LightTheDarkCorners

Follow

Comment history

Questions and answers on Feb. 28 Basehor recall election

You and your crowd know this phony claim by Loughry is going away just as soon as this election is over whichever way it goes. If he expects to have a future in municipal government anyplace in this country he can't have that on his record. He may be self-serving and grasping for every little extra dollar but he is a very smart individual and understands that a suit would mark him in his chosen occupation forever.

February 23, 2012 at 9:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Mertz addresses recall charges

OldtimeBasehor, your time is over. It's the 21st century, come out from under your rock and post under your own name if you want to make such unwarranted character assinations on an honourable public servant.

February 23, 2012 at 9:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Questions and answers on Feb. 28 Basehor recall election

Ooops, Sorry Trudy - I see after almost two months on this site TODAY someone has made you comply with the law.

February 23, 2012 at 2:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Questions and answers on Feb. 28 Basehor recall election

Today we received mailings from the committee supporting Mertz and Dysart as well as a mailing from those wishing to recall these two fine public servants.

The pro-Iris and Dennis literature is clearly identified as to who paid for it, including a return address and the name of a responsible individual.

In the case of the mailer opposing Mertz and Dysart, the piece is totally anonymous as has been every other piece of publicity advocating their recall. In addition neither the rotating ad in this newspaper nor the Basehor-recall website meets the attribution requirements of Kansas Statute.

Do you want your city government controlled by these unknown masterminds who inhabit the darkest corners? Or do you want open honest transparent government? It’s your money, it’s your city, it’s your decision.

February 23, 2012 at 2 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Questions and answers on Feb. 28 Basehor recall election

See page three of last week's Basehor Sentinel for the 5" x 3.5" display ad inviting any and all to the townhall meeting.

February 23, 2012 at 11:25 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Mayor cries foul over 'wasteful spending' accusations

Please come to the KCC - Suburban hearing at the library 6PM Tuesday Feb 21. Make sure the patrons of the water company aren't the ones paying for that REALLY good time killer at work.

February 20, 2012 at 10:21 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Basehor mayor addresses recall charges

Fortunately or unfortunately in a political campaign you can say just about anything about an opponent without being exposed to suit. What you can't do is say it anonymously. The mailing against the two council members of two Fridays ago was most likely a violation of Kansas law.

February 17, 2012 at 10:23 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Mayor cries foul over 'wasteful spending' accusations

Fortunately or unfortunately in a political campaign you can say just about anything about an opponent without being exposed to suit. What you can't do is say it anonymously. The mailing against the two council members of two Fridays ago was most likely a violation of Kansas law.

February 17, 2012 at 10:11 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Basehor mayor addresses recall charges

When speaking of blatant half truths - virtually all of the propaganda circulated by the mayor's supporters has been illegal because it is all anonymous, including the multiple websites that have been put up. The behavior is criminal in that it breaks a number of Kansas Statutes, according to the KS Secretary of State's office.

"The notation I made on the administrator's contract gives me pause." It surely ought to, altering a contract is a felony.

February 15, 2012 at 7:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Mayor cries foul over 'wasteful spending' accusations

If the petition intended to make the claim that Terry Hill used city funds to
purchase a coffee pot and a scanner, had them delivered to his home, and converted
them to his personal use, or some use not otherwise authOlized by the city, it could
easily have said so

The above is quoted from Judge King's decision of January 12, 2012. This says had the petitioners just gone the extra clause and said: "and these actions constitute misuse of city funds" he would have let the grounds stand. Unfortunately the petitioners didn't have the seemingly unlimited funds of the mayor and his supporters.

February 15, 2012 at 7:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )