One of our lead againsters has been anonymously posting all over the place about how the judge didn't throw out the Susie Bell lawsuit, yet I read this morning in the Times article about the police station groundbreaking that the lawsuit was dismissed.
The exact quote is:
In another court action, a judge Wednesday dismissed an action sought by citizen Susie Bell to block the current council from doing any more spending before new aldermen take office on Jan. 3.
So which is it?
I find it strange that the Times doesn't have an article about the hearing.
5 comments:
One of the great things about our society is that usually common sense prevails.
Another item that the Times "forgot" to mention: alderman-elect Van Fossen's "incident".
Check inside the front page, under "Briefly". Didn't get the front page news that Bob McGivern got.
Anon 11:03 thank you! I'd missed that. Today's Argus devotes more column inches to this than the Times does. Maybe Lee Enterprises doesn't want to mess too much with the politically entrenched Van Fossens?
Not too much to mess with there. Remember, Mr. Van Fossen is not an alderman, he is an alderman elect. Under state law, he cannot be removed from office. This did not happen during a time he was serving in office.
Secondly, one of the many "agiansters" as you call them, did indeed post the news that the court case was dismissed. Lets give credit where credit is due. By the way, why do you assume that only one person is against wasteful spending?
Post a Comment