Jump to content



Photo

Current Clarksville Town Council


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 clarkcoconstituent

clarkcoconstituent

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 106 posts

Posted 04 May 2015 - 05:02 PM

Regardless of what side of the debate I am on in this whole courtroom security mess, I have an issue with the council process of voting.  My biggest complaint is with sitting councilman John Gilkey.  I voted for him in the last election with the understanding he would vote what he though was best for the situation, based on feedback he received from the people in his district.  Instead I WASTED my vote on someone who refused to cast a vote.  So either A) he loves his position too much - afraid to take a stand in fear that too many people would decide not to re-elect him, or B) he lied and never intended to do the job correctly in the first place.  NO ONE is going to have 100% support on EVERY issue they face.  However, you are supposed to be our voice.  I can't say he has done a poor job overall, but I am now going to take a good hard look at his opponent.  The decision to withold his vote is going to weigh heavily in favor of the Republican.  If he hadn't voted in favor of my choice, that's okay, we will never always agree.  I am an adult, I am capable of getting past a difference of opinion. 

 

The vote of the 4 outgoing Democrats, there is nothing to discuss, they are leaving at the end of the year. 

 

The vote of the 2 Republicans, expected.  Opposite sides and views of the Democrats. 

 

Thoughts?


  • Russell Brooksbank likes this

#2 TomD

TomD

    Commissioner

  • Moderators
  • 1,076 posts

Posted 04 May 2015 - 05:08 PM

Look for unanimous votes at tonight's town council meeting.  The gun ban will be enacted. 



#3 clarkcoconstituent

clarkcoconstituent

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 106 posts

Posted 04 May 2015 - 05:13 PM

Look for unanimous votes at tonight's town council meeting.  The gun ban will be enacted. 

Thanks Tom, but the outcome is irrelevent.  My problem is with the system, why is my elected councilman chosing not to vote, twice?



#4 clarkcoconstituent

clarkcoconstituent

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 106 posts

Posted 04 May 2015 - 05:14 PM

Thanks Tom, but the outcome is irrelevent.  My problem is with the system, why is my elected councilman chosing not to vote, twice?

It's not a "GUN" ban, it's a weapons ban.  Guns are included in the category, but so are knives and other weapons.



#5 Russell Brooksbank

Russell Brooksbank

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Posted 04 May 2015 - 05:46 PM

I never understood abstaining from a vote. Your job is to place a vote on behalf of your constituents. Abstaining is pure gamesmanship. If I am elected I will guarantee that I will never abstain. You will hear my yes or no vote. I will vote for what I believe is best without regard of getting re-elected. My goal is to do the best job I can do for the people I represent and if I do that I don't believe I will have to worry about any election.
  • clarkcoconstituent likes this

#6 clarkcoconstituent

clarkcoconstituent

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 106 posts

Posted 04 May 2015 - 06:51 PM

I never understood abstaining from a vote. Your job is to place a vote on behalf of your constituents. Abstaining is pure gamesmanship. If I am elected I will guarantee that I will never abstain. You will hear my yes or no vote. I will vote for what I believe is best without regard of getting re-elected. My goal is to do the best job I can do for the people I represent and if I do that I don't believe I will have to worry about any election.

Thanks Russell, and thank you for the email!  I like what you have to say.  Do you have a website for facebook page?/



#7 Russell Brooksbank

Russell Brooksbank

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Posted 04 May 2015 - 07:02 PM

Yes, I do. My campaign page is: https://www.facebook...ssellbrooksbank

My personal page is easy to find. There are no other Russell Brooksbank's in the area.

My website is: www.electbrooksbank.com

My email address is: rpbrooksbank@aol.com

My cell number is: (502)494-9943

If anyone has any question of me regarding my opinions, beliefs or governing principles please feel free to contact me here on Chatter or any of the methods listed above.
  • clarkcoconstituent likes this

#8 clarkcoconstituent

clarkcoconstituent

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 106 posts

Posted 04 May 2015 - 07:08 PM

Yes, I do. My campaign page is: https://www.facebook...ssellbrooksbank

My personal page is easy to find. There are no other Russell Brooksbank's in the area.

My website is: www.electbrooksbank.com

My email address is: rpbrooksbank@aol.com

My cell number is: (502)494-9943

If anyone has any question of me regarding my opinions, beliefs or governing principles please feel free to contact me here on Chatter or any of the methods listed above.

So far, so good!  I can at least bring up your site, unlike another candidate who has a web address on his signs that has never worked on any of the many times I tried to bring it up.


  • Russell Brooksbank likes this

#9 Debbie

Debbie

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,620 posts

Posted 05 May 2015 - 06:28 AM

Thanks Tom, but the outcome is irrelevent.  My problem is with the system, why is my elected councilman chosing not to vote, twice?


Did you ask him to explain?

#10 Debbie

Debbie

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,620 posts

Posted 05 May 2015 - 06:29 AM

I never understood abstaining from a vote. Your job is to place a vote on behalf of your constituents. Abstaining is pure gamesmanship. If I am elected I will guarantee that I will never abstain. You will hear my yes or no vote. I will vote for what I believe is best without regard of getting re-elected. My goal is to do the best job I can do for the people I represent and if I do that I don't believe I will have to worry about any election.


I always thought abstaining from a vote was done when the individual could have a conflict of interest.
  • kelley likes this

#11 Russell Brooksbank

Russell Brooksbank

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Posted 05 May 2015 - 06:37 AM

He said that he wanted to force discussion. However, there were already "No" votes that would force a discussion. Wouldn't a "No" vote have accomplished the same thing?

#12 Russell Brooksbank

Russell Brooksbank

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Posted 05 May 2015 - 06:39 AM

Debbie, I'll take that, but that is not the case in this instance.

#13 JeffResident

JeffResident

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 416 posts

Posted 05 May 2015 - 08:44 AM

There's far more important stuff to worry about than this. 



#14 Russell Brooksbank

Russell Brooksbank

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Posted 05 May 2015 - 09:10 AM

How a representative represents their constituents isn't a topic worthy of discussion?
  • clarkcoconstituent likes this

#15 TomD

TomD

    Commissioner

  • Moderators
  • 1,076 posts

Posted 06 May 2015 - 09:04 PM

It's not a "GUN" ban, it's a weapons ban.  Guns are included in the category, but so are knives and other weapons.

 

You are absolutely correct...it is a weapons ban.  However, since the anti-gun extremists continue to promote this issue with the use of gun-related fearmongering, I've tended to lose focus of the fact that the ban is on 'deadly weapons' which includes firearms.

 

It's too bad the anti-gun idealogues felt the need to disarm law-abiding citizens.  Make no mistake, this is more about politics than it is about security.



#16 Pesty Version 2

Pesty Version 2

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,953 posts

Posted 06 May 2015 - 11:53 PM

This seems incredibly silly to me.



#17 littletommy

littletommy

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 397 posts

Posted 07 May 2015 - 06:06 AM

This seems incredibly silly to me.

What does?

#18 TomD

TomD

    Commissioner

  • Moderators
  • 1,076 posts

Posted 07 May 2015 - 06:13 AM

This seems incredibly silly to me.

 

 If by silly you mean disarming every law abiding visitor to the town hall, I agree that it's silly.  Especially when so many others will be allowed to be armed with what are described as "deadly weapons" by the judge's order, and will not be required to be screened. 

 

Oh, and it appears the judge even exempted himself from the order.  This must be a dangerous court.


  • GrumpyGranny likes this

#19 Tina

Tina

    Tinacious

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,739 posts

Posted 07 May 2015 - 07:17 AM

The exemptions for the ruling elite and their loyals...as I said before - it's feudal.

Someone please buy the judge a red coat. lol
  • GrumpyGranny, kelley and Russell Brooksbank like this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users