Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Facebook | Twitter | Home RSS


March 21, 2010
Salem News

Ex-council member

reacts to petition

To the editor:

Apparently, Mr. Pfouts of the Salem/Perry Township Crime Watch Committee, failed to read my "Letter to the Editor," printed in the Salem News on February 7th.

If you haven't already filed it under, "Comments of Clyde Brown," perhaps you should read it. I stated, "It's time for the city administration to move on the "thin" options and then address council."

The mayor apparently made layoff decisions with the approval of his administration."

In case, some of you have forgotten, the city administration consists primarily of the mayor, service safety director, treasurer and, of course, the city auditor.

The Salem Perry-Township Crime Watch Committee was organized over two years ago and meets on a regular basis at the Republican Party Headquarters on State Street.

The Fourth Ward CWC Chairman Doug Pfouts said, "The people have been "misrepresented" by council and what it has done to our safety forces etc." I want to remind Mr. Pfouts that five-plus years ago, Mayor Wolford, at the time a Perry Township trustee, and Mr. Andres, a member of city council and now our service safety director, supported the "fire district fiasco."

At that time, all seven members of Salem City Council "misrepresented" and/or ignored the voice of the people. Now you, as a member of the CWC have accused this council of "misrepresentation" and blaming them for the layoffs ordered by the mayor of Salem.

The petition says "The signers of the petition disapprove of council's action and that it puts, "the citizens at risk" by laying off fire and police officers."

The petition further states, "We the citizens do not feel they (council) have represented the tax-paying citizens of this city as (to) what they were elected to do." We feel that the decision was made irrationally and without open communication with the citizens of this city."

Your petition reminds me of a screaming lynch mob just before the hanging..

Mayor Wolford was also elected by and represents the citizens of Salem. If you believe laying off police and fire fighters, was irrational and without open communication with the citizens then tell him. He made the final decision as to where to eliminate employees.

By using the word "they" (council), you're referring to three Democrats, one Independent and three Republicans.

I can't believe anyone would place the blame for laying off police and fireman on two Republican council members with less then three months in office and one with two years plus. I can understand blaming the three Democrats because that's the norm in politics.

Salem City Council is the legislative body of the City of Salem. The mayor had spoken at meetings of Council Finance Committee and Committee of the Whole regarding declining city revenue. The city auditor made it clear that something had to be done.

The "petition' blames Salem City Council for taking action that put "citizens at risk" by laying off fire and police officers. COUNCIL HAS NO LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY to layoff any member of the safety forces or any city employee. The responsibility for making the layoff decision rested with the mayor of Salem and based on the budget input from the city auditor.

I believe the author of the "petition" owes "seven council members" an apology..



Praise for Perry Township

Street Dept. workers

To the editor:

Thank you once again to Perry Township street department for a job well done.

In the fall we need only wait a day or two for our leaves to be removed. When the snow began to melt this week we were dismayed to see all the mess the snow plows had left in our front yard.

Before we even got a chance to get outside to clean it up the Perry Township crew was here with the truck and cleaned not only our yard but the entire neighborhood. Thanks guys! Once again you make us proud to be Perry Township residents.



Would force private

companies to compromise

To the editor:

I was interested to read the article in the Salem News on Feb. 22, dealing with the proposed health care reform our president is attempting to pass into law.

The article stated that the proposal "would bar insurance companies from denying coverage to people with medical problems or charging them more." This troubles me. On one hand, no one wants to see anyone to be without proper means for supplying their needs. On the other hand, is it really ethical to require insurance companies to bear such responsibility?

This law is against the best interest of the insurance companies-it would force them to act in a way that would harm them financially. Does the government have the right to force a private company to make such a step?

If public safety were called into question, I would understand it. But though going without insurance is perhaps unwise and unpleasant, it can hardly be called a public safety hazard. If health insurance is a right, then it should be the government's job to supply it. If it is not a right, it should be managed by private companies, But in neither case can the government require private companies to provide it in a manner that compromises their best interest.



Blame should always be

placed in its proper place

To the editor:

In the Feb. 23, 2010, publication of the Salem News, I was especially impressed with Michelle Malkin's article titled, "Remember, it's all the TEA Party's fault!" I liked her opening reference to the cartoon character "Not Me" from "The Family Circus." This so powerfully reinforces the point she is trying to make!

Being a concerned citizen of this great nation of America, I am greatly disturbed by the "informative" media and other uninformed people who forget to place blame in the proper place. It never ceases to amaze me that whenever something bad happens in this country, the blame is hardly ever directed to the appropriate entity! What ever happened to the old saying, "If the shoe fits, wear it!" People are passing judgments and making claims without knowing the facts.

Malkin cited many incidents that would cause one to wonder if people are thinking clearly in the society in which we live. It seems people care about whatever furthers their cause instead of facing up to what is reality. The TEA Party Movement has taken a lot of flack from all across this nation. But the rash outcries of people against this group are totally out of line with the facts. Whenever right advances, wrong-will do whatever it takes to overcome.

I am tired of people playing the "blame-game." It is high time that the citizens of America get back to their roots of honesty and integrity and stop manufacturing invalid claims against any person or movement!



Responds to 'Moral

Issues Strong in Ohio"

To the editor:

This is in response to the "Moral Issues Strong in Ohio," from the Feb. 17, 2010, edition.

The 19-year old who won the National Right to Life Contest," and who was snubbed by Democratic Speaker, Armond Budish.

It wasn't only her views that she was writing about, it was the views of most of the American people.

I am not for abortion, and I will take the side of this young lady anytime. She is on the side of right. God gives life and God is the only One that can take life. We humans do not have that right. To do so, would be to say that we want to take the place of God.

"However," Democratic Speaker Armond Budish has stepped way out of bounds.

According to the Constitution of the United States, we have the right to freedom of speech.

Doesn't it give this girl that right? She has the same rights that Democratic Speaker Armond has, or for that matter, anyone else.

Our forefathers knew what they were doing, when they put the clause in there, "Freedom of Speech. " They knew that there were going to be people that would come along and try to shut us up. "God have mercy on their souls."

The one question I have is this: What government has the right to take that girl's right away from her?

The one that was violated was this girl's right to express herself. But then again, who was this for," Her, or the American people?"



More reaction from a

Michelle Malkin column

To the editor:

I was interested in reading the column by Michelle Malkin in the Salem News. The subject of the column was Joseph Stack's suicidal attack on an IRS building in Texas. Malkin showed how certain groups, without any substantial evidence, rapidly blamed the Tea Party Movement for this attack. I believe that it is unethical for the media to behave in such a rash manner. By acting in this way, they have, whether intentionally or unintentionally, tarnished the image of a movement that is exercising its right of free speech. The media's job is to report the news, not to tear down other groups! It may be acceptable for the media to report facts that may inadvertently damage the voice of some people. However, it is wrong for the media to make unsubstantial assumptions which are intended to cause such damage. Let's have a media that reports and lets us decide.





I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web