Ethics Charges Against Mayor Strickland Dismissed
The Ethics Board dismissed charges against Mayor Marilyn Strickland this week. This follows the dismissal in February of the associated charges against Tacoma’s former public assembly facilities director Mike Combs regarding his role in a public funded feasibility study about the Tacoma Dome. According to the TNT:
The twin complaints against Combs and Strickland, filed by local gadfly John Hathaway, were prompted by a News Tribune story that misstated part of the city’s ethics code that prohibits former employees’ participation in certain city matters.
It turns out that changes made about a year ago dropped language barring unpaid involvement in City-related work for one year after a former employee leaves City employment. The restrictions still hold for paid work.
So, whaddya think? How ‘bout that hockey team?
Read more from The News Tribune
9 comments
F fredo April 28, 2012
Appreciate John Hathaway’s efforts. I wouldn’t call him a gadfly, I would call him an involved citizen.
J Jesse April 28, 2012
Webster’s definition of a gadfly: a person who stimulates or annoys especially by persistent criticism.
That’s not Hathaway?
I mean, go ahead and be upset at a gov’t decision, action, law, or whatever… but to make it the bain of your every comment makes you a gadfly.
If you hate EVERYTHING about how your city is operating, perhaps you should, you know, shut your trap and run for office.
F fredo April 28, 2012
He doesn’t annoy me one bit so in my estimation he’s not a gadfly. People who persistantly complain about my postings OTOH would be correctly identified as gadflies.
J Jesse April 28, 2012
Hathaway annoys and nit-picks at the mayor and city council. I have never seen a positive or productive comment/cartoon/blog posting from him ever.
I am talking about Hathaway, not you fredo.
C Chalky White April 28, 2012
Gadfly and troll. There is a distinction.
F fredo April 28, 2012
Does a person have to annoy every single person to be labeled a gadfly? Or he can just annoy a subset of people, or can he just annoy one person to be labeled a gadfly? I’m a little confused about this definition.
F fredo April 28, 2012
“Hathaway annoys and nit-picks at the mayor and city council.” jesse
Did a council member claim that Hathaway was an annoyance…or did you just jump to that conclusion?
I suppose we could say that if the council and mayor were doing a great job Hathaway would have less reason to engage in his “nit-picking.” Just a thought.
J jd April 28, 2012
So the litmus test of whether or not the council and mayor are doing a great job is how much nit-picking Hathaway feels compelled to do? Apparently, one person’s gadfly, is another person’s civic caped-crusader. It’s all relative.
Fredo doesn’t think that Hathaway’s a gadfly because he’s not annoyed by him. On the other hand, those that comment on his consistantly themed (and negatively toned) posts about city government, taxes, and the ‘cost-effectiveness’ line in the the city charter, are gadflies.
Oh,and Jesse’s right. If someone hates something (or everything) about the city, they need to quit complaining, get involved in the process, and try to fix it
F fredo April 28, 2012
“If someone hates something (or everything) about the city, they need to quit complaining, get involved in the process, and try to fix it” jd
There is a straw man argument: since Hathaway is a frequent critic of elected officials that means he “hates everything” about the city.
Also, (since you didn’t seem to notice), Hathaway WAS getting “involved,” he filed an ethics complaint. How else would you have liked to see him become involved when he thought the mayor had an ethics issue?
This thread is full of non-specific criticisms of Hathaway.