Both sides of the Pacific story need to be told
March 6, 2013 · Updated 5:14 PM
For now, it will suffice to say I really need to hear both sides of the truth regarding the operations of the City of Pacific. I'm not at all convinced that what has been reported has been the "whole" truth. In fact, I'm wondering how much truth has been in it at all.
The mayor's blog can't be any secret, but have you read it? Do you know how much money an hour this mayor makes? Do you know that the council will not allow him to hire for the positions he wants to hire for? They reject his every effort? Have you honestly looked into the "facts?"
Do you know anything about this man's history or his character? This is a man that speaks and reads four languages.
The reason he doesn't resign is he made a promise to the people, and he's fine with being "voted" out, but he won't quit and let the people down. He has spent thousands in legal fees out of his own pocket to protect himself from the people on the council.
In any situation where a person is being attacked they are defensive. Their defensiveness means nothing to me. It is not an indicator of guilt or innocence. I strongly suspect that the City Council of Pacific is corrupt. Maybe not all of them? I have a lot of questions. And I'm not hearing you print two sides of the story.
Does anyone work for you that is not after a quick answer? Does anyone work for you who will do some research and report the whole truth? I hope so. I'm listening. Please, read his blog, www.mayorcysun.blogspot.com. Look at the audits, look at the ordinances he's tried to pass and were rejected. Why were they? How much do the council members make a year? How much does the mayor make a year? Why do these people hate him so much? What can he do differently? I don't want to live in a corrupt city and I don't believe it is all his fault.
Some of the things I read in his blog make sense. "Because the ordinance was not repealed six years ago, we the taxpayers were duped into paying an on-the-job public safety director at an extremely high salary, when instead we should have been paying a salary only for an on-the-job police chief, which would be much more reasonable."
It sounds to me like there are a lot of people fearful of losing their unearned income.
Please, report on this side of the story.
– Kathy Nick