Sunday, August 16, 2015
The Lawsuit .....Mayor Vs. City Council
The BatBlog has obtained a copy of the lawsuit filed on behalf of Jeffersonville mayor Mike Moore against the Jeffersonville City council concerning their (the council's) dual duties as both city council and parks authority. Recent events have shown that this dual responsibility is not in the best interest of the citizen of Jeffersonville and hopefully a judge will rule accordingly.....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm not a lawyer but the suit seems pretty cut and dried. The Parks department looks like to me is operating outside of the law. To me the guidelines are pretty clear and aren't being followed in this case.
ReplyDeleteThings will never change around here, mayor sues council, idiot Hutt sues the city and you know Hutt didn't dream up that lawsuit on his own. It had to be and I'm just guessing L.Wilder who has friends in the city counsel. Sue, sue, sue, if they spent more time adressing the flooding ,sewer bills and other problems than suing each other they could get some things done.
ReplyDeleteI agree the way I read it appears the city council's ordinances establishing itself as the Park's Dept. doesn't meet the parameters set by Indiana code and therefore is illegal. It's interesting to me that the council would even want to have dual responsibilities unless it's political...
ReplyDeleteDo they get payed more for doing both ...does anyone know ???
Seems like just more boring ass meetings to go to....but some of the idiots on this council have an inflated sense of importance, like to micromanage everything, and listen to their selves talk so I guess it makes sense...
Agree with Anon.2 as well Hutt isn't smart enough to think up his frivolous lawsuit ...somebody was more than likely behind the scenes (a Moore enemy) pulling Hutt's strings and telling him what to say....
I hadn't heard about this lawsuit. Does it have a court date?
ReplyDelete$1,000,000 for dressing rooms at the soccer fields?
ReplyDeleteThe mayor is correct to block that.
The mayor is trying to stop
the city council's
ridiculous special interest spending.
Why would the taxpayers have to pay $1,000,000 for dressing rooms for soccer?
They already have nice, new rest rooms there as well.
SMH.
It seems that the city council would have done the right thing and gotten out of the parks business. Wonder why they have continued to spend so many millions on the soccer fields?
ReplyDeleteShouldn't the 'Jeff Typicals/Perennial Candidates'
ReplyDeletelike MH and KV OPPOSE the city council's arrogant spending
for a $1,000,000 DRESSING ROOM?
Oh, well, they liked the excessive plant deal too...
They will probably weirdly sneer at anyone who questions
this spending waste
as well.
.
http://m.newsandtribune.com/news/private-company-to-maintain-th-street-medians-in-jeffersonville/article_9bb5eb70-25c8-11e5-abad-4f7223b2b021.html?mode=jqm
ReplyDeleteIf the council is involved in pending litigation
to ascertain the validity of their acting in dual capacities
in both the Executive Branch and the Legislative branch, simultaneously,
and there is a pending Clark Circuit Court case on the validity of the council
appointing THEMSELVES ("The Nine") to the Parks Authority, why would they enter into a $100,000 yearly maintenance contract for the plant mess on 10th Street?
The council should
ReplyDeletealso stop and think about spending
an additional $1,000,000 for the CONSESSION STAND(?)
at the soccer field through the Parks Authority.
Prudence would dictate
that the spending should be stopped
until the court has ruled.
What if the Indiana statutes are interpreted
that the Parks Authority (aka the city council aka 'The Nine')
does not have the legal authority
to spend all of these
great sums of
money?
If the entire amount of this yearly special spending by the current city council
ReplyDeletewhile also serving on the Parks Authority is in question,
I do wonder why the council has not asked the court
for a decision?
Why are they continuing to operate under this legal cloud?
The city has stated its position and asked
the council to stop.
Wouldn't common sense and an obligation to the taxpayers be reasons
to find out?
That seems pretty simple and expedient.
Seems like the the council is trying to "get er done" while they can.
ReplyDeleteThe Bat Blog
ReplyDeleteis correctly discussing the details of the
questions concerning the legality of the contract
for the 10th Street plants by the possibly voidable action
of the Redevelopment Commission in 2011 and the soccer spending
via the Parks Authority which may not be legally constituted.
Very good journalism!
The Award Winning Bat Blog leads the way and is to be commended!
How come no one is screaming about the wasteful spending on other projects, such as the expensive roof tiles on the buildings at the big 4 landing? How about $200,000 for dredging, and hauling off silt at the new boat docks, and Duffy Landing.
ReplyDelete