Legal question on hotWatergate (hWg 20)
A legal question... if hotWatergate ends up in court... and people get called to testify... are the lawyers allowed to question the integrity of individuals? Are they allowed to question whether people make public statements that tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing, but the truth?... not so much in relation to hotWatergate, but just in general... if it is determined that people make public statements that are something other than the truth, the whole truth and nothing, but the truth... does that get considered in the trial?
What if it's demonstrated that someone makes public statements that are simply false? Again... this is not in relation to hotWatergate... I'm just wondering if an individual's integrity gets questioned in a trial.
If so, I imagine the proceedings could end up being quite interesting.
"The diffusion of information and the arraignment of all abuses at the bar of public reason, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration." - Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural Address, 1801
Tim White
25 comments:
They are NOT under oath. So who knows? I have heard lawyers speak at public meetings and stretch the truth. When money is involved anything goes. I would be cautious of what is being said.
Tim,
You've gone off the deep end.
These is the sort of concerns Stalin had and he trampled over everything in his way. You're not Stalin but where do you get off thinking everyone is a lier and some how speech has to be regulated and or under oath at all times. You're idea of freedom and ethics is sounding like a huge infringement on freedom of speech. This is ubsurd and Jefferson wasn't going there either.
No where in Tim's post did he say that everyone is a "liar." Seems you're stretching things a bit. I would expect to hear the truth and would think you'd want that too.
If people tell the truth they will never have to remember anything.
Yeah and every eye witness never made a mistake.
These is the sort of concerns Stalin had
and so did Obama and/or his supporters... or should we have accepted HRC at her word on Snipergate?
everyone is a lier
I never alluded to "everyone" and I didn't mention the word "lie" and/or "liar." (4:15 thanks!)
speech has to be regulated and or under oath at all times.
I never suggested any such thing.
a huge infringement on freedom of speech
people are free to say whatever they want... but if a public official is lacking in candor, I firmly believe that the public has a right to see such things... and judge the words for themselves.
As for the Stalin reference... don't you think that's a little strong?
Finally, his apparent candor is the reason that I've been favorable to Obama thus far (at least in the primary). And I don't expect everyone to get every detail correct all the time (I know I've misspoken before).
My wish is for people to make a best effort at telling "the truth, the whole truth and nothing, but the truth." If I believe someone is making a best effort... I'll cut them a lot of slack. But as soon as I feel someone isn't making that effort... I begin to ask questions.
Keep asking questions because it's your job. Is someone is getting ticked off? Why? The truth will always surface.
Example this, if a Muslim rejects Islam we as Americans say wonderful and this is a good thing. If an American says we should stop any support for Israel we will be called Anti-Semetic. Where is the justice for free speech?
The White Bowman Ct Combusti9on deal stinks of local political corruption it is that simple. Come election time all we have to do is ask those 5 clowns that voted in favor why they choose to spend 75k more of the taxpayers money. Using process and protocol will not work.
At least we now know Tim White, Republican, supports Obama,a leftest and elitest Democrat, because of his apparent candor. Is this all it takes...apparent candor and nothing more. (Do you really think Obama now disagrees with the Rev. Wright for anything other than political expediancy?)
All of this may play well in the fourth. I just can't figure you out so I'll stop trying and quit this blog for good.
After watching the TC meeting regarding the "Boiler" bid I have one question. How was it a fair bidding process when the specs didn't change from bid #1,#2 or#3? The cat was out of the bag. The bidders knew everyone elses numbers. How could our legal people allow this? We should fire them and then sue them. Ms Esty asking a fellow TC member to hurry was out of line. She was not the acting chairperson or was she????
You raise a good question. Bids are opened at the same time. In this case three bids and three times. All bidders see all bids as a matter of public record when they are opened on said date and place.
If a new bid is sent out it may have changes to address and all bidders more or less get to reconfirm vendor prices or even adjust their prices lower or higher. They also have to submit their new bids under seal. This is the only lawful way to conform to the bid process. Unless all bidders somehow collude and agree to submit identical bids whereby a purchasing agent selects by the toss of a coin there will always be a high or low bidder to select from.
You could ask why did Bowmans bid come down but you still have to wonder why CT Combustions was higher?
At least we now know Tim White, Republican, supports Obama,a leftest and elitest Democrat, because of his apparent candor.
I said "in the primary." I have no interest in HRC. She lost me with her "stay home / bake cookies" comment back in '92.
Do you really think Obama now disagrees with the Rev. Wright for anything other than political expediancy?
I cancelled my cable TV a month or more ago and basically missed the Rev Wright thing that most of America seems to have experienced.
Although I did see this 3 minute youtube in which Fox' liberal commentator, Juan Williams, really tattoos Obama:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exhyMMhdRTk
I really haven't been following the Presidential election since I got rid of cable TV.
As for my main concern in this election... fiscal policy and the massive debt that is building.
I think monetary policy (and a return to the gold standard) could trump fiscal policy, but Ron Paul seemed to be the only candidate (of the 20 or so Rs & Ds) who seemed to either understand and / or had any interest in it.
As for my current understanding the two likely candidates... McCain will spend money on the war and Obama will spend money on healthcare.
IMO, neither is affordable since our debts are so far out of whack.
Ms Esty asking a fellow TC member to hurry was out of line. She was not the acting chairperson or was she????
I was kind of wondering about this myself.
Anon 10:18 They sharpened their pencils as they said. If you believe that. It leaves one to wonder how bad they wanted the job since they are willing to take a loss on the control item that nobody seems to know if it will work etc. Was that fair to say to the TC because the vote was not yet taken? Questions , questions and more questions.
Re: Ms Esty one should of told her she was out of order period and continued. She talks the longest out of all the TC members and says nothing most of the time. What a nerve.
They didn't say they were taking a loss on the control item. They aren't including the control item and that's the point of this mess. Their bid problem and Bowman himself confirmed it at the meeting when he talked about "if the manufacturer says it's OK to put it on the boiler then I will give it to you" or some such malarky, but no one cared. I thought the point of the other guys was that the burner co. and engineer says it is OK and will work but Bowman says it's not. So now we listen to Bowman who doesn't know jack about burners instaed of the engineer and experts we hired with our tax money. Get it?
Tim, when will the meeting be posted?
4:04 Jimmy tried to understand your concern... and I'm glad I wasn't the only other one to catch that...
And back on Feb 13, at least one Council member had similar concerns... though apparently those concerns have dissipated.
(scroll to about 1:02:00 and listen for a minute or so... though I believe there was another similar comment made... but I'm not taking the time to find that one right now.)
Sorry, wrong link.
click here and go to 1:02:00
"It isn't good to have a contractor who's in a situation who feels like they're losing money."
go to around 1:13:30 or so.
btw, I think those were some of the droids we're not looking for. So we should just move along.
Tim, when will the meeting be posted?
I didn't understand this before... do you mean "when will I upload the video to the web?"
If so, hopefully by tomorrow. My dad is taping it for me tonight. (remember, I don't even have the $15/mo cable, incl public access channels... I got rid of it all.)
Here's a paragraph from the minutes of the 2-13 TC meeting where the 2nd bid from CT Combustion was approved in an 8 to 1 vote.
"The matter before the Council is to approve the bid at $194,000, and Mr. Michaelangelo
said the PBC approved the bid at this cost. The PBC Chairman, Mr. McKenney, would
not want to alter the price. As for future bids, Mr. Michaelangelo said he would have to
defer on that one. The Council can reject the bid without prejudice."
Note the last sentence..."the Council can reject the bid". WHY WOULD THE PBC REJECT THE BID IF THEY'RE STATING THAT THE COUNCIL WOULD BE THE ONES TO REJECT A BID?
As it's been stated over and over, even with the $16.5K add'l funds, CT Combustions bid was STILL lower than the 2nd lowest bidder. WHY WOULD ECKE BE THE ONLY ONE VOTING AGAINST ACCEPTING THE BID? COULD IT BE HE HAD OTHER IDEAS ON WHO HE WANTED THE JOB TO GO TO?
This boiler project was part of a $500,000 capital request to do the boiler and window replacement at Norton School.
CT Combustion's price including the 16.5 would have been $211,496.
Bowman's price is $253,000.
We could have gotten a lot more windows replaced with the $41,500 difference.
Is this how the dem majority does what's in the "best interest" of the residents of Cheshire?
And hasn't the window replacement bid been approved already? For what amount? Are we over the $500,000 already? Tim, can you clarify?
More than you asked for, but here are some comments (to the best of my memory):
We voted on the Norton windows at the April 8, 2008 meeting.
I seem to recall the accepted bid was $108,000 for the north side (gym & caf or "phase 3").
Each of the three "phases" (something like north side, west side and east side) were bid upon by two companies.
Phase 3 was least expensive, Phase 2 was most expensive and Phase 1 was in between.
The low bid for phase 3 was $108,000 and the low bid for phase 1 was $277,000.
If the boiler stayed around $225,000 or so... we could have done a much larger section of windows.
But come on... these aren't the droids you're looking for. move along!
Thanks for clarifying. Isn't it odd that there are 3 phases to the window replacement and we start with phase 3 ?! Phase 1 at $277,000 would put us over the $500,000 with Bowman's $253,000 bid. But wait, the council didn't vote to give the boiler bid to Bowman until May 12th. Had we stayed with the lowest bidder all along, CT Combustion, we could have done phase 1 of the window replacement, which I would imagine was the most critical window replacement phase.
But as you say, these aren't the droids you're looking for...
If I recall correctly, Phases 1 & 2 were for classrooms.
Phase 3 is for the gym & caf.
Anon 4:04 The boiler has to be control by something. He (Bowman) said that it would not cost the Town one penny more. What do you call that before a vote is taking?
Post a Comment