If anyone ever needs more proof about why the shitty little scoff law town of Molalla is the laughing-stock of the world, one only needs to read the following coverage of last night’s insane City Council meeting.
And guess what? To do this idiotic “work” the Council kept a $95 an hour professional County planner sitting, twiddling his thumbs, for hours without out EVER GETTING TO DO ANY PLANNING. It wouldn’t have mattered much, because the “actual planning” is a pile of crap of unneeded housing that would result in a MILLION DOLLAR SDC WAIVER.
Whatever DECAYVILLE does, it results in a LOSS OF PUBLIC MONEY! That’s the story, folks. It COSTS every city taxpayer to have the Council bicker over a totally ILLEGAL clause in the city charter that violates First Amendment Free Speech rights!
The city paid money to its “JERK lawyer to consult about censure nonsense!
Sitting there, hogging money, is the “JERK” lawyer the city continues to retain. I didn’t make up the “JERK” part – that’s what a top official called the Molalla lawyer in an internal email I got via a public information request. So as “JERK” lawyer sat and hogged a big fee, a by the hour County planner had the fee clock ticking and a bunch of backwoods boobs squabbled about boo hoo, someone (like the IDIOT MAYOR) got his feeling hurt. PHEW on that!
So read on and know why no one in their right mind would EVER invest in NUT LAND MOLALLA. Don’t go there – the cops think it is ok to stop without probable cause, the Council and the IDIOT MAYOR CLARKE think they can VIOLATE FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS. And people think this blog is “mean”? Ha! The really MEAN thing is the fact that there isn’t a razor wire fence around Decayville to keep the NUT CASES inside so the rest of us don’t have to watch the race to the BOTTOM!
Hey creepy fake manager Atkins – how’s this for PUBLICITY for shitty blightville Molalla?
Molalla City Council deadlock saves councilor from censure
Published: Wednesday, July 27, 2011, 10:44 PM Updated: Wednesday, July 27, 2011, 11:41 PM
MOLALLA — After more than an hour of confusion stemming from the charges and procedure associated with censuring Councilor Jim Needham, the Molalla City Council was left in a 3-3 deadlock, which resulted in no censure.
At the Council’s July 13 meeting, Councilor George Pottle made a motion to censure Needham for criticizing other Council members in a letter to the editor by Needham published in the Molalla Pioneer the same day.
In the letter, Needham suggested Molalla Mayor Mike Clarke and City Manager John Atkins were not acting in the city’s best interest regarding talk of contracting the city’s land use planning with the county.
Pottle said Needham’s outspoken criticism was in violation of Council rules, which forbid councilors from publicly or personally attacking each other or members of city staff. Councilor Jimmy Thomspon seconded
Pottle’s July 13 motion to censure Needham, and Needham had until tonight’s meeting to prepare a defense before the Council would vote on the issue.
Tonight, however, Needham pointed out to the Council that the rule against attacks applies, according to the city code, during Council discussions.
After the code had been clarified, Clarke and Pottle maintained that Needham should be censured anyway because a 2008 amendment prohibited councilors from speaking negatively of one another outside meetings.
Clarke said the discipline was a long time coming because of Needham’s past criticism of councilors and city staff online and in the Pioneer.
Thompson withdrew his original second of the motion to censure based on the fact that
Needham had not broken the rule that he had been charged with breaking, but the Council voted on the censure anyway because the item had already been placed on the agenda.
Clarke, Pottle and Debbie Rogge voted in favor of the censure. Needham, Thompson and Councilor Stephen Clark voted in opposition.
The moment the censure failed, Pottle began to make a motion that the issue be revisited at the last meeting.
That’s when residents stepped in.
Several community members spoke on behalf of Needham or in support of the censure, but several spoke of moving on and focusing on what’s in the best interest of the city.
Former Councilor Mary Jo Mackie, 80, scolded the Council for its “wig-wagging” and asked the councilors to put the issue behind them.
Cleo Roberts, 65, told councilors they’d taken the battle too far.
“I’d almost rather see you put on gloves and go slug it out,” she said. “This is ridiculous.”
She warned that the bickering made the city “look like crap” and would tarnish Molalla’s reputation.
“You’re losing respect for each other,” she said. “And when you do that, everyone out here loses respect for you.”
The women’s admonishments, which were met with applause, struck a chord with the Council. Pottle, who moments before had been arguing animatedly with Needham, withdrew his motion to revisit the issue at the next meeting.
“My apologies to the people of Molalla,” Pottle said. “That’s not why I was elected. I thought I was doing the right thing.”