Comment history

Former police officer sues city of Basehor, alleging wrongful termination

Yep, knew that calling you on your implied threat would hit pay dirt, and you just proved it with your tacit admission of guilt.

August 23, 2012 at 10:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Former police officer sues city of Basehor, alleging wrongful termination

Hummm...City PD didn't have any qualms about Lt. Pearce having been fired from his former police dept. (porno charges), so why be bothered about this officer's past PD experience, especially when not presenting any, repeat any, facts about it, only gossip and opinions?

And that last statement, #22, is an implied threat you're giving to his current job. Is that what you're intending?

August 23, 2012 at 8:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Basehor City Council agenda includes $200,000 settlement with former administrator Loughry

What? Just reading the Sentinel coverage of "both sides" isn't enough? The above condensed version came straight from the Sentinel, albiet paraphrased for briefness.

Thanks to a poster, we found the community website that had more info, and that was VERY disturbing to read, but worse was to see that professionals we elected were/are ignoring the well-documented abuse of innocent victims, turning their backs on them, and defending their abusers.

Did the old city council know about all those documents (former city attorney's tons of legal documents, the former city PD officer's Notice of Claims, etc.) before they got posted, and then keep them from the public until their recalls? Or were these documents kept from the old city council until the recalls? None of the former city council has ever answered that question directly and publicly--such as, what did they know and when did they know it?

Lots of unanswered questions, and the new city council is not building trust and credibility with what they're doing by ignoring it either, now that the elephant is still in the living room since the recalls.

August 19, 2012 at 7:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Basehor City Council agenda includes $200,000 settlement with former administrator Loughry

• Ironic, isn't it, that the new city council is "worried" about not having enough money to build a new city hall, that's not needed at all. But when the old city council was worried about not having enough money to cover the then-new-city manager's extra benefits at that time, then that's different--double standards.
• Bottom line: The former city manager got rewarded handsomely, $16k, $50k, and soon to be $200k, with our tax dollars for doing something wrong, contract fraud, plain and simple as that. The current city manager/police chief is also getting rewarded. We have been paying him extra for over a year, putting him in charge over notice of claims/lawsuits/ settlements against him and the city (and who knows what else), several new patrol cars driving around Falcon Lakes and sitting on the highway, pay raises for everyone including all the managers, etc. etc., during a recession, no less. Get a clue!
• I was talking with several acquaintances on Wednesday, and ALL of us are very disappointed in our local news and this newspaper's very obvious lack of impartial reporting. I have literally lost count of the news stories on Loughry. I checked the other day and only found four stories on two former police officers with lawsuits over five years ago and two employees that look to have been terminated without cause. I think we all know why the former police officer Corey’s case was kept secret and had to be published in a community website (pathetic and disturbing). Shame on the reporters of today (or lack thereof). Years ago a police officer or fireman were pillars of the community and people cared about them. Today, if you have a title, and even do something wrong, you get article after article, and maybe even taxpayer money. The only way cops make the news today is to kill someone, or get caught by channel 5 not wearing their seatbelt. What the heck is wrong with our society today?
• Truly hope our children in Basehor don’t grow up with the kind of backward views that have been displayed here.

August 18, 2012 at 10:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Basehor City Council agenda includes $200,000 settlement with former administrator Loughry

We were not here when all the stuff mentioned above was going on. It's obvious there's a labeling of people who disagree with the questionable antics/corruption, and are being put into this so-called "Washington and/or Mertz-Dysart-Box group," just like high-school kids, so that the opposition can be the "cool group." Ignoring the name calling, here's the dumbed-down version:
• Loughry was caught red-handed, at the very least, guilty of unethical behavior, at the most, contract fraud. Don't begrudge somebody at all for wanting better health insurance, but somebody in charge of an entire city should know legal and appropriate ways to do things.
• From reading since first came out, it appears the prior city council, two of whom were recalled for not accepting the contract fraud, with the third one quitting because he didn't want to be party to a--quote/unquote, "corrupt city administration any longer," had plenty of "discussions" with Loughry, and plenty of warnings before actually firing him. Otherwise, why the city attorney called in? Safe to assume, Loughry refused to follow what the city attorney's counsel was to him, therefore got fired as last resort.
• "...No charges were ever brought against anybody because most believed that the family insurance thing should have been in the contract of the city manager in the first place..." The only punishment given was for those who refused to be party to the fraud and unprofessional behavior that was committed. The former council, morally and ethically correct, but they got taken out for it anyway. A blind eye could've got them "good ol' boys' big happy family," but they chose to do what was right.
• Former City Manager disagreed with the prior city council, who were trying to save money for the city, and usually, a new job starts out that way, with extra benefits added later when the employer can afford it. AFTER agreeing to the final amount with the prior council, Loughry still wanted the "original" amount, and that was his justification for editing his own contract, and then cries about getting fired after he defied his own bosses, the city council. So he filed a notice of claims when he was the one doing something wrong, but he still gets off scot-free, "no charges," and a nice pay day for screwing up!! (((Nothing I have read to date shows that this city cares to follow any type of termination protocol.)))

August 18, 2012 at 10:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Basehor City Council agenda includes $200,000 settlement with former administrator Loughry

Ok, new city council voted on $200,000 AFTER talking to the alleged "victim" who agreed to it. Same scenario as the old city council did with the salary.

"...was recalled because he tried to pay the original amount owed..." Now, is the "victim" going to get the new mayor to change the amount back to the "original amount owed" without the knowledge or approval of the new city council, and then claim "victimhood" again when he gets caught??

1. Still have never seen ANY legal documents as hard-core, third-party evidence that the city attorney allegedly gave different counsel than what was acted upon with the old city council--changing an already approved contract behind closed doors is still considered illegal every where else. 2. There's been no evidence submitted that there was a gun held to the "victim's" head to sign the approved contract, therefore, 3. changing the amount on the approved contract by his own hand, with his friend, without "discussing" it further with the old city council before touching it, is still considered a crime that requires being fired.

Let's keep the correct perspective here. No matter how many times it gets twisted above with never-ending attacks against those who refused to accept the crime, and continue to ignore the crime that was committed, the truth is still there for all to see.

In fact, it's well known that some con-artists share the spoils with their fellow travelers.

Ok, let's hear from the "victim's" attack-dogs now. Pretty sure too many nerves got hit with the truth. LOL!

August 17, 2012 at 10:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Basehor City Council special meeting and work session agenda: Aug. 6

Repeat. Today's Aug. 11th, 4-5 days after said meeting. Still no article on last Monday's meeting. Why?? When was the last time the Sentinel did not report anything about a city council meeting during the same week of said meeting, especially one as important as the budget and all the other items on their work session agendas?? The above assumptive argument was that if people asked why there was no newspaper article covering it, that it meant the people didn't attend the meeting. Aside from the obvious lunacy, since the entire city's population wasn't there and that's why people read the Sentinel, it's called "accountability" for those who are there to represent us. We deserve to know why they did what they did, as well as what else they did, or recalls need to be started again. Simple as that.

August 11, 2012 at 5:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Basehor City Council special meeting and work session agenda: Aug. 6

LOL!! So because I'm pointing out that the paper did not report ANYthing about the council meeting on Aug. 6th, which is totally out of routine for them, then you're assuming that I wasn't at the meeting. Then when I make a totally separate comment about maybe it's time for another recall, which was in regards to what was done behind closed doors, then you're jumping all over me with the assumption that I'm accusing the city of owning the paper, and then assuming that the recall comment is because they didn't publish an article of what was "wanted." (is that guilt leaking out, or why would you jump to all those bizarre conclusions??)

Scheeez, you guys crack me up! "...same couple talking back and forth..." Yep! Projection. What you're doing, same 2 people, until "whostheboss" joined in. Projecting what you're doing on to any of the other commenters. Follow your own logic with that one, and see where it ends.

And then here comes the same past rhetoric, changing what's said and telling people to move out if they don't like the corruption/status quo. That's called the "strawman fallacy" where you misrepresent what somebody says to make it easier for you to attack. Why don't you guys move?? You're the ones who don't fit in here and don't like being honest and transparent, so why don't you move! See? What you're saying is totally meaningless! Just like the bullies out in the grade school play ground.

Now back to the budget, discussed and approved behind closed doors without any public. Where's the usual news "report" -- what is seen/and being told at the meeting, and what is "reported" with behind-the-scene interviews and real investigative journalism, sometimes can be 2 different angles. Is that what's really being said behind the above rhetoric...fear of what those investigative interviews could reveal to all of us in a routine article as to why, and what else, was done behind closed doors?? Cat's outta the bag now!

PS: Jokes and stories can get the point across really, really good, can't they? LOL!!

August 11, 2012 at 2:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Basehor City Council special meeting and work session agenda: Aug. 6

Hill was retained through his buddies, and that was the point being made, not about his physical body being there. Did someone miss the memo?

August 7, 2012 at 6:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Basehor City Council special meeting and work session agenda: Aug. 6

No "reporting" on last night's meeting in the online Basehor Sentinel for the first time...hummm?? Gee, maybe it's time for another recall. We can keep doing recalls until the cows come home, or until "they" get the message of keeping their campaign promises of transparency, acting on the public's legal and honest requests, and being accountable to those of us who put them there to represent us.

Loss of trust and credibility with the new City Council. "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." Guess they haven't heard the joke about the pheasant and the bull, with the bull telling the pheasant to eat the bull dung to get enough "nutrients" and "energy" to make it to the top of the tree, and on the 4th day the pheasant finally makes it, only to get shot down by the farmer, with the moral of the story being "B***sh** might get you to the top, but it won't keep you there." Duh!

August 7, 2012 at 6:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )