Maple City Star
November 17, 2017, 12:43:20 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: SMF - Just Installed!
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Who's running for mayor?  (Read 32438 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
MapleCityStar
Administrator
Newbie
*****
Posts: 23


« on: January 06, 2010, 09:00:09 PM »

At long last, we are in an election year, when the electorate will finally get a few moments of ear time from our politicians. Who might run? We know of at least one person willing to stand up against the lobbyists and secret syndicates to brave the minefield they are likely plotting again in the mayoral race. The only other question is whether Randy Hope will run for re-election once the truth of his term starts coming out. In my opinion, there's plenty the public doesn't know, but I may be biased because I've seen documents they haven't. Wink

What might the mayoral election look like in 2010?
Logged
SurveySez
Newbie
*
Posts: 4


« Reply #1 on: January 18, 2010, 12:25:39 AM »

I here that counciller Tom McGregor fancies a stab at the top job. He should stick to ward 5 on council 'cause he's handling all of Wallaceburg by himself. He'll only split the vote and we HALF TO GET RID OF CLUELESS HOPE! Their isn't anyone on council fit to be Mayor right now but at lease McGregor is a decent counciller. Sulman thinks he can do it but he shoudl be disbarred for helping Mayor Hope muzzle his opponents by having innocent people sued. Sulman should know better then to abusing the court. WE NEED CHANGE!!!
Logged
MacIntosh
Newbie
*
Posts: 6


« Reply #2 on: July 03, 2010, 01:47:51 PM »

Mayoral candidate Ian McLarty has appeared in the media several times in association with John Cryderman's agitations. Looks like he gave up on Randy Hope when he stopped doing what he was told. Watch this guy real careful for more election stunts. All the mayoral candidates should have to disclose who is consulting and advising them.

Anybody has a right to get involved in the election, but stop hiding in the shadows with shady schemes that stretch the rules. Randy Hope was elected under dishonest circumstances so anybody connected to that farce should be soundly defeated. We need to take back contol of government for the people. Cryderman can register as the lobbyist he is and quit tinkering with multiple candidates and meeting with top level administration to issue instructions. Their's a distinct problem when one person is secretly behind half the mayoral candidates and trying to run the municipality without being elected himself.

I'm real curioius who sent Aaron Neaves and Ian McLarty to the court house to watch the Pickard case - and why??
Logged
MacIntosh
Newbie
*
Posts: 6


« Reply #3 on: August 10, 2010, 10:08:47 PM »

Mary Lee? This is another stunt, I know it. Who will Lee endorse when she withdraws? Is she going to promise any government jobs to the other candidates if they step aside? Didn't Randy Hope do everything he was told? The mayoral racejust turned into a 3 ring circus. These fools will set C-K back 30 years. That's probably the plan. What a nightmare. Wake up Chatham and dump these dishonest shysters. I bet they organize another boycott to avoid facing the heat.
Logged
MapleCityStar
Administrator
Newbie
*****
Posts: 23


« Reply #4 on: August 11, 2010, 12:44:39 PM »

Mary Lee seems to attract controversy, and no doubt her motives for entering the mayoral race are not coloured by altruism. She better be ready to answer some tough questions about her influences and involvement with mayor Randy Hope. Maybe she will respond to scrutiny by claiming it's "elder abuse" like she did during the investigation into her election finances, and watch while her friends chill opposition by suing opponents and their families so everyone is too afraid to ask questions.

Being mayor is a responsible position. Randy Hope has not demonstrated an aptitude for anything other than numerous photo-ops. This is what Mary Lee endorsed last time, and it's left Chatham-Kent in poor shape. We need to seriously question her judgment, because she is capable of doing far more harm to this community than hapless Hope. It must be understood that Mary Lee does not come alone.

Her intent is likely to turn the mayoral race into another joke, where apathy works to their advantage in splitting the vote. I have no doubt this is indeed a stunt, and we'll see her drop out again for some reason or another and play the endorsement game, now that Bernard Nayman has legitimized the exploitation of that loophole. She's clearly not running to win.

At any rate, Mary Lee's political activities have been secretive and not transparent like she herself demanded of our leaders. She instructed mayor Hope while he was in office, so at least some of his ideas were likely not his own. Mayor Hope lied to conceal his political influences, and the name on the ballot wasn't entirely who we ended up with. We needn't mention Lee's alleged affiliations with shady citizen's coalitions and a certain coward businessman.

Somebody who telephoned potential candidates in 2006 and told them not to run for mayor, who tried to coerce another candidate to withdraw and endorse Randy Hope with the promise of a municipal job, and who called a journalist to warn them to shut up about publishing truthful comments about herself and Hope, should not be allowed anywhere near the mayor's office. That is the real Mary Lee in action, and I think it's toxic to democracy.
Logged
MapleCityStar
Administrator
Newbie
*****
Posts: 23


« Reply #5 on: September 02, 2010, 04:33:55 PM »

The Chatham Daily News reported on September 1, 2010, that Randy Hope was filing his papers to seek re-election as mayor on Thursday, which he has now formally done.

In comments posted online beneath the article, a blogger asked the media to grill Hope over his connections with other candidates. It suggested local media was too afraid to ask any hard questions of any of the declared candidates. The poster also alleged that the mayor's office may have had something to do with the dissemination of private municipal records which later showed up in an anonymous extortion attempt against another potential mayoral candidate.

Mayor Hope has so far refused to disclose whether anyone was provided with those records, and after a week has not denied the involvement of his office. While this proves nothing, it's surprising he didn't take immediate steps to clear any suspicion.

Another poster commented that they thought Ian McLarty was running as a decoy, and that everyone was talking about Mary Lee probably being up to more tricks. Both have published connections to a person known to be Hope's closest advisor. It suggested the election was becoming a joke.

It's not known whether local media intends to cover the election fairly after their role in tinkering with the election outcome last time. For the past four years, criticism against mayor Hope has been curiously absent in the media, replaced by a record number of staged ribbon-cuttings and photo-ops, along with an obvious editorial slant that just stopped short of looking like open endorsement.

Normally, the media would be interested when anonymous cowards allegedly engage in extortion attempts against a potential mayoral candidate's family timed to intimidate them from running, particularly when it involves judicial proceedings, forged documents, and municipal information that passed through the mayor's office. Not in Chatham-Kent though, where political secrecy appears to be the predominant mode.

This website has conducted months of investigative journalism and promised to tell-all about what mayor Hope and his friends have been up to, so that voters can judge the facts accordingly. Explosive documents were obtained through Freedom of Information requests. Somebody doesn't like that, and local media won't touch it. Instead of using official channels to challenge facts posted elsewhere on this site and recorded in court documents, anonymous cowards have resorted to criminal means to intimidate the journalist.

Perhaps that explains the distortion in other local media. The news they missed could be big enough to draw official attention that's a little harder to intimidate.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!