Talk:Jim Ogston
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group. | ||
 |
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
|
And nobody cares that you only want your views and opinions in the article. What you don't get is your POV isn't the only one and is in the minority. Further, instead of complaining in the discussion area why no modify the article keeping in mind a neutral POV that discusses both sides. I have made some mods based on your recent points, please modify them further.
Keep in mind you have lost by a wide margin twice when the people had a chance to make their wishes known. Further the article deals with public perception. Dispite your claim that only you have the facts the reality is people preceived your group for something else. A group of merchants that would be affected by the restriction and lead by and individual with political aspirations that wanted to get name recognition. You got recognized. Not as some type of civil rights crusader but as a pro porn advocate. It can be seen that even now in the Town of Redcliff where you do not reside you attempt to push your unpopular agenda with letters to the editor. Although you don't agree with this other people's perceptions (not just yours) need to be reflected to arrive at a NPOV.
Try as you might but the people of Medicine Hat at best view your political views an an odd curiosity.
I do not care if this person is with me or against me on this. What gets me is the lack of facts and disturbing innuendo made here against me. I do not have to prove the facts as they are in city hall meeting minutes. Something that this person refuses to research. What is perhaps most disturbing is the individual continues their attempt to discredit me and slander me where as the proof is in these minutes, and it would only take a simpleton to search out, read, and understand. I had no gain or loss in this "porn" matter yet somehow the other side felt they did and so have made every attempt to discredit me by diverting/distorting reality. I did not run on porn but the lack of fulltime jobs for the citizens of the city and listed many other issues as my platform. I ran because I was appalled by the lack of courtesy council held for its people not because I wanted porn on the streets. This story does not say that. Read it it states "Jim Ogston is best-known for leading a group that fought for the right for businesses to sell pornography without the restrictions proposed by Medicine Hat city council" I did not fight for unrestricted selling of porn. I fought city hall on why they did NOT allow public and affected businessmen the right to be included in the review, and to allow them their right to be included in this review. The anti porn and media gave it a different slant and this is what has also transcended into this website. So my intent is to set the record straight something that the antiporn side and this individual appear unconcerned about. After all it would make them look foolish, fooled and wrong. Was the article balanced? Absolutely not because to start with it was not accurate from the beginning. I did not in any way shape and form take on city hall to keep porn. I did so because they did not follow the review process as they promised and listed in their terms of reference. City hall officials from the Mayor on down admitted it. It is on public record so no need to verify from my political opponents or proponents. I take my lumps as they come but unfair jabs I take exception particularly when they are groundless and unfactual. I have put my name forward to be attacked and to defend, and find it revolting when those that attempt to discredit and throw innuendo around at will do so under the convenient cover of nameless/faceless anonymity. Hardly fair and rather revolting isn't it? Contact me, talk to me. If not then get the facts straight before ignorance shows.
Jim Ogston Medicine Hat (Phone # in the book)
Again we see Mr Ogston lash out against all who disagree with him. I think the article is balanced. It includes both arguments for and against his group. However, Mr Ogston wants it to only show his point of view. What he cannot see is there are two sides to every story. His view is not the only one.
As for his reasons of not getting elected again we see more spin than Paul Martin's Liberals. Despite all of his reasons and explainations we have twice seen him fail at being elected by a wide margin.
I'm sure he'll respond and say I am uninformed and getting my facts from his political opponents. The fact is the article gives a neutral story, which I support. This angers Mr Ogston and causes him to lash out. Rather sad and pathetic whith his (if your not for me you are against me) views.
It is quite evident as to which camp the commenter sits and gets his/her information. It is apparently easy for them to spout off about something and make comments without basis and facts. If this individual would pull their head out of the sand and take the time to review council minutes and ask the real questions before making baseless comments. Perhaps this person would then have a firmer grasp of reality. It is no surprise to me, as I met the same double talk and back tracking from the no side on this debate and it is interesting that it is this group/and supporters that chooses to ignore the truths and most importantly the facts to clearly confuse the public. What is very annoying by all the statements being made by this individual is that they have no concept on politics of the city what so ever. When faced with the facts from the cities own minutes (council review minutes) the anti porn group and council downplayed the errors, the former tried to deflect the issues and the latter first acknowledge their error and then covered their incompetence by changing the rules of inclusion in the review. Again I reiterate that this proof is in printed form and in the videoed taping of council meetings and not a forged figment of my imagination. If the offended individual here is under the impression that this is an acceptable government practice, then the public really has a need for concern as to how they are represented. Again perhaps this person needs to follow past council actions on other past issues to understand that this was not unique, to only this issue, but to other past council dilemmas. Then again maybe they only want to listen to what they want to listen to, and then speak without logical basis. I have constantly stated that neither I, nor the group I formed AFTER the review was conducted, were pro porn but called to task city council for not following a proper municipal government act rule to represent ALL people of the city during the bylaw review. Not once in my submission to council was there mention a pro porn stance but an itemized listing of governmental procedures that council failed to follow. So where this individual gets the notion or information on MY stance in this whole affair is beyond me. But then given the opposition stance it is not surprising. Apparently this anti porn group/along with supporters likes to play with the public mind, and it is their tactic of choice. Added to this they have resorted to character attacks and name calling. True to form if they themselves are called to task on the issues, they lay claim to have the backing of the public, and do so without substantiating their numbers. Appallingly they continue to demand their democratic rights, yet go out of their way to suppress the rights of those they oppose. Scary is it not? Browbeating is their way of justifying their logic. Had this individual taken the time they would find the facts (clearly defined in city council notes and not hard to interpret) that at the beginning of the adult material review about 4 years ago the city asked for public/business input on the following 4 topics. 1. Adult videos, 2. Business license increases for adult material businesses, 3. Adult magazines, and last but not least, 4. The zoning bylaw. The end result was that they had no legal way to impose the first three points, but it was within city rights to rule on the zoning issue, and did so, conforming to the proposals put forward by the Anti Porn group. A clear case of the tail waging the dog. They, (council) sent out letters to a group of businesses that only sold magazines and not the “offensive products or by-products” to participate in the review. Interesting enough many (should read all) of the businesses that would be directly affected by the zoning bylaw changes were not asked to participate. Stores like Safeway were left to determine the existence of stores like Sassy Secrets (an adult novelty store). Again this fact (conveniently ignored by the anti forces) is openly available for public information and not some fictitious plot that I uncovered, a fact that when shown to city council they were first in agreement, but then later disregard. Any kindergarten student could see the problems with the review from the beginning. I have for over the past 3 years sat in all but 3 of councils meetings (held every 2 weeks) and read in the minutes and council packages (provided free to the public) and all reports and communications are as I state. Had council taken the time and allowed a fair and open review and then made a decision as they did, I would not have had any objections what so ever, as that is how democracy works. However, in this case in particular and others, they did not honour the very nature of the Municipal Government Act, and act that they swore to uphold, that being that of the rights of the citizens of Medicine Hat to be represented. I foresaw this the first time I ran, then witnessed it not happen and once again ran for council a second time because of their dismal track record. Interestingly the candidates in the first election ducked the very issue that propelled them into office, and then during the second election they were not willing to defend their record when I brought it forward. Any good politician should be able and willing to defend his/her record publicly. I stated my political platform on several more important community issues and if this individual can only single out only one issue and feel that was the reason for my running then indeed he/she failed to take the blinders off on what the real issues were and how council failed to effectively represent the electing body. It is also interesting how individuals such as this put their slant on the election results and forget to add the details to the readers to give their vision of events. The voter turnout was dismal to say the least, with about 34.36% of the eligible voters casting their vote in the election. The norm is that a low voter turnout statistically favors the incumbents. Several of the candidates both for the mayoral and aldermanic positions were of questionable quality. Though not as many candidates this past election as opposed to the previous there was a considerable vote split (For 8 alderman position there was 36 in 2001 and 15 in 2004). If this individual would noticed all but two of the incumbents lost considerable votes over the past election and therefore one could arguably draw the conclusion that many of the voters wanted change by giving their vote to another new candidate. As well, conclusions can be made that the many that did not vote, did so because they are unsatisfied with the incumbents, and/or the candidates because they felt that whomever they vote for will not listen to them anyhow , and therefore not vote, in protest. The mayor being a prime example. He faced two very poor challengers but won. His leadership ( or rather lack of) was greatly questioned by many, but they ended up voting for him because the other to challengers would have been worse. So if he can claim a great victory in that then I must disagree. If winning 88% of 35% of the electoral votes is considered winning an overwhelming victory then my perception of victory is way off. If receiving a vote of less than 35% is considered a landslide win then put me out to pasture. Could not the other votes he did not receive (1551) be considered protest votes on his leadership as well as the 64% that did not vote. Baring their family and friends of course. As for this individuals comment that I only asked my friends when getting my stats then I suppose I must have friends in high placed as this information is on the city web sight and in council minutes available through the city clerk. Additionally this person fails to add that I doubled my number of votes from the previous election and can include as my supporters, doctors, nurses, lawyers, teachers, social workers, businessmen, students and numerous other professionals. My goal as a city politician was to give leadership and good governance to all the city population and not the few and if this is not a requirement then heaven help the city of Medicine Hat. Perhaps this misguided individual can remember what I ran on during both elections. Long term pension able jobs, social programs, affordable housing, and many many more. However he/she became fixated on what I did not run on. At no time during both elections did I run in support of Porn. I did not have thousands of dollars for ads, signs and TV spots as many of the candidates but I did have the endorsement of at least two city unions which is more than I can say about the incumbents and those that got elected. Name recognition was the deciding factor as some of the challengers would have been far more efficient than the incumbents and had a better platform. Based on this individual’s comments and apparent lack of knowledge of city politics it is apparent that many voters did not follow councils antics or the outcome would have been decisively different. Had the incumbents been questioned in open debate on their record they would have shown that there was no record to support. During the past 3-4 years council has not passed anything that they can call their own and not of the previous council doing (prior to 2001). Finally I would like to add that if this individual was so knowledgeable in city politics and in tune with the public at large were was his/her name on the ballot?, and if they are from my city why did they not call me. It is easy to spout out baseless facts and do so anomalously from the safety of the net then to pick up a phone can call me and discuses face to face the issues. The difference between me and the reelected council is that I would have listen and regardless of my position on an issue would have fought to guarantee citizens of the city the right to be heard and represented. If the present council that was reelected can honestly say they did so based on their past 3 years, then maybe I should not be a politician. I have a conscious.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jim_Ogston"
As a Medicine Hatter I think the article captures the situation well. Mr Ogston writes in this discussion that council has made many poor decisions and handled the situation wrong. Of course he would take that position, his motivation was to be elected to council. So, council can do no right and only he has the answer. Typical politician speaking.
As for blaming poor voter turn out the fact remains that voters had a chance to embrace his position and rejected him completely. Poor losers always like to blame something else other than the fact they do not represent the wishes of the people. If support is so high for his pro porn stand one must ask why Mr Ogston was so soundly defeated. Simple, support was not high and locals did not support him as he claims. Perhapes he only asked his friends when getting his stats. Either way the proof is in the election and Mr Ogston was left on the sidelines.
Since I am the person indicated in this section I would like to clarify something. First I am not pro-pornography nor was the group I formed to counter the Medicine Hat city council AFTER they ignored the public and the associated/or potential business owners affected by the bylaw change. We were not fighting for the right to sell adult material but how city hall handled the bylaw review itself. Council reneged on its own promise for a fair review by all parties concerned and did not follow their own guidelines yet they granted all these privlages to a special interest group opposed to porn from the very start. The topic could have been something other than this particular subject but the whole point of me and my group was to force the city council to follow its guidelines as promised. The fact the subject was adult businesses made it less palatable for council to handle. Second, I did not use this issue as an attempt to gain political points for those who support civil liberties but a desire to be elected and represent the citizens of the City of Medicine Hat. Council has had a bad track record on many issues and the adult material bylaw was but a mere drop in the bucket. Poor leadership at all levels and personal agendas displaced good governance for all Medicine Hatters on all issues and hence my run for council. As for the election results, the class of candidates and lack of voter turnout (about 36%) and name recognition were the factors in the results, not because the citizens voted against myself because of their anti porn stance. To the contrary over 75% disagreed with city council on this issue. Council chose to sweep it under the rug and denied its citizens their right to be represented and heard, over those of the special interest group. Who ever put together the web entries did so without my knowledge and without the perspective and facts as it really happened, and as to why we fought city council on this particular issue. Porn was NOT the issue but a right to be included in council policy review as dictated in the Municipal government act. Lastly as for the vanity. I am a defense science tech and have participated in a few events with my fellow scientists and published papers do go over the net as well as other means.
I think this is a vanity page. the top Google search is for an anthrax scientist. ByUser:142.110.227.32 (special:contributions/142.110.227.32) has also created genealogical substub entry on Cyril Ogston. User has however, made some important and interesting contributions, and could become a useful and welcome Wikipedian. Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:23, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep:Actually I am not Jim Ogston. I am a former Medicine Hat resident who is simply adding whatever info about minor stuff to this site. I can be reached at Leroyknevil@go.com Other things I plan to add are details of the Cypress Hills/Eagle Butte area. The politics I have mentioned were a VERY divisive item in Medicine Hat and still are. they could be a central theme in the fall election. (User:142.110.227.32 21:09, 26 Aug 2004)
- I don't object to the page in principle, but it is very short on facts. For example, when was Jim Ogston active in politics? Deb 21:21, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep: I'll update that with more details. As for the anthrax scientist I can add details on that. Jim Ogston works at CFB Suffield in defence research and has played an important part in this.
- Please sign your edits. David Remahl 00:20, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Cleanup. — Gwalla | Talk 23:07, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable. RickK 23:23, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep if cleaned up. From Wikipedia:Size comparisons: "Numbers to which Wikipedia aspires — As of 2003, there are about six billion human beings, each with their own life story. Billions more have lived and died in the past, although most of their lives are lost to history." I do understand that current policy is to not document every person's life in the 'pedia, but this actually sounds like a pretty interesting person. — David Remahl 00:20, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: A city politico who lost, so far as I can tell, in a blue law battle. One who won and went on to make a whole district change might achieve notability, but lots of folks fail at things. Geogre 02:46, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Neutral on deletion, but wouldn't it make more sense to gather up in one article a story of the whole blue law battle and make the names of the individuals involved all just redirect there unless they are otherwise notable? Otherwise, anyone who wants the story will have quite a hard time piecing it together. -- Jmabel 21:54, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
I am simply amazed at the lack of substance in this individuals reply, and lack of ability to respond without credible facts, just fiction. Hence my entire reason in responding to this webpage claptrap. Obtuse retort are typical of this mindset and a willingness to try to bend reality. The same council that ran in 2001 and were reelected in 2004 where reelected (with two exceptions, one incumbent that was on our side and a new comer with similar views as ours) with considerable less votes that in 2001. I also doubled the number of votes than in 2001. Of course, this individual will overlook that point because it would not meet his or her own 'Agenda". Whereas I can accept, points of views this individual apparently and quite evidently cannot. Voter apathy, large candidate field that would result in a vote spread apparently does not enter this individuals mindset because it would continue to show their stupidity. If one looks at the votes, the other candidates got and what the incumbents did not get from the previous election would indicate that the public did not reelect them with the resounding vote this individual claims. Incredible. As a researcher this individuals would laugh his/their claim to the gutter were it belongs. I have received an incredible large, and favorable, response to my views and have had some people who didn't know of me before support me, from Doctors, scientists, nurses, lawyers, tradesmen and a large number of senior citizens. My problem in the past two elections was name recognition and in Medicine Hat, that is a big factor. There are at least two council members elected and reelected not because they are good council member (read useless and lackluster) but because they had the name recognition. Even they lost votes in 2004, so please explain that. Once again, the stupidity and lack of intestinal fortitude has this individual once again speaking without facts. Redcliff council did not permit affected businesspersons and the public an opportunity to be involved with their bylaw as in Medicine Hat because they just rubber-stamped Medicine Hats bylaw as theirs. Again, this reeks of poor governance, not because it was about adult businesses but because that is not what is permitted in accordance to a good council following acceptable practices regardless of the issue. It is appalling when Redcliff town council enters into arguments with irresponsible remarks in an effort to justify their decisions. The open council meeting they did have after which the vote to accept was made was not a cool calm debate and was fueled with absurd remarks and similar mob rule as the public that did show from the Anti porn group. It is incredible how democracy is only acceptable when they want it to be and then work diligently to deny democratic protocol to those they oppose. It appears an issue such as this does not warrant adherences to the Municipal Government Act. More importantly, it has also resulted in poor government compliance in other Medicine Hat issues, such as the Ponds, the Skateboard bylaw, the Electric Roadhouse and others issues. But then again that is what I was fighting against and not "Porn" as this individual continues to lament about with such simpleton remarks. If this individual would take the time to be more observant of "Medicine Hat" politics they would see that this attitude of not representing the public has transcend into other issues hence my "real" reasoning for my response and have the support of an increasing population of my city. Once more, this individual takes the cowardly approach of not listing their name or the nerve to contact me to get the real facts and not what he/she perceives to be the truth before they set to type their dull-wittedly obtuse statements. Show courage…step up to the plate and let others judge you as you have judged me. Put your name on the ballet or write a letter to the editor and let see if you get acceptance for such drivel.
[edit] CAPCS
March 2007. What a difference time makes. Despite what this individual has said against me previously it is now proven that CAPCS have deceived the people and politicians of Medicine Hat. After submitting a slanderous report to council and failing to provide a guideline for their report council decided CAPCS have failed to show credibility. The bylaw seeking control over what magazines are to be covered, set behind the counter or removed failed to get past first reading. The CAPCS agenda was revealed and proven to be a series of lies, innuendos, false facts and deception. More and more of the public after viewing the antics of CAPCS have decided they have been duped. Council members who initially voted for CAPCS "Policies" have now regretted these former alliances and now come to the correct conclusion that they (CAPCS) have no credibility and there fore any bylaw will not be passed while they are in office. CAPCS have indicated that come the next election this fall (2007) they will run candidates and then if elected will pass their bylaw views by the vote of the sitting aldermen. That is how they view democracy. Stuff the ballot box by dubious means.
These people that promote themselves as "Positive Community Standards" have engaged in a smear tactics and deception. Fortunately they are being exposed for what they really are, relentless zealots.
Facts on how CAPCS were exposed can be viewed on a Blog at www.medhatblog.com
Read and weep there buddy.
Sorry forgot to add my name to this post about CAPCS
Jim Ogston Medicine Hat
The day after the election (Oct 16 2007) an individual posted comments here that he was glad I did not get elected and that I would not make a good alderman. It was deleted because there was no substantiation for the claim and therefore no discussion. But it drew a response from my supporters to his allegation as stated below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.155.32.85 (talk) 16:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. I think Mr Ogston would have been a fine member of city council. His platform was solid (green energy, get some large pensionable businesses in the Hat etc) and his understanding of a fair process was great. Medicine Hat gov't has been missing some key vision (the large businesses) and has certainly missed proper process for handling CAPSC initiative. Although not a vote getting platform plank council needs someone who is willing to ensure that they, council, are treating all groups fairly without taking sides. I think Mr Ogston would have done this and had made a vital contribution to council. Too bad he didn't win.
As for his losing I don't think it is a reflection of the man. It's a crowded field and unless you come in already with big name recognition like the former Police Chief and incumbents did or have tons of cash to buy advertising your chances are slim. Mr Ogston has neither I think. That isn't meant to be an insult. But Mr Ogston, like 99.9% of people (including me) isn't well known in a Mr Boucher way. And, he doesn't have oddles of cash to buy signs, airtime and newspaper ads with (as far as I know). Thus you can have the world's best platform (or in Mr Ogston's case a pretty darn good one) but without $$$$ and star power your chances are slim.
Anyway, democracy is stronger when people participate and Mr Ogston demonstrates that when he raises issues in attending council mettings, letters to the editor etc and when he runs for council. He may not of won a seat but he is a positive influence in our community and has made it stronger with his actions. That is his legacy. Too bad there is no paycheck with it :)
Thank-you Mr Ogston for your service and whatever you choose to do (run again, take a break) you've earned it.
Hatter99 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hatter99 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
It is interesting how this coward who continues to use an alias continues to make one-sided comments to discredit my efforts and good achievements. They also try to convey that it was the majority that voted me out because of their not liking me. It was interesting this same person was silent during the election time where he, like his group of followers lurked in silent less they be shot out of the water as they were back in February. Through my success (with the businessmen’s help) we exposed the CAPCS agenda, and proved the lies and slander they used in their attempt to bring change. Through my persistence 5 members of council seen the trickery and defeated CAPCS at their game. The public also seen the trickery. They demanded to know who was CAPCS and/or supported by CAPCS after the threat by CAPCS to run candidates and make it an election issue. Did they?...no.
I did not run a hard campaign to be elected and really did not try to make it. Had I got elected it would have been nice as I had many issues I would have worked hard to bring about, such as jobs for the younger generation. This person does not know me at all so to make the statement I would not have made a good alderman was false as any forum I went to I got a very good response. At a “town hall” meeting with a variety of non-profit groups to meet the candidates I got a very good endorsement while other alderman (three of whom got re-elected) got bad reviews. So I guess as to whether I would be a good alderman? Well I beg to differ.
I did not go all out as in the past with door to door campaigning, and did not even deliver my election pamphlets. They were only distributed at the two forums held, and many commented they like my platforms. I only posted a dozen 4x4 signs around the city at some key areas but not a lot of smaller signs. Had I gone out as I did in 2004 I would have done well so if this person continues to try to discredit me it is only by their interpretation of events. This person doe not like me and will put their own spin to things and it only shows their character and integrity. To give it the perception that everyone in the city was against me was wrong. The news article they posted here of my comments after the 2007 election are a mis quote and taken out of context. (After a third attempt for an aldermanic seat, Jim Ogston said he’s made his point and “it’s time to move on.” “I felt I could have done something in council, but one issue kept dogging me,” said Ogston. “I really wanted to do something . . . and get the city moving on other issues and I guess (some)people don’t look at me as having the ability to do that.”) What I said was that some people in the city (CAPCS supporters) did not feel I had the ability. So put what ever spin you want to that.
I did my time in the public and I have had enough of the slander and name-calling by this individual (and others) and have had enough, so like I said I did not care one way or another if I won or lost. Four new alderman got elected and 4 of the old slithered their way back in. Anyone who knew their record (of which this individual did not) would agree they did not serve the people as I would have. So I know I did well.
I would like to show this individual how one re-elected alderman works his politics and if he agrees it was wrong then I rest my case. The date was actually in February (Feb 5th 2007)
This is from the medhatblog.com website in which I participated in.
It starts:
Back in March of this year city hall debated the CAPCS Bikini Bylaw. As several helpful e-mailers have pointed out I promised to remind voters of this issue come election time. Well here it is In favor of the bylaw going to 2nd reading Cathy Smith, Robert Dumanowski, Graham Kelly, and Garth Vallely. Opposed the bylaw going to 2nd reading Bill Cocks, Julie Friesen, John Hamill, Darren Hirsch, Harv Speers.
The Council has voted…we get our turn on Monday Oct 15th, 2007
Here is Mr Dumanowski’s correspondence just hours before that vote: A concerned citizen sent us her e-mail which she sent to all the council it read:
"As a concerned citizen of Medicine Hat I urge you to vote against the proposed adult materials bylaw. The group who has urged the council to make this bylaw has not met the burden of proof to show this law is needed in our city. The survey which CAPCS has often cited as a basis for their bylaw has never been offered for public review. The list of publications which the proposed bylaw would restrict has also not be publicized. So far, there has only been opinion put into the public record. For most groups, a burden of proof is required for any law to be considered by council. CAPCS seems to have been allowed special leeway in that they have never offered proof that children are being harmed by any adult material in Medicine Hat. Adult material has not even been satisfactorily defined. How can the council be even considering a bylaw without such a definition? The businesses which would be affected by the bylaw have also not been given input into writing the bylaw, unlike CAPCS. On the whole, I believe this bylaw has been proposed and considered with misrepresentations that cannot continue. Please stop this bylaw now."
Dumanowski’s response is pretty interesting…
I completely agree with you! Regards, Robert ROBERT C. DUMANOWSKI, B.Ed., M.A. ALDERMAN
6 hours later – Robert Dumanowski voted FOR the bylaw, completely contradicting his e-mail – and he didn’t just change his mind he called anybody who is against the bylaw, (as this e-mailed citizen was) as being against the children of Medicine Hat. This is the time of year to look at their track record in office and make decisions. They had their vote that night …we have ours on Monday. If you disagree with CAPCS and Mr Dumanowski keep this in mind: If you vote you can cancel up to 8 votes from the CAPCS support base.
I would like this person to put his name on a ballot and see if they can run the city better as I know I would do a better job than he/she. I knew the issues and would have work hard. But now I have other interests to work on without the input on narrow minded pests such as this individual. I walked the walk not just talked the talk did you? No? Of course not. Keep your identity covered it suits your intelligence. I know my friends and supporters supported me well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.43.95.254 (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
