfisterer stated in the debate of the motion that she was sitting on the fence mainly because no one from the public took enough interest to show up at this hearing but she felt that all questions was not answered by the first investigation. The first vote was two for the motion, one against with Councilor Pfisterer abstaining. After more discussion Councilor Pfisterer change her vote to against the motion. Councilor Oliver even accused the prosecutor office of giving more information to Ms. Crain then he stated in the letter requested by the committee. This statement was because of the persistent of Councilor Cain and Pfisterer to carry on with this investigation. Councilor Bateman said he needed more time to talk to co-chair, Councilor Oliver. So they adjourned with no decision of the investigation of Monroe Gray.
I must confess that I choose to go to the meeting on crime in my own neighborhood instead of going to the Investigative Committee on Ethics. I was in hopes of others that were so concerned about this during those city county meetings that were standing room only would show up. But, as Councilor Oliver and Councilor Pfisterer pointed out NOT ONE person from the public was in attendance. How can anyone reading this say that you stand behind what we all wanted back in November of 2007, Accountability in Government? I leave that question up to you.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
They evidently don't realize how poorly this meeting was publicized - i.e., not at all.
The last meeting I was aware of was their internal one a month ago that was closed-door.
Perhaps there was some tiny 'notice' buried in the Star's classifieds?
But beyond that, what does it matter to the them whether or not the public attends? The public has opinions and suspicions. The committee's task is to uncover facts and place them in the public record and initiate legal proceedings if warranted. There's a process to be followed and they are all adults who should be able to follow it to a conclusion with or without supervision.
I agree and I have to take part of the blame here for not posting it on this blog. You should go back and watch this meeting.
Need I remind everyone that the 'republicans' have the majority on the council and WE helped get them there by brining all these unethical things to light. Now the the republicans have the majority, they are sitting by enjoying their positions and NOT advancing our causes. Shame on them. THEY should pursue these matters aggressively and inform the public, via the same blogs that helped them, of the meetings. We helped get their sorry asses in there, they need to work for US.
Post a Comment