On Thursday afternoon, Carnegie closed the third floor computer room leaving scores of Downtown Eastsiders without public computers. Carnegie is funded to keep that service open and has staff on the payroll to ensure it is kept open.
Why was the computer room closed for at least four hours in the middle of a work day? Ethel Whitty's office is just metres from that computer room and she passes it when walking to the washroom. Ask her why it was closed?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
How much time do they need to fudge the ballots of the last board of directors election, if that's what they're doing with this time?
If that's not what they're doing, then what ARE they doing?
The Carnegie Community Centre Association has a poster up at Carnegie announcing that the Special Meeting to vote on whether to have a recount will be held on July 31. (I'm quite sure that was the date I was told.) Thirty members have to show up for the vote to be held.
If the election is so questionable that even Ethanol and her gang concede that it is disreputable, and concede this in public, then why would anyone accept the result of a recount?
Look: If the election were crooked and cooked from the start, or if it were simply seen to be so by so many voters and concerned citizens that there is now a public clamor to recount the ballots, why trust the ballots themselves all this unsupervised time later?
If you get mugged, do you wait a couple of months to sit down withthe mugger to let him tell you how much cash he stole from you? What if he pulls out you wallet and shows you two dollars? You can claim he stole a thousand, and there he is, pointing out that there are only two bucks in the wallet.
As we write in Latin: W. T. F.!
I heard that there was some write-ins for Bill Simpson and they're trying to figure out to hide them before they recount.
Well, yes, I've heard the same. That could well be why the mysterious lapse of close to two months while they re-do the ballots.
I wonder if Simpson actually won a seat on the board in spite of the best Machiavellian efforts on the part of Ethanol and her gang?
Is that it? Did Simpson actually get re-elected?
Actually it's true that the person nominated doesn't have to be there, and can be voted for and presumably elected. I think that's what happened.
Son of a Gnu. Yes, it's a "write-in" vote. I wonder how many people wrote in Simpson's name?
Dam Nation!I'll try to find people who voted and ask if any of them wrote in Simpson's name. Then, if some did, and if those write-in votes don't show up on the ballots, we'll know the scam is falling apart for Ethanol and her gang.
If we don't find anyone who wrote in Simpson's name it'll only show we can't trust Ethanol anyway, because why the delay? Why the secrecy? Why the obvious run-around of "150 signatures needed to look at the ballots?" But I do now wonder if anyone wrote in Simpson's name? I wonder how many did so? I wonder what happened to those ballots?
Post a Comment