Rosado's Ordinance 48-05
Council member Rosado is sponsoring an ordinance for voluntary background checks for city elected offices. This will come before city council on August 8. How ironic it is for Rosado, the same person who created the problem by lying about his background when he ran for office is now sponsoring an ordinance to protect us, the electorate, from people like him who lie to get elected.Update: On 8/8/05 City council voted 5-3 against this ordinance. Rosado said; "I'm looking to build trust with the citizens of Cape Coral..." He also said; "If that shield guard had been there for me, it would have prevented me from making the error."
Opinion: It's clear from Rosado's comments that he continues to blame others for the FACT that he lied to the public. Would the "shield guard," as he put it, prevented him from trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the voters. He lied to the public, no one did that for him. If Mickey is truly looking to "build trust" with the citizens of Cape Coral he can still do so by resigning. I for one could never again trust Rosado as an elected representative serving the public.
RL
posted by Civic at 6/29/2005 01:12:00 PM
6 Comments:
ROSADO CANOT PUT TWO WORDS TOGETHER INTELLIGENTLY! THE ONLY PERSON HE IS IMPRESSING IS HIMSELF!
There already is a state law (SS 817.567) on the books that prohibits
one from making false claims (Misdemeanor - First Degree, FALSE
CLAIM-ACADEMIC DEGREE OR TITLE) as Rosado well found out. He was
convicted and fined for this offense.
If Rosado is trying to set an example and be a "trend setter" he could have done us all a favor by resigning. That would have shwn leadership!
Cape Ordinance regurgitated by tarnished Council Member?
There is an old saying "The Masses are Asses"
Council Member Tim Day, from District 6, originally brought this background ordinance forward, It WAS VOTED DOWN!
Rosado, ironically picked up the deflated ball, pumped it up for whatever self serving reasons and is presenting it to the masses.
I wonder if he ever get his college degree?
Many wonder why Council Member Tim Day didn't reintroduce it? After all, It was his idea. He now has a new council that may be convinced to see it his way. After all, His ordinance on informing the public of "WHO" really is living next to their children easily passed. He appears to stand for "Full Disclosure" of relevant and pertinent information being given, some say spoon fed, to the masses. The public has a right to know, but where is the line drawn on personal data about elected officials, government employees or even the residents at large? The issue is even more in your face when you consider "Homeland Security" ramifications. Is the joke on those "Masses"?
I feel the original ordinance doesn't go far enough and I will tell you why.
Remember now, the Supreme court has judged your home is not your castle, so this reasoning just "Goes with the Flow"
Our 8 elected Humans and City Staff pilot and guide the Cape Coral City Government Bus.
We are all just passengers along for the ride of our lives, sometimes.
If you ride an airplane, you have a reasonable expectation that the pilot and staff are certified competent, drug free, possess valid credentials, mentally stable and possibly not a convicted felon.
Council Members are responsible to approve and decide how to spend almost 400 million of our Taxpayer dollars.
This ordinance should also apply to sitting Council Members and be mandatory disclosure, What do they have to hide?
A comprehensive thorough background check on all candidates and City managerial staff is just COMMON SENSE.
Candidates, elected officials and City managerial staff should welcome the scrutiny. What is there to hide?
If you get right down to it, you can find out ANYTHING about ANYBODY because our lives are stored in bits & bytes, period!
So, Why should voters have to attempt to do all that home work? (Remember Council Member Tim Day reasoned people don't have the time or ability or resources to do their home work on sexual predators, which in our current society is either true OR indicates The Masses are LAZY? OR both! We as a citizen Taxpayers should be suspicious if candidates, elected officials and city managerial staff objected to being certified "Fit for public service" by the background check scrutiny. Yes, we are all concerned about privacy rights and that is a valid point also.
Now, There is a major difference in Joe 6-pack's privacy rights and the rights of persons that want to work FOR and or control the Public's money. That is what PUBLIC means! OPEN and Available!
I think Cape Coral Council Member Tim Day's original efforts to hold future Cape Coral Council candidates to a "HIGHER STANDARD" is a step in the right direction. I would also suggest "MANDATORY" drug testing for all candidates and random follow up to those that have been elected and work for the public. Ditto, for City managerial staff. If one is CLEAN, "NO PROBLEM". If One is truthful, "NO PROBLEM". Then, ALL elected officials would be Pre-Screened for the Public's Future Benefit.
I ask, Do citizens want drug addicted, lying, false credentials, felon, incompetent persons running their city?
Making decisions that effect their very lives?
That is the bus we could be riding if such a background check policy is not instituted.
That is a bus I don't want to willingly ride, but who knows, WE MAY BE ON IT right now!
ALL Public servants need to be held accountable to the PUBLIC they serve.
Comprehensive thorough background checks on all candidates and City managerial staff is long overdue!
Sam DuPont,
Cape Coral
Anonymous said...
Rosado needs to realize that Credibility is like Virginity....
Once lost it can never be regained.
Sponsoring this ordinance will not regain his credibility.
The following is a column written by Charley Reese
Should Your Personal Life Be An Affair Of State?
Should your personal life be an affair of state? That's what divides libertarians and true conservatives from the modern Jacobins who falsely wear the label of "liberal" or "moderate."
The libertarian/true-conservative position is that your private and personal affairs are not the business of the state as long as you refrain from applying force or fraud against your fellow citizens. The Jacobin position is that your life belongs to the state and your personal interests may be sacrificed for the common good, which, of course, the Jacobins will define.
The most recent example was the Supreme Court decision that the state may take your property not for any traditional public purpose, such as a school or road, but simply because the politicians want to hand it over to developers who will put more expensive buildings on it. The fact that a family may have worked a lifetime to acquire their home or small business, faithfully paid their taxes and obeyed the laws means nothing. To the Jacobin, the end always justifies the means.
Jefferson Davis, one of America's greatest statesmen, said after the Northern victory that a question settled by force will always arise again in another form and in another time. He was right. The same division that was present at the Constitutional Convention, that was argued almost continuously during the early days of the republic and that led to war between the North and South remains with us yet.
That question is, Do you want a strong central government or a weak central government acting as an agent for sovereign states with clearly defined and limited powers? The North stood for the central government, the South for the confederation. Unfortunately the manpower and industrial might decided the issue in favor of a centralized government. Just as several Confederate leaders predicted, this quickly evolved into empire and imperial wars.
The next war was indeed a war for empire — the Spanish-American War — and was immediately followed by another war that put the lie to the claim of liberating people from Spain. That war was the Philippine Insurrection, in which we crushed those who wanted true independence. It was, by the way, far bloodier than the war against a very weak Spain. Every war since has been a clash of empires, including World War II.
What Americans need to realize is that it is impossible to increase government power without decreasing individual liberty. Government power, after all, means coercing people into doing some things and into refraining from doing other things. Every law says to the citizen, "You must" or "You shall not." Thus, liberty is lost incrementally, law by law by law. Dictatorships do not arise from dictators' telling people what terrible things they plan to do; all dictatorial power is built on a promise of good things — safety, security, prosperity.
Power rests either with the people or with the government; it cannot reside in both at the same time. Power is like electricity and is never still. It is always flowing in one direction or the other. Power is more seductive and addictive than cocaine. These are basic principles based on human nature and are as true today as they were in classical Rome.
As a true conservative with a strong libertarian streak, I fear government more than terrorists and criminals. Random acts by random individuals with no army and no air force can be dealt with much more easily than actions by a government backed up by military and police power. In recent years, federal law enforcement has expanded to the point where there is now an equivalent of five military divisions armed and invested with the power to make arrests.
The problem with freedom is that it is a two-sided coin. On one side is the liberty to make decisions; on the other is responsibility. I pray we have not reached the point where more Americans fear responsibility than love liberty. As many have said before, those willing to sacrifice freedom for security will end up with neither.
Interesting opinion in the Breeze today;
Rosado's ordinance was referred to as being his "political rehabilitation"
Post a Comment
<< Home