Saturday, August 23, 2008

There ain't no good guys, there ain't no bad guys; There's only you and me and we just disagree . . .

Let me start with an anecdote.

In litigation, many decisions are left to the discretion of the trial judge. While there are rules guiding who should be allowed to serve on a jury, or what evidence should be allowed to be presented, or dozens of other decisions that get made in the course of bringing a case to trial, many of them are left to the discretion of the trial judge.

When I was a young lawyer, I was helping one of my heroes try a case. After a long day of trial work, I was complaining that the judge had totally blown a decision to our detriment. "Dan, it was a decision within his discretion," he said, taking a drag on his pipe (yes, it was that long ago that he was smoking a pipe in the office). "He has the discretion to be wrong, too."

In other words, the judge's job is to make the decision and my job was to persuade. Complaining after the fact was pointless.

A friend who knows me pretty well emailed me this week asking whether I still support certain city councilmembers after they signed on to the misguided volunteer ordinance. Like me, this person views the attack on volunteers for the city as a premature over-reaction to an undecided lawsuit and a harmful restriction on the role of volunteers in our city. I've written to them all, in a very polite and professional manner, and only one (Jan Marcason) has even bothered to reply. (Yes, I'm disappointed with the other 8, some of whom are quite efficient in writing me when they're seeking support.)

I disagree with people all the time. I strongly disagree with people on occasion. I strongly disagree with nine members of the City Council on this. I've looked at the issue from the idealist perspective, I've looked at it from the practical perspective, I've looked at it from the perspective of a Funkhouser supporter, and I've looked at it from the perspective of how I would feel if someone else were in the Mayor's office, making decisions I would oppose.

It remains my opinion that this is a very bad ordinance, chock-full of unintended consequences and bad results.

But nine city councilmembers disagree with me. And they, in Ted Mullen's description, have the discretion to be wrong.

Does this mean the rest need to be voted out? Does this mean that I can assume that the others are either so stupid they can't see things as clearly as I do, or so fearful of Tony's criticism that they panicked, or that they've joined with the entrenched development crowd to undermine Funkhouser's attempts to stop the give-aways? Are all 9 stupid, panicked and/or corrupt?

Of course not. (Not all 9, anyhow.)

Perhaps, unlikely as it seems, I'm somehow missing out on understanding how throwing up huge, expensive hurdles on volunteerism is actually a good thing.

Perhaps, as happens in real life, inexplicable and apparently wrong steps are taken in a journey toward a greater result.

Perhaps they're just wrong.

For now, I'm going to go with the final explanation. They have the discretion to be wrong, and they blew it.

That doesn't mean that they're bad people, or even bad councilmembers. I disagree with them on this. I disagreed with them on their irrational decision to shower Wayne Cauthen with money and job-security after he had been caught lying on his resume, and several of them now privately admit that they were wrong.

None of us is perfect, city councilmembers and bloggers most definitely included.

If a judge consistently makes bad calls with his or her discretion, smart lawyers start taking a "change of judge" (an automatic right to get the judge changed at the beginning of a case) when that judge gets assigned to their cases. But not after a couple of bad decisions. That's just disagreement - but you learn to be alert for a pattern.

Labels: , , ,

47 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

What's the deal with Tony getting a copy of the voice-mail message from Squitiro?

8/23/2008 12:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And they, in Ted Mullen's description, have the discretion to be wrong. "

As do you.

8/23/2008 1:17 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Anonymous 12:57 - Kind of proves my point that some of the councilwomen are enthralled with Tony, doesn't it? He rules their world . . .

Anonymous 1:17 - You're absolutely right that I have the discretion to be wrong, and I exercise it once in a great while.

8/23/2008 3:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

But surely not Beth's world? Didn't he make posts on his blog that she did not appreciate?

8/23/2008 4:16 PM  
Anonymous gmc70 said...

Dan - be careful. Soon you'll be seen as reasonable.

And we can't have that.

We know how bad that can be.

;-)

8/23/2008 7:01 PM  
Anonymous Joe Smith said...

Just when I thought Dan was going off the deep end, he comes back with a reasonable post.

Dan, I wish you would cut to the chase on the volunteer ordinance. The ordinance has less to do with regulating volunteers and everything to do with getting Gloria out of city hall.

At least some of the council has been honest in admitting that. Since getting Gloria out is the real goal. Do you think the city council is wrong in trying to remove Gloria or only wrong in their methods?

I also emailed the my council women and only Jan replied.

8/23/2008 9:38 PM  
Blogger Xavier Onassis said...

Joe Smith - "The ordinance has less to do with regulating volunteers and everything to do with getting Gloria out of city hall."

Exactly. If either Mark or Gloria had the common sense to realize how much damage they were doing to themselves and to the city, this ordinance would not be neccessary.

I hope Gloria is forcibly escorted out of the building. That seems to be the only way to drive home the message that you can't just bring your wife (or husband) to work with you as a "volunteer" and let them boss people around and behave in an inappropriate manner that would get an actual employee fired.

It is such blatant f*cking bullsh*t. No one, in any other government or corporate office would be allowed to behave this way.

8/23/2008 10:02 PM  
Anonymous try2 said...

When the volunteer wife of the mayor acts in the supervisory role over city employees, and then is charged with a discrimination/ harassment suit, I think we would all agree we have a problem.

It does not matter if Gloria is innocent or not, the risk of the presence of the situation causes the city liability.

And the city does not have a volunteer policy.

I'll provide another example of an analogous situation outside of politics.

Weebles. They wobble but they don't fall down, right?

A small child plays with a small Weeble, swallows the Weeble and almost chokes to death.

What to do? The child didn't die, so, no harm no foul, correct?

Incorrect.

A dangerous situation arose, presenting a risk. A prudent move would be to put in a policy that minimizes the risk of children choking. A warning to prevent toddlers younger than 6 from playing with the toy could be an option. Or the product could be recalled if the risk seemed great enough. But some action was deemed appropriate.

Was it a vendetta against that Weeble?

Who cares?

The situation itself had to be addressed.

And here's the rub: anybody experienced in workplace litigation (Dan is obviously not in that company) know that the definition of an offensive statement never, EVER, is based upon the intent and opinion of the issuer of the statement.

It is defined by the person who receives, or simply overhears, the statement and considers it offensive.

Hate to surprise you Dan, but there are still people around who say the N word and will look you in the eye and tell you they don't consider it offensive.

Gloria called (as Funk has publicly admitted on broadcast radio) a black female in her office, under her authority, "Mammy".

Do you understand, Dan, that it is still a problem, a HUGE problem, that Gloria said that and that Ruth Bates took offense?

I went through training about this very problem more than 15 years ago in management training from a corporation here in Kansas City.

Do you know why?

Somewhere, someone made a seemingly “innocent” statement and got sued, so the company amended it's workplace policy to minimize risk.

Go figure.

8/23/2008 10:38 PM  
Anonymous try2 said...

XO - you're exactly fright. I have fired people for behaving just like she has.

But of course, she would have been fired even before she opened her mouth because of standard business no-nepotism policies.

Kansas City hasn't been a family business since the Pendergast era.

8/23/2008 10:41 PM  
Anonymous try2 said...

XO - you're exactly fright. I have fired people for behaving just like she has.

But of course, she would have been fired even before she opened her mouth because of standard business no-nepotism policies.

Kansas City hasn't been a family business since the Pendergast era.

8/23/2008 10:41 PM  
Anonymous try2 said...

lol "right" not fright hit the return key to quick.

8/23/2008 10:42 PM  
Anonymous Lance Weber said...

Nice post, Dan.

The law has been proposed to remedy a situation involving one person. So says the Mayor and nobody sincerely denies it.

Bills of Attainder are prohibited for a very good reason. The proposed ordinance isn't technically a BOA but everyone acknowledges that it is designed to affect one person.

Something seems wrong about that.

Where are the leaders in this town? If Gloria is such a problem, why won't someone simply stand up and say so and lay the blame where it belongs? Is the case against her that weak? If so then it is duplicitous to force her out under the pretext of improving the City's volunteer policy.

Is it too much work to collect 16,950 signatures or is there something about this serious issue that the public would fail to understand?

Anon @ 12:57 - PrimeBuzz said Beth Gottstein was the recipient of the Squitiro voicemail. She said she couldn't discuss pending litigation. Has she explained how the VM got into Tony's possession? That issue doesn't seem related to the case and I have to admit I am curious to know what happened there.

8/24/2008 12:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If one can't comment on pending litigation, can they still allegedly distribute a copy of a voice-mail message?

8/24/2008 3:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why should Beth reply when you've labeled her and others the "kneejerk nine"?

8/24/2008 3:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If Gloria is such a problem, why won't someone simply stand up and say so and lay the blame where it belongs?"

They have, on several occasions.

However, since Gloria is a "volunteer", I believe the options to remedy the situation are limited.

8/24/2008 7:13 AM  
Anonymous Dan's Inner Self said...

MMMMMM Good Kool Aid Gloria. May I have some more? Now, let's play with the serpents! Only those with true Funkadelectable faith will handle the serpents!

(My God if I do not do this I will have to admit I was wrong about these kooks!)

More Kool Aid NOW Gloria!

8/24/2008 7:50 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

This post was really intended to focus on how to respond to representatives when they have made a mistake, but it appears some of you still want to argue about whether it was a mistake.

XO - You know I think you're a great blogger, but it's cute how you can't break out of your attempt to analogize the situation to your own world, even when your conclusions are transparently false. Do you honestly think that a CEO's spouse could not "boss people around" in the executive suite? Do you think that a senior partner's administrative assistant in a large law firm is free to disregard the orders of the senior partner's spouse concerning setting up travel plans, or catering for the holiday party? Really?

And, within the world of government, do you honestly believe that Nancy Reagan and Hillary Clinton did not get people fired? Really? Do you think that Melanie Blunt doesn't boss people around and behave inappropriately?

Try2 - your comment goes to the logic of the situation. You're almost on the right path. Looking past the current situation (though we all agree that this is a law directed at one person), is this ordinance a good law?

You think it is, because there is no regulation of volunteers right now. That's a good point - I agree that we should come up with a good ordinance directed at effective volunteer management. This is clearly not such an ordinance - that's why Marcason was forced to amend it to make it inapplicable to the Parks Department, which used thousands of volunteers. If it were a good ordinance, wouldn't we want to apply it broadly?

Now, I call on you to think about this - is the claimed problem (though you quite reasonably acknowledge that it hasn't been proven yet) rooted in the fact that Gloria is a volunteer? If she were being paid, could the situation not be the same? Would a paycheck have prevented this unproven occurrence?

Of course not. But, if you're clever, you're thinking "Hey, hold it, she wouldn't be eligible to get a paycheck, because of nepotism laws!" Gold star for you - good thinking.

But, now let's look at THAT answer. Is Gloria's marital status truly, truly the point here? If someone else in the Mayor's office were accused of the same conduct, would it be any less of a problem? If it were Joe Miller facing the accusations, would the situation be any less problematic?

To make the circumstances perhaps even more clear, a prior mayor had an aide who was found liable for slander, but who was not the subject of a council attempt to have him removed from the office. Similarly, a prior mayor had a resident volunteer who directed funds and set up sweet-heart deals for friends, but the council never challenged his volunteer role, which certainly included directing the staff of the mayor (including the mayor, at times). Would it help if Gloria was a real estate lawyer?

Again - I don't want to argue the merits of Gloria's role in the mayor's office here - this is simply logic.

Is the real problem that Gloria is not paid? No.

Is the real problem that Gloria is a relatvie? No.

Is the real problem that Gloria has been found liable for bad acts? No.

Is the real problem that a bunch of councilmembers can't handle the heat generated by a persistent blogger? Hmmm . . .

Is the real problem that some people are unhappy with the fact that the people elected Funk instead of the favorite of the insiders, and now they want to do anything they can to distract, divide, and undermine? Hmmm . . .

8/24/2008 9:43 AM  
Anonymous Joe Smith said...

To make the circumstances perhaps even more clear, a prior mayor had an aide who was found liable for slander, but who was not the subject of a council attempt to have him removed from the office. Similarly, a prior mayor had a resident volunteer who directed funds and set up sweet-heart deals for friends, but the council never challenged his volunteer role, which certainly included directing the staff of the mayor (including the mayor, at times). Would it help if Gloria was a real estate lawyer?

The old council didn't do their jobs. That is why we got such bad TIFF deals. You can't chastise former councils for giving bad TIFF deals, then hold them up as shining examples when they ignored improprieties in the mayors office.

Is the real problem that Gloria has been found liable for bad acts? No.

So if it is proven that Gloria did make the sexual/racial comments in the mayor's office, will you ask that she leave?

8/24/2008 10:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Is the real problem that a bunch of councilmembers can't handle the heat generated by a persistent blogger?"

Is the real problem a blogger so blinded by loyalty to the co-Mayors that he can't see the problems the Mayor's wife is causing?

"I don't want to argue the merits of Gloria's role in the mayor's office here"

Because you can't....

"Do you think that a senior partner's administrative assistant in a large law firm is free to disregard the orders of the senior partner's spouse concerning setting up travel plans, or catering for the holiday party?"

Apples and oranges....

8/24/2008 11:16 AM  
Anonymous Joe Smith said...

If it were Joe Miller facing the accusations, would the situation be any less problematic?

If Joe Miller had been doing those things, I would hope he would have been fired.

And, within the world of government, do you honestly believe that Nancy Reagan and Hillary Clinton did not get people fired? Really? Do you think that Melanie Blunt doesn't boss people around and behave inappropriately?

So your defense of Gloria is that other wives were just as bad?

Hillary was investigated by the FBI for having people fired people. Remember Travelgate?

Nancy Reagan. I don't remember Ronald Reagan ever saying to Tip O'Neill, "Nancy speaks for me".

Melanie Blunt. Are you really saying that it is ok for Gloria to behave inappropriately, just because Melanie Blunt did? If Melanie Blunt jumped off a cliff, would Gloria do the same thing?

It seems that you are now saying that even if Gloria did all the things (sexual comments, racial slurs, etc..), you believe it is ok. Because other wives were just as bad.

Your whole argument for defending Gloria can be boiled down to a schoolyard taunt of "she did it first."

8/24/2008 2:07 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Is it really possible to misread my comment so badly, and still be acting in good faith? I really don't see how it is.

My point is that neither volunteer status nor relative status is the "problem" they are attempting to solve. The "problem", as they will admit, is that they want Gloria out, and not because she is a volunteer nor because she is a relative.

They want her out for other reasons, and the ordinance is an inappropriate tool for that goal.

(The fact that they are doing so based on unproven allegations hyped by a blogger with an agenda just makes them look even more foolish.)

8/24/2008 4:41 PM  
Anonymous Joe Smith said...

(The fact that they are doing so based on unproven allegations hyped by a blogger with an agenda just makes them look even more foolish.)

So if the allegations are true, do you believe that Gloria should go?

8/24/2008 5:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe Beth didn't receive your letter?

8/24/2008 6:03 PM  
Anonymous Jayhoax said...

"They want her out for other reasons"

Because she is an embarrassment to the city.

"The fact that they are doing so based on unproven allegations hyped by a blogger with an agenda"

I'll second the question. If the allegations are proved, will you ask for Gloria to go?

8/24/2008 6:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I've looked at the issue from the idealist perspective, I've looked at it from the practical perspective, I've looked at it from the perspective of a Funkhouser supporter, and I've looked at it from the perspective of how I would feel if someone else were in the Mayor's office, making decisions I would oppose."

Sure you have Dan. Vocally opposing the Mayor a grand total of zero times really shows that.

So are you now saying that elected officials listen to bloggers?

Thanks for defending racism at the courthouse.

8/24/2008 10:21 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Anonymous 10:21 - If you paid attention, you'd see I have a pretty solid history of opposing Funk when he's been wrong. I just don't suffer from mob mentality.

As for the hypotheticals, let's just see what happens, alright? Will you agree if there is no factual determination by a court of law that she should be allowed to stay? If so, do you oppose the ordinance?

8/25/2008 12:49 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

Anonymous 6:03 -

I suppose that's a possibility - never been a problem before, and someone else is reporting that their letter went unacknowledged accept for by Jan Marcason. Regardless, it's not really that big a deal, though it is surprising.

8/25/2008 1:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why not resend the letter just to make sure it is received?

8/25/2008 1:25 AM  
Anonymous whistleblowme said...

"Accept"?!

Dan, you hardly ever make grammatical errors. Maybe you shouldn't be commenting at 1 in the morning - especially after a kick-ass Bruce show!

8/25/2008 9:05 AM  
Anonymous joe smith said...

Vocally opposing the Mayor a grand total of zero times really shows that.
Dan did eventually come around on Semler. I can't think of another time though.

Will you agree if there is no factual determination by a court of law that she should be allowed to stay?

That is a cop out. So if the city settles, we will never have a factual determination by a court of law.

How about just a simple, if she did it then she should not be allowed to stay.

If so, do you oppose the ordinance?

I think the ordinance should be thought out a lot more. It is a pretty big change and could use a lot more vetting. I like the spirit of the ordinance though.

8/25/2008 9:23 AM  
Anonymous try2 said...

The merits of the ordinance have nothing to do with whether Gloria is innocent or guilty.

They have everything to do with the very presence of the lawsuit.

This is much more than a fine point -

Most people would agree that it exposes the city to unnecessary risk to have volunteers in supervisory situations (superising the daily, day-in-day-out activities of employees) that expose the city to workplace lawsuits. Especially when their only credentials for management are their marriage to the Mayor.

The mere presence of the lawsuit, against a volunteer department head, is what creates the unnecessary risk.

So, with this ordinance a future Mayor, or any future city employee/manager, cannot come in to city hall and make a family member a volunteer functional department head.

It happened once, shame on them (Funk and Gloria).

If it happens again, shame on city council.

Most reasonable people would agree with this.

8/25/2008 11:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How does the volunteer status of Gloria make a lawsuit any more or less possible? If your logic were sound, wouldn't companies who don't use volunteers be entirely safe from employment litigation?

Most reasonable people know you're grasping at straws.

8/25/2008 11:44 AM  
Anonymous try2 said...

No no no, anon at 11:44.

No straws involved.

Volunteers in management roles are the worst thing, ever, for quite a few reasons.

I won't bore everybody with the reasons.

I mean really, who would advocate for a policy at city hall of using volunteer family members to manage city departments?

On the plus side it would certainly save the city a lot of money.

If you are advocating that, anon at 11:44, you almost certainly are the one grasping at straws.

If you are not advocating that, and if you are saying we should have a policy that forbids family members from supervising city departments on a daily basis, then we have something in common!

This may seem like an odd policy. But it's happening right now.

If it ever happens again, shame on our city for permitting it to happen again.

Without a policy in place and this precedent established, Wayne Cauthen could, in good conscience, bring his volunteer wife in to manage the City Planning Department on a daily basis! (wait a minute, try2 asks her/himself, wouldn't that be an actual improvement? - anyhoo! you get my point!)

Sincerely,

try2Bobjective

8/25/2008 12:11 PM  
Anonymous jo said...

It happened once, shame on them (Funk and Gloria).

If it happens again, shame on city council.


The same thinking got lawn darts banned. AND I AM STILL PISSED ABOUT THAT!

I agree that laws like the council proposes may help stem future lawsuits.

But is a pound of prevention worth an ounce of cure? How much red tape do we go through in our daily lives just hopefully prevent a future law suit.

The hot topic right now is photo id for voting. Sure making photo ids required may prevent 1 person a year from illegally voting, but it will prevent many more honest citizens from voting. Many big name Democrats are saying that it is better to let 1 or 2 people vote illegally, then prevent a few thousand honest people from voting.

We can't say that just because the ordinance will prevent future lawsuits , the council must adopt it.

How about we get cost benefit analysis? How much will the training cost over the next 10 years? How much is it estimated to save the city in legal fees?

You could be correct and the training could be the cheaper route, or it could be that lawsuits like this are so rare it is not needed.

8/25/2008 12:53 PM  
Anonymous try2 said...

Training and the scope of volunteer orientation are very much important issues.

Those are good points that are being considered - I believe the orientation of the volunteer will be directly proportional to their involvement (recall the three classes of volunteers).

Also note that the Park & Rec dept is governed differently, and they will be adopting a policy, just a slightly modified version of it.

The Parks Commission president and Meg Conger (Parks Board member) have come out publicly in favor of the ordinance and a more comprehensive volunteer policy.

Without a doubt, additional input and thought and criticism will definitely make this a better ordinance.

8/25/2008 1:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Which department does she head? The answer is "none".

So much disinformation and hatred . . .

8/25/2008 3:32 PM  
Anonymous try2 said...

There you Funkettes go again, screaming "HATER!!!" every time someone criticizes Funk.

She's the actual, functioning chief of staff - the Mayor's staff.

She interviews job candidates for his group - she even asks the ages of the people she intefviews.

She has daily nicknames and daily interactions with all of the staff - which gave rise to the numerous accusations in the lawsuit.

She prioritizes the daily work of the staff.

In the words of Mark Funkhouser, our mayor, she has been central to every project or issue and every success the Mayor has had!!!

His words, not mine.

She is so essential to the functioning of the Mayor's office that Funk has publicly announced he will break the law to keep her there on the 29th floor, 8am-5pm, every single day of the week.

Sounds like we have a very engaged wife who runs the show on the 29th floor.

8/25/2008 3:52 PM  
Anonymous Try2BBusted said...

You're making stuff up and relying on unproven allegations. She's not the Chief of Staff, and she heads no department.

Shame on you.

8/25/2008 5:58 PM  
Anonymous try2 said...

Hmmm. Then what does she do?

She has to do something to be the essential ingredient too all of the administration's successes.

I didn't make that up.

She has to do something to be worth breaking the law, as Funkhouser has stated.

I didn't make that up.

She interviews candidates for jobs in the mayor's office.

I didn't make that up.

She's there 8-5 every day.

I didn't make that up.

She recommends Mayoral appointments.

I didn't make that up.

Oh, that's right, she does all this as a volunteer. That must mean she doesn't have any authority in the 29th floor.

Is that what you're trying to say?

8/25/2008 7:20 PM  
Anonymous Try2BBusted said...

Not at all! Don't be ridiculous. She has approximately the same power that Herb Kohn had in the prior mayor's office.

But she doesn't head up a department, does she? So you got caught lying there, didn't you?

She's not the Chief of Staff, is she?

That's what you made up, and what I busted you for.

8/25/2008 8:28 PM  
Anonymous try2 said...

Well, believe whatever you want to believe. Keep up Gloria's defense if that's what you believe is right.

8/25/2008 9:37 PM  
Anonymous try2 said...

I'm live blogging Michelle Obama's speech. As I watch her I am incredibly impressed - and she reminds me a lot of Gloria.

:o)

8/25/2008 9:52 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Let me jump in for Try2BBusted here, since he or she did such a find job of destroying your lies -

Believe what you want to believe?!?

Is that the best you've got? Because you got caught lying - you lied about Gloria being the head of a department, or being Chief of Staff. You just made that up!

No, this is not a case of "believe what you want to believe"! It's a case of believe the truth, or fall for a lie.

8/25/2008 9:53 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Me too, Try2.

You're absolutely correct.

8/25/2008 9:55 PM  
Anonymous try2 said...

Dan,

You actually maintain, seriously, that Michelle Obama, and her speech tonight, remind you of Gloria?

That's all I had to hear!!!

I hope your belief works out well for you.

I'll just add that my conclusion is that she is the functional Chief of Staff. That is my belief, and I'll stand by it. And she's lousy at it btw.

And there is a ton of evidence that would lead a reasonable person to that conclusion.

(and by the way, in case you didn't realize it, but I'm not the only one who thinks that!)

But Dan your, opinion that Gloria reminds you alot of Michelle Obama is quite intriguing.

I REALLY REALLY need to talk about that.

Michelle Obama has a Harvard law degree, big law firm experience, and has dedicated her life to community activism. She has been very successfulk community activist and contributor.

Gloria is a mid-wife, and only entered the public/community arena when her husband was elected last year. And boy, she hasn't done a very good job.

Wait a minute!!!

They both are female, and they have two kids!!!

That must have been what you meant.

8/25/2008 10:49 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Oh, Try2, you live in a humorless world, don't you? You claimed she reminded you a lot of Gloria, and I agreed with you. Now you're jumping on me for agreeing with you - sheesh.

As for your unproven claim that Gloria is the Chief of Staff, your unproven claim that other people think she is (after you and others have lied about her role) doesn't make it so. But you also claimed she heads a department - what department does she head?

Finally, you say you were live-blogging the speech. Where's your blog? I would to read it!

8/26/2008 5:54 AM  
Anonymous try2 said...

lol, I do need to start a blog, but it would not be as good as yours.

My suppositions on Gloria's role are based upon real data, and I have reached a reasonable conclusion - that other informed people can, legitimately, disagree with.

She does not have the formal title of "Chief of Staff", but to hopefully establish some common ground, I think all of us can agree that to one extent or the orther she has a management role in the Mayor's office.

8/26/2008 8:33 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home