Why does this story apprear in today's paper? The story basically asking if Tim Little has a conflict of interest in the gambling report investigation on Bergson.
It seems now that city councilor Little may have had a relationship with the second highest paid worker for the gambling council.
Okay here is the thing, when you read the story they talk about that he voted for the grants for gambling council well he was in a relationship with the vice president of the gambling council. What effects does this have on the investigation of the state report? Simple nothing.
The fact that he had a relationship with the vice president of the gambling council means maybe at best he should not have voted on the councils grant. With that said I don't have a major problem with him voting or not voting on the grants. If this is a conflict at all you must look at the big picture here and ask your self something.
The questions that needs to be asked is this, do I believe that the city council has members that may have conflicts of interest? My answer is yes. The biggest being councilor Johnson. She has a conflict with the unions and the city deals with union issues all the time much more then they will ever with the gambling council.
Back to the question of why does this story run now?
Why now, is it because Little is in a fight to become a judge and the paper wants to make an issue out of a little thing? Yes. All you have to is go look at the article and see that the pic they choose to run was his campaign office.
They did not choose to run a pic of him in council chambers or any other.
Here is the link to the story. http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/15395660.htm
Right leaning blogs.
Left Leaning Blogs.
-
It's not Roe, privacy is lost. - I care about life before birth, beginning with the moment of conception. I find abortion a reprehensible practice. All life is sacred. But that's my faith,...2 years ago
-
-
Other blogs and pages.
-
going to wedding1 week ago
-
Coexistence in the Gardens1 month ago
-
2 comments:
Well, I'm in partial agreement, but mostly disagreement with you on this one. Regarding calling for some investigation, or at least review, of the mayor's actions with the gambling council report, I don't have a big problem with Tim Little doing that. That is a legitimate issue in and of itself, even if Councilor Little's motivations might be colored by his personal connections/relationships. But let's be straight that his motivations likely were certainly colored by his connection. But so be it.
Regarding his voting for the money, that is a problem. First off, he was in an extramarital affair. That questions his character right there. Second, men do things out of a few basic motivations: power, money, sex. As soon as Councilor Little voted for the funding and then kept on the issue, one seriously has to question his ongoing motivations, judgement and integrity. At least I do.
Other councilor conflicts? They probably are there. But two wrongs don't make a right. Councilor Johnson could be taking kickbacks from the unions, for all I know, but that doesn't excuse Councilor Little's poor judgement. I can't trust a guy in that position. Sorry. For guy to let himself get into the middle of something so messy, through his actions and judgement, I can't trust him to be a judge.
Chris,
As the day has gone on I have had some time to think about this issue.
Now I maintain that the paper broke this story for a reason. It was to make a point out of Little.
As far as I am consernd as well, his now soon to be ex-wife works for paper and I don't believe her, when she says she had nothing to do with this.
She refuses to make any public command but yet I am sure she made plenty of "private" comments to co-workers.
I will not stand up for councilor Little as far as the cheating goes.
I don't believe his motives for the inverstigation are do to the relationship with the women. That may be wish full thinking on my part, I also don't see a conflict of interest as part of a relationship.
Post a Comment