Who's Dishonest, neglectful and unscrupulous? Dec. 2016
​
The Taneytown Pravda, I mean Record, quotes the Mayor as saying, “The majority of Council voted (4-1) to amend our Charter after realizing we had no authority to remove a dishonest, neglectful or unscrupulous Council member from office . . .” The Mayor was speaking to the special election to vote on a Charter Amendment that was petitioned to referendum by the people.
​
Really? Has the Mayor lived in America all his life and not realized that the voting booth is where the people, not the Mayor and Council, decide who their representatives will or will not be?
Dishonest, neglectful and unscrupulous describes the majority of the council, and the Mayor, who deceived the people into voting away their right to choose an individual who represents them.
How? First, the majority voted to have a Special Election making it difficult for the people to have time, just one week after a major Presidential election, to study the issue.
Next, they sent a mailer with their deceptive summary leaving out the key information that makes this amendment unconstitutional, unfair – or in the Mayor’s words unscrupulous. For example, they used words that are found nowhere in the amendment, such as “convicted.” By the way, the council already has the ability to remove a council member from the council if they are convicted of a crime per Maryland law.
Perhaps the 460 folks that voted NO did actually read the very small print in the mailer, but the design was that the actual wording of the Charter Amendment would be skipped over.
​
More deceptive, was the VOTE YES flyer. It implied that a council member could be recalled by missing meetings or violating a law. Not true. Not telling the whole truth is also considered lying, right? The people can recall no one in this Charter amendment unless the MAJORITY first censures a councilman. The majority can never be recalled, for they will not vote to censure each other.
The next deception is the sentence that states a council member who has three consecutive unexcused monthly meetings or workshop meetings can be removed. The truth is the type of meeting is not defined anywhere in the amendment. That’s plain deceitful. The flyer neglects to mention meetings (not defined) can only be excused by the majority if requested ahead of time in writing; again, unfair or unscrupulous.
​
Finally, a councilman can be removed. according to the Vote Yes flyer, if they violate a criminal law. The words that reveal the problem with this “just cause” section of the Charter amendment are omitted. The fact that the majority of the council makes the ruling of whether a council member has violated a law is absent from the flyer.
The description of which laws might be violated are missing. The amendment states: violation (not conviction) of any Federal, State, County, or City ordinance or code, or ethics code is “just cause” for removal. I have heard a statistic that every person violates 5 or 6 laws every day. That sounds about right. Who can even know them?
However, if you are hot to trot to remove a council member the people voted in who asks too many questions, points out facts the majority would rather not talk about, and reveals lies about taxes and water rates, what better way to do it than have the majority of the council vote that the minority member has violated a Federal, State, County or City ordinance or code? There are two unconstitutional, therefore unscrupulous and neglectful, principles found here. 1. Unequal justice under the law and 2. Separation of powers as only the majority accuses, convicts and sentences the council member you may have voted for.
Now here is the BIG deception. The Mayor and majority of the council said you the people would be able to recall a dishonest, neglectful, unscrupulous council member. That is only true if that member is not the majority, for only the minority member would ever be censured by the vote of the majority.
After this injustice takes place and the member is removed, do the people get to vote for a representative to fill that seat? OH NO, the Mayor and council will do that for you! Does this Charter amendment give you more power or less? Bottom line: it steals the people’s right to vote!
Now what citizen would vote to take away their own right to vote? Only a deceived citizen. The dishonest, neglectful, and unscrupulous people are the Mayor and majority who have not upheld their oath of office to protect the rights of the people but have instead deceived the citizens into giving up their rights.
This May 1st, 2017, you will have a chance to remove these dishonest, neglectful and unscrupulous council members, the American way, at the ballot box.
​
2 A Closer Look
Play it again!
1 Gearhead - the nuts and bolts of the matter
Special projects help us keep up to date on what's happening in Taneytown. For an example, Project 3 is reading the Taneytown newspaper, put out by the bureaucrats and paid for by the taxpayer, to give a different perspective.
Projects
We will be publishing some of the documents that are more detailed and technical when we can get our hands on them to share.
Some things you just got to see to believe. We are gathering some video spots that help you sort things out!
United we stand, divided we fall! Let's come together to make our community better. We will be sharing things you can get involved in, need to know about and aught to fight for. Together we are strong!
4 Community Projects
3 Taneytown Pravda
response to Oct 2017
response to Dec 2016
CITY OF TANEYTOWN ANALYSIS OF FRAZIER PRESENTATION
The Mayor continues to deny the truth about the August 1, 2017 Circuit Court ruling.
Oct 2017 Using the Taneytown Record to deceive the public is the very reason we call it the Pravda.
​
In the recent Open Meetings lawsuit, Judge Daniels' ruling from the official recording of the trial is as follows:
1. "Court finds it was a violation of the Act NOT to tell the public that there was an open session at which they could attend to hear the vote, ah or to hear the vote and any argument that would go into determining whether or not, the ah, the body would go into closed session. So the Court finds that there was a violation of rule 3-302." (There was NO notice for an open meeting which is required to precede the closed meeting)
2. " The law calls for a written statement of reasons for closing the meeting - There was no testimony that a written statement of the reason for closing the meeting including a citation of authority under this section and a listing of the topics to be addressed was made. So the Court finds that that was a violation - 3-305 d2" (There was NO statement at the open meeting giving the reason and topic for the closed meeting)
3. "The argument, Mr. Karpinski, that if the Court accepts YOUR argument that there was an open session, then there should have been minutes of that open session according to 3-306. I think it's a, you can't have it both ways, argument. It appears to me that it was a violation. So, respectfully the Court finds that there was a violation of section 3-306." (There were NO minutes to the open session)
4. " I do find that it was a technical violation not to list the Mayor's name as being one of the people who was present."
​
This is what the Mayor told the people in the City controlled newspaper:
"The trial was heard in Carroll County Circuit Court and the Court found that the City did not violate the "Open Meetings Act" but suggested two minor issues be corrected for future meeting (s). These items have been corrected."
​
Anyone can see, contrary to what the Mayor declares, that there were four (4) violations. What minor issue is he talking about; not giving notice to the citizens that there will be an open meeting?, not preparing minutes for the public that document there was an open meeting, who attended, what decisions were made and who made them?
​
Mayor and Council did indeed violate the law. The appeal though, is more about potential precedent-setting mistakes that totally undermine the Open Meetings Act. The Judge ruled despite the violations he cited and the testimony admitting there was no Open Meeting, there was an Open Meeting because a quorum was present and those in attendance voted to have a closed meeting.
This ruling would allow any elected body to meet in a quorum without notice to the public, (which is 3 out of 5 of the Council Members in Taneytown or in the County Commissioner's Office) and vote to have a closed meeting without a statement of the reason or topic, and no minutes to follow up the meeting for the public to view or any left out elected officials to review and discuss in public. This allows one secret meeting in order to hold another, and it can not stand.
​
The second mistake that is being appealed is in the ruling of willfulness. The Judge ruled that although the violations occurred while the Mayor and Council were quite knowledgeable of the Open Meetings Act, the violations were not willful, due to the fact that, in his words, there was "no smoking gun." The definition of willful must not include a smoking gun but only require proof that a body knew to do it correctly and did not.
​
For these two main reasons, an appeal has been filed to keep our elected officials and perhaps other bodies subject to the Open Meetings Act of the State of Maryland accountable and transparent to We the People.
Sunday, October 1st, there will be a "Life Chain of Prayer" vigil for Pre-Born Babies scheduled from 2-3:30 pm in Taneytown at the intersection of 194 and 140 (Taneytown 'Square'). So, bring a friend on Sunday, October 1 for Pro-Life Sunday and MAKE A DIFFERENCE!