As you scroll down the page just mouse over some empty space where the menu was, and it will pop back into view.
|
|
10/16/2006
Mendham:
Town Stuff:
The Next Council Meeting:
10/16/2006
     By 06. 06. on Monday, October 16, 2006 - 7:37 am: |
Questions to be asked of the council at the October 16th meeting.
At the last council meeting Councilman Stanley Witczak found it necessary, and appropriate, to use the meeting as a fourm to publicly attack as illegal and destructive my placement of a few potted plants on some public parkland. For the record, previous to his public remarks, I had received neither from him, any other borough official, or anyone else, any indication that my activities offended anyone, or in anyway constituted a threat of damage. Under this circumstance, I believe the Councilman making such a public spectacle was grossly inappropriate, and certainly something he shouldn't have been thanked by the mayor for doing.
As to the specific implication that damage was threatened by the behavior the Councilman maligned... I would note that all the finishing nails used to hang the plants do not have a net weight equal to one of the roofing nails used to hang the abundant deer torture signs placed throughout the park. Furthermore, I would suggest the councilmen/cop more precisely qualify his facts, before he makes public charges. For example, he referenced some previous "nail" controversy as presumably substantiating evidence of a problem. I recall no such related controversy beyond a problem of a local farmer using neon paint to mark a trail to the park.
As to the accusation of inappropriate advertising, will the council member state for the sake of logical consistency that it would be illegal for someone to leave some cut flowers in a "Coke" bottle on a public park picnic table. Considering the council unanimously approved red-white-and-blue commercial avi-banners, celebrating the hundredth anniversary of the breakup of the original Mendham, as appropriate replacement for American flags, I think it borders on ludicrous to imply I am a criminal for writing the word inMendham.com on some flowerpots I placed in a park.
Finally, I frankly don't appreciate Mr. Cop Witczak's effort to have the local cops sicked on me for my relatively benign unauthorize conduct. Considering this town council is violating federal law, state law, and a local franchise agreement, all intended to protect fundamental constitutional rights, I would suggest the police chief, and prosecutors, should be investigating your treason against your oaths of office, rather than my now "ceased and desisted" public gardening activities..... and while I am on the subject of prosecution, what was the council's final punishment imposed on the 100 thousand dollar a year police officer caught inappropriately playing with his "duty weapon" in a out-of-state bar... and playing with other things, with a woman, who wasn't his wife, in a out-of-state bar bathroom??? |
| By 06. 2....... on Thursday, October 19, 2006 - 4:45 pm: |
Comments by Councilman Stanley Witczak
quote:Mayor: ok I'll close the portion of the meeting in terms of persons present.... we do have a memo from an individual who is not here.
I'm not going to read it in detail ...because it's truly not a question, more of a comment... A comment relative to Mr. Witczak's questions at the last meeting.... indicating materials being hung from trees and such... he's taking it personally that it was aimed at him, I'm not sure that was totally the case.... a..there was also the comment of inappropriate advertising... that was again... does anyone have any comment from the council relative to what his comments were... [Neil Henry: I didn't even see the questions]....ok... I'm not gonna read them in detail because its.. its.. a statement [council lawyer: and it certainly can be just circulated to the members of the council] yea... council... will circuit... Maureen if you will copy everyone on it... we will let it go with that [council lawyer: you just provide it for them ...this evening at the meeting]... ok so if anyone wants to look at it.... ok...Neil you can see it there [a couple of words of inaudible mumbling]... at this point I will entertain a motion for approval of vouchers.
In the first place, there were question marks, in my remarks... and 98 percent of comments, made by OTHER members of the public, who are ALWAYS allowed to speak, are not framed as questions. In the second place, this is a crazy ass stupid, moronic, preposterous, incomprehensible dumb, and scandalously UNAmerican violation of my fundamental constitutional rights. Anyone care to explain how this censorship, regarding public comments at a public council meeting, makes any legal, or American sense? What possible legal theory justifies this? |
|