The Martin Chronicles often writes about the comments posted on the various social networks. They can be entertaining, enlightening and sometimes disturbing. One thing these posts clearly betray are the deep divisions and hard feelings malfeasant Mayor Mike Martin has fostered amongst the residents of Villa Hills.
We are sometimes actually taken aback by the twisted logic employed by some to defend Martin's incredible incompetence and rampant corruption. We unwaveringly defend everyone's right to express their opinions. But, we also think these opinions would be easier to respect of they contained at least a tiny bit of logic.
This is precisely why we respect the posts of people like Jimmy Lynch. First of all, Jimmy Lynch doesn't try to mask his true feelings with phony, cynical bi-partisanship or political correctness. More importantly, Jimmy Lynch always provides irrefutable documentation for his posts by including actual city records.
So, The Martin Chronicles has decided to issue a challenge to any and all social network posters who believe they are up to the task. We are going to ask a few essay questions. All we ask is that those willing to take on this challenge re-state the question along with their answer when the post on the social networks. We'll start looking for the answers right away.
1. Please explain why it is a sound decision for a mayor of a Kentucky City of the Fourth Class to hire his personal attorney to serve as City Attorney. Include in your explanation why there are no potential conflicts of interest or-at minimum-appearances of impropriety in such an arrangement.
2. Please explain why there is no reason to be concerned that the aforementioned personal attorney hired to serve as City Attorney has billed the taxpayers approximately $250,000 in less than two years.
3. Please provide a logical defense for a mayor of a Kentucky City of the Fourth Class spending approximately $500,000 of taxpayer money on various lawyers and legal actions over the past two years.
4. Please provide a logical defense for spending approximately $50,000 of taxpayer money to resolve drainage problems and improve a little-used city park when only $12,000 of taxpayer money was budgeted for the project.
5. (See question 4) Please explain why there is no reason to be concerned about spending approximately $50,000 of taxpayer money to resolve drainage problems and improve a little-used city park when that little-used city park happens to abut the properties of three city councilmembers who regularly support the agenda of the mayor of a Kentucky City of the Fourth Class.
We firmly believe these are all very fair questions. We have several more. But time is limited. The Villa Hills' election is rapidly approaching.
We hope at least some of the social networkers are ready, willing and able to answer these very fair questions. Every voter-including the low-information ones-should have the opportunity to see the rationale for why all of these things have actually happened in Villa Hills.
So, please post your answers. You never know. Your answers could actually change our opinion about what we currently believe to be examples of current, malfeasant Mayor Mike Martin's profligate waste of taxpayer money. Gee, we might even stop describing Martin as "malfeasant".
We are waiting for your answers.
