April 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

« Mayoral candidate forum | Main | Waiting still »

Sep 18, 2007


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


"The excuses being offered for further delay are not legitimate."

I wonder if Allen Johnson got that message tonight.


"Mitch is John Dean, Wray is Archibald Cox, the City Council are Haldeman and Erlichman."

For those who don't remember, let the record show that Dean, Haldeman, and Ehrlichman all went to prison.

Cox got fired.

Fred Gregory


You want to know who is playing Nixon?...Well I think that was revealed on another post's thread when Jeffrey Sykes made the following comment on Mayor Holliday's column in the N & R .

Sykes: " In light of Wray's attorney's statement in today's paper, is this not the most dishonest statement made by a public official since Nixon's " I am not a crook " ?

Asked and answered.


When can we expect Holliday to resign?

The CA

I don't think Holliday is Nixon. Nixon is the one pulling the strings with something to hide.

wayne stutts

Holliday, Sandy Carmany and Tom Phillips should resign immediately, but not before they fire Linda Miles and Mitchell Johnson. the worst city administration ever. What a bunch of liars.

Sandy Carmany

I am NOT looking at this issue as the "council being our parents." I am merely struggling to do my best not to screw up a complicated legal situation -- PERIOD! For God's sake -- don't you think I would tell anything/everything I knew if I could and end these merciless attacks on my integrity and motives, being called a liar, if I could? But I absolutely refuse to knowingly undermine the legal cases that are being built and the "fluid" situation of the investigations (interpretation -- "they aren't necessarily finished yet, folks" -- putting my own personal considerations ahead of what is best for the city and the final resolution of these issues. Thus I will continue to honor the state and federal requests for the withholding of certain information and try to survive the abuse.

Why the "adjusted" rationales? -- To adjust to the shifting circumstances and unforeseen situations. While we councilmembers have reaffirmed our intent to release everything we can that does not put us afoul of state and federal prosecutorial authorities, we were obviously naive in earlier statements that we would release the information as soon as the SBI investigations were complete -- certainly did not think about evidence and facts needed in court proceedings etc. And if you want to use a nit-picky technicality, it is my understanding that there are still a number of active investigations.

NO, I have not seen the Walt Jones letter, and I do not know if any other councilmembers have either. As much as as bloggers would like to think otherwise, the vast majority of citizens do NOT use our blogs as sources of information. I am not aware of any other councilmembers who read the blogs and Ben's is certainly not on my "reading list." I have heard of the letter through these comments but have NOT seen it. Besides, I can't understand why Mr. Jones did not mail his letters directly to council members if he really wanted us to see them -- our addresses are certainly public record.

But for purposes of responding to blog comments, it won't matter if and when I do receive it. As I stated in an earlier comment, I have received an explanation from Linda Miles about it but am not going to put myself in the untenable position of repeating it and being attacked again as a mouthpiece for doing so -- no more middleman stuff for me. Plese seek your answers straight from the involved person(s).

The CA

Sandy, you can find it on Ben's site if you are interested, which you are apparently not because it doesn't implicate David Wray.

The City Attorney works for the people. She has said something that has raised a whole lot of suspicions. You are supposed to represent the people. It is not up to us to get an explanation from Linda Miles. That is your job. And considering she has given you an explanation, you owe it to the people who elected you to answer the questions about it and her response instead of merely saying "go figure it out yourself". What if Linda doesn't want to give an answer about it? How can she be held accountable except through people like you?

Here's an idea- call her in front of the Council in a public session so she can be asked about it- then you won't be in the middle as you fear, and the public's questions about her unseemly comments can be answered. Otherwise, unless someone on the Council forces her to go public explaining the comments, we will never know the truth and you can continue to expect that attacks that you find so unfair. Do your job, and you won't have any problems. From this side, the whole thing is increasingly looking like a cover up and none of you have done anything to dispel that notion. Indeed, with each statement you all are only making suspicions run deeper. I don't know where any of you learned politics, but you are all showing a real tin ear to the sentiments that are brewing out here.

As I stated before, the consensus crosses party lines and ideology. We all aren't a bunch of conspiracy lunatics out here. If the City Council doesn't want to be accountable for Mitch Johnson or Linda Miles, then fire them and hire people whose actions you can defend in public with actual evidence instead of stupid generalities such as "I am satisfied with his/her explanation". Guess what? We aren't, and we are the ones that count.

Sandy Carmany

I'm not a masochist -- given Ben's frequent and hateful attacks on me, I choose not to go to his blog and subject myself them. Plus, at the risk of invoking another round of abuse from him, I do not consider it to be a reliable source of information for my tastes. In this case, I don't still don't understand why the letter writer has not directly provided me with it.

Comparing what I have gleaned from comments here about Mr. Jones' allegations and what Linda has explained, their remembrances of the alleged event are quite different. What I have been trying to convey to you is that I have no factual basis on which to base an opinion, only "he said, she said" stuff -- thus my refusal to speculate. What I have been urging you to do is to talk to her directly and form your own opinion, making your own judgment as to whether it is plausible or not.

Lastly, such an allegation as Mr. Jones' letter certainly falls into the "personnel" realm where the same due personnel process and procedures apply. Would you have found the use of your proposed personnel technique (calling an employee up in public session and demanding responses)acceptable if we had applied it to Wray et. al.? I doubt it. This issue -- if there is anything to it -- should be handled correctly.

Ben Holder


You read my blog everyday.

Ben Holder

Sandy reports my blog is not a relaible source of information. What have I posted that wasn't true?

The CA

The public has not been provided a "factual basis" to believe the charges against David Wray, either.

I can't speak for him, but I think he would accept the opportunity to provide his side of the story in a public forum.

So I take it now that Walt Jones (who's former law partner is Hinson's lawyer) is a liar, too. Anyone who provides any evidence that could be construed as a defense of Wray is a liar or wrong, meanwhile, the City Council, Mitch & Miles who have not produced any evidence to support the allegations made against Wray are telling the truth. It makes sense, your word alone is reliable evidence to support the Wray dismissal, but physical evidence that it wasn't justified or that there may have been a vendetta against Wray is just hearsay and unreliable.

Go back a few posts where I said that the evidence that has been produced (not OPINIONS) in support of Wray greatly outweighs the evidence presented in the case against him is the crux of the City's dilemna. All we have gotten from the City are opinions and the RMA report which has proven unreliable when compared to other known facts. You guys are losing the argument.

I also think that if Linda Miles explained the meeting described in the letter to you, then you have a factual basis to believe that the letter is accurate in that the meeting did occur which ruins your argument as to the veracity of the letter and also would obligate YOU to contact Walt Jones to hear his side of the story considering the damage the letter is doing to the credibility of this case and raises the possibility that Linda Miles is lying to you. Miles is a lawyer, Jones is a lawyer. Jones has a very good reputation. I think you have a duty to try and determine who is telling the truth (like you wanted to with Wray, right? Wasn't that based on hearsay and allegations from others?) Linda or Walt. Why would Walt Jones lie about that when it seems his law partner might be interested in getting Wray on behalf of his client too?

It seems like willful ignorance to me and a dereliction of duty.

Ben Holder

What CA said. You are on a roll Sammy!


"Sandy reports my blog is not a relaible source of information."

That's a laugh, considering that it's pretty obvious that Sandy is not a reliable source of information in the first place.

The comments to this entry are closed.