MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus:         Newsletters 
Friday, January 30, 2015 |  Madison, WI: 20.0° F  Fair
Collapse Photo Bar

Another Mike Quieto Thread!!!

Please limit discussion in this area to local and state politics.

Postby mrak » Thu May 31, 2007 12:52 pm

Marvell wrote:
roadkill bill wrote: You are so wrapped up in finding ways to prop up your accusations that you are now pulling shit out of your ass that doesn't even make sense.

'Now?'
That's pm's whole M.O., bro. He truly must have a cavernous rectum to stash so much gibbering lunacy up in there.

OK, now this shit is just cruel.

I prefer to take a much more charitable approach, and treat each of pm's posts as a little public service announcement about the tragedy of mental illness.

Each time I read one of his batshit-insane missives, I gain a renewed appreciation of my non-diseased mind.
mrak
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2393
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 2:26 pm

Postby Brenda Konkel » Thu May 31, 2007 1:07 pm

pulsewidth modulation wrote:You're obviously connected to PD as well as a benefactor of city redistribution and will defend Quieto all the way to your shallow grave; just like the ethics board chair who is also a PD member. That's real nice, one PD member judging another PD member. The city gets fine results with this loaded system of pretend PD "checks and balances" posing as ethics enforcement.


Wow. Grab the tinfoil hats!

What on earth leads you to believe that Charles Center is a member of PD? As far as I know 3 of the 7 members of the ethics board are visible PD members . . . that does not a quorum make . . . .
Brenda Konkel
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2424
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 11:35 am

Postby Brenda Konkel » Thu May 31, 2007 1:16 pm

awestra wrote:
pulsewidth modulation wrote:
That's what he said at the ethics hearing while defending his political operative status using a lawyer.


You went to the ethics hearing?


Heh . . . so is pm Rosemary Lee? Or Henry Sanders? Or, better yet, pm is Michael Quigley . . . yeah, that must be it! These are all hilarious possiblities . . .
Brenda Konkel
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2424
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 11:35 am

Postby white_rabbit » Thu May 31, 2007 9:04 pm

Brenda Konkel wrote:
awestra wrote:
pulsewidth modulation wrote:
That's what he said at the ethics hearing while defending his political operative status using a lawyer.


You went to the ethics hearing?


Heh . . . so is pm Rosemary Lee? Or Henry Sanders? Or, better yet, pm is Michael Quigley . . . yeah, that must be it! These are all hilarious possiblities . . .


Well, that seemed to shut up our psycho libertarian friend. Perhaps you hit upon something.
white_rabbit
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 7487
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 11:44 pm

Postby lukpac » Thu May 31, 2007 9:24 pm

Is the WSJ really this stupid?

http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/opinion ... tid=140657

Regardless, Quieto's conduct was disturbing and wrong. He tried to certify the accuracy of a campaign finance report by putting an inaccurate signature on the report, thereby making the report inaccurate.


Huh?

Would PD members be comfortable if their arch political opponents were behind the counter at the Clerk's Office or handling ballots at the polls?

Hardly.


Straw. Man.
lukpac
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3362
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 1:51 pm
Location: Madison

Postby Marvell » Fri Jun 01, 2007 8:33 am

lukpac wrote:Is the WSJ really this stupid?

http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/opinion ... tid=140657


Apparently so.

Would PD members be comfortable if their arch political opponents were behind the counter at the Clerk's Office or handling ballots at the polls?

Hardly.


Either they're really that stupid, or that cynically disingenuous. Either way, it's just another indication of how fundamentally silly the WSJ is.

One more time: if the proper checks and balances are in place, I wouldn't give a fuck if Hitler was handling the ballots.

In fact, that might be kind of fun:

"Hey Adolph - run these absentee ballots over to the Clerk's office, why dontcha? And pick me up a latte from Starbucks while you're at it."
Marvell
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6995
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:28 pm
Location: At one with time and space

Postby Pogoagogo » Fri Jun 01, 2007 11:07 am

Rosemary Lee, M. Quigley or Henry Sanders. Good call. All ideologically aligned closely with Zach "Whiny little Bitch" Brandon.

Lots of activists, elected officials and "insiders" work the polls. PM's accusations that Quieto was a PD plant placed to tamper with ballots is coming perilously close to libel.

It is against the law, PM, to falsely and knowingly accuse someone of committing a federal crime.
Pogoagogo
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 335
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 9:49 am
Location: Somewhere between heaven and hell.

Postby VickySelkowe » Fri Jun 01, 2007 12:08 pm

The proposed ordinance has holes so large semi-trucks could drive through them. Lets take a little look at some folks who would NOT be covered by the ordinance:

1. Lori Nitzel, candidate in 2005 and a volunteer on my campaign, could've worked at the polls - and in fact, did, in her very own District 15 - or in the clerk's office. Should we start wondering what she told people who came into the polls about her choice in the election?
2. My husband, Jason Engle, could've worked in the clerk's office under this ordinance...ooh, what could HE have done for me there! Why didn't I think of that!? And oh, hey, Zach Brandon's wife could work in the clerk's office, too. Wow, imagine all the great stuff she could've handed over the counter to Zach when he stopped by?
3. Depending on the exact date of when he got the boot from the Common Sense Coalition, Mike Quigley could've worked at the clerk's office or at a polling place. Quigley's the living breathing definition of a "political operative" - yet the ordinance likely doesn't cover him.
4. Dode or Gretchen Lowe of AFSCME fame could've been election employees and not been covered by the ordinance yet it's abudantly clear that both of 'em are "political operatives" and that they certainly pick sides in local elections.
5. The ordinance would allow Delora Newton, the Chamber's lobbyist, to serve as an election employee...how's that sound?
6. Scott Milfred, WSJ editor and hardly unbiased, could've worked in the clerk's office or at a polling place anywhere he wanted.

Do we really all hold the cynical belief that any and all of these folks are capable of election tampering and that anyone who is, in essence, active & paying attention to local elections, shouldn't be allowed to work at a polling place or work in the clerk's office? And if we really are suspicious that these folks might be tempted to unduly influence elections if they were allowed to work at the polls or in the clerk's office, how in the world do you craft an ordinance to exclude them all? Should we only have people serve as election employees if they can certify that they're loners who don't follow local elections and have no opinions or connections at all to anything related to local elections?

- Vicky (don't worry, I'd be covered by the ordinance)
VickySelkowe
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 10:51 pm
Location: Madison

Postby Brenda Konkel » Fri Jun 01, 2007 1:30 pm

white_rabbit wrote:
Brenda Konkel wrote:
awestra wrote:
pulsewidth modulation wrote:
That's what he said at the ethics hearing while defending his political operative status using a lawyer.


You went to the ethics hearing?


Heh . . . so is pm Rosemary Lee? Or Henry Sanders? Or, better yet, pm is Michael Quigley . . . yeah, that must be it! These are all hilarious possiblities . . .


Well, that seemed to shut up our psycho libertarian friend. Perhaps you hit upon something.


Yes, that was kind of creepy. Must be someone who's close with the Brandon/Quigley/Sanders cabal.
Brenda Konkel
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2424
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 11:35 am

Postby pulsewidth modulation » Fri Jun 01, 2007 1:38 pm

:lol:
pulsewidth modulation
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2451
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2003 11:18 pm

Postby Transfer » Fri Jun 01, 2007 7:04 pm

I'm unaware of the specifics of this ordinance, so please spare me the trolling from both sides here.

Although in no way a comprehensive way to stop fraud in the city clerk's office, would a reasonable first step be a simple ordinance that bans those from volunteering for being a LTE who donate in the same election cycle to a campaign the city clerk oversees? That way it weeds out some of the main arguments used in the Quieto case, while also attempting to uphold the freedom of speech/right to volunteer arguments.

Please no trolling. Thanks.
Transfer
Senior Member
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:53 pm

Postby Brenda Konkel » Fri Jun 01, 2007 7:33 pm

Transfer wrote:I'm unaware of the specifics of this ordinance . . .


There really is no reason to be uninformed.

1. Go to the City's website, www.cityofmadison.com.

2. Once you get there, click on the words City Hall under the picture of the Mayor on the left hand side of the webpage.

3. You will now be in something sometimes called "Legistar". Click on "Legislative Files Search"

4. Type in the word "election". Hit enter.

5. The first thing that you will see listed is:
06493 Ordinance Report of Officer 5/15/2007
Creating Section 3.35( 8 )(g) of the Madison General Ordinances to establish limitations on political and campaign activities of election employees.

6. Click on the File ID number, you will get a whole lot of info about the history of the ordinance and (hopefully!) all the documents that are part of the legislative history.

7. Click on Legislative File Text and you will get the ordinance . . . its less than one page long and quite easy to read, but damn near impossible to understand as it leaves quite a bit left to be interpreted.
Brenda Konkel
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2424
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 11:35 am

Postby Brenda Konkel » Fri Jun 01, 2007 7:44 pm

The ordinance is essentially two sentences with some definitions. The ordinance says:

No person shall be employed by the City as an Election Employee if that person engaged in Political Activity within the twelve (12) months preceding the election.
No person shall be employed by the City as an Election Employee in any Aldermanic District in which the person engaged in Campaign Activity within the twelve (12) months preceding the election.

And the key to understanding those two sentences lie in the definitions as follows:
a. "Election Employee" means any person working for the City of Madison whose duties include the oversight of the conduct of elections or the receipt or review of election filings such as nomination papers or finance reports.
b. "Political Activity" means any of the following activities:
i. Serving as an officer or director of a political party, or,
ii. Serving as an officer or director of a political action committee, a conduit or a sec. 527 committee.
c. "Campaign Activity" means any of the following activities:
i. Serving as an officer or director of a campaign committee, or,
ii. Being a candidate for election.
Brenda Konkel
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2424
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 11:35 am

Postby Transfer » Fri Jun 01, 2007 8:11 pm

And your thoughts on just restricting people who are funding campaigns at the time of their service?

Do other alders, including yourself, intend to propose ordinances which avoid the critiques of over-extension in Brandon's attempt?
Transfer
Senior Member
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:53 pm

Postby Brenda Konkel » Fri Jun 01, 2007 8:31 pm

Transfer wrote:And your thoughts on just restricting people who are funding campaigns at the time of their service?

Do other alders, including yourself, intend to propose ordinances which avoid the critiques of over-extension in Brandon's attempt?


That would be really hard to know who has donated as the final reporting for last April elections aren't due until July . . . and since the state determines when the reports are due, I'm not sure the City can create additional reporting requirements, though I'd have to check with the City Attorney on that. If we could do it, it would require a lot of extra work for the clerk's office to make sure that no one that donated was working at the polls. There are literally thousands of donors with the school board, mayoral and aldermanic elections. And the way this ordinance is written, would you include people who donated to races for president, congress, governor, state assembly etc etc etc?

The problem with Brandon's ordinance is that is both over reaching and full of loopholes. For instance, my favorites are that it doesn't include campaign managers of the campaigns, or spouses and family members of the candidates, or the chairs of the elections committees of the political parties - and these folks are clearly engaged in the types of activities that seem to be so feared by the authors of this ordinance.

It clearly needs more work, or should be shot down. As is, its a joke.
Brenda Konkel
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2424
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 11:35 am

PreviousNext

Return to Local Politics & Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR
Created with flickr badge.

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar