The Martin Chronicles is very cognizant of the fact that we have to be very careful when we offer a critique of someone else’s editorializing. Even if that editorializing is ill-informed and illogical. Why? Because we believe that the constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of speech and the press are inviolate. In point of fact, we are sure that it is not a coincidence that both freedoms are mentioned on the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
So, here we (cautiously) go. A recent Letter to the Editor in The Community Recorder suggests that Villa Hills Mayor Mike Martin is being unfairly criticized by the City Council because of resentment over the outcome of the 2010 election. The writer, using the same line of defense as other Martin apologists, proposes that council should simply accept the fact that Martin was elected and move on. He was elected, after all.
Here is the major flaw in that argument. The six members were also elected. A review of the results of the 2010 election shows that each council member actually received more votes than Martin. If anything, the writer’s logic is a case in support of council’s fair questioning of the bungling mayor. They were elected, after all.
The voter’s gave Martin the statutory power to make executive decisions (and that has proven to be an unmitigated disaster). The voters also gave the council the statutory power to exercise oversight over those decisions when called for. Calling those decisions “bickering” or dissatisfaction with an election result at this point reflects a shocking disconnect with actual events.
· How does any reasonable person object to questioning Martin’s inexplicable decision to willfully destroy City property?
· How does any reasonable person object to council questioning Martin’s total disregard for the elements of legal contracts the mayor has entered the taxpayers into with his personal friends and others?
· How does any reasonable person object to council questioning Martin’s conscious decimation of the Villa Hills Police Department? Let’s face it. The spiking crime rate and nearly $175K in unnecessary overtime expenses clearly proves council is right.
· How does any reasonable person object to council questioning Martin’s conscious decision to improperly refuse to fill Open Records requests?
· How does any reasonable person object to council questioning Martin’s misuse of City personnel and resources for political advocacy? The Ethics Board reprimand is proof enough that council is right to question Martin’s actions.
· How does any reasonable person object to council questioning Martin’s seemingly unbridled hostility toward one City employee that has led to exposing the taxpayers to the risk of a serious lawsuit?
· How does any reasonable person object to council questioning Martin about his odd disregard for serious warnings about allegations of sexual harassment that have placed the taxpayers on the brink of another lawsuit?
· How does any reasonable person object to council questioning Martin about his very-likely illegal burning of City records and subsequent falsification of documents designed to cover up his act?
The Martin Chronicles has reported many other mayoral actions and questionable business practices that, at best, betray an astounding level of stupidity. More likely, these actions and practices reveal an equally astounding disregard for the law. Council has every right-in fact a duty-to question Martin. Their calls for his resignation after the disaster of the past fourteen-plus months make perfect sense. That is not “bickering”.
