NOW:53110:USA00949
http://widgets.journalinteractive.com/cache/JIResponseCacher.ashx?duration=5&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdata.wp.myweather.net%2FeWxII%2F%3Fdata%3D*USA00949
66°
H ° L °
Partly Cloudy | 7MPH

The Way I See It!

I am an Ultra-Conservative, Alpha-Male, True Authentic Leader, Type "C" Personality, who is very active in my community; whether it is donating time, clothes or money for Project Concern or going to Common Council meetings and voicing my opinions. As a blogger, I intend to provide a different viewpoint "The way I see it!" on various world, national and local issues with a few helpful tips & tidbits sprinkled in.

Guest Blog Jeff N. - C.R.G. Part I

Cudahy, Leadership, Local Government, Recall

Regarding C.R.G., Cudahy and Muskego, it was suggested that “You don't let wolves inside the hen house.”, because on one instance C.R.G. is helping with a recall effort of local officials who are allowing a Wal-Mart in their community and another recall effort against Cudahy’s Mayor for trying to block a Wal-Mart. 

 

What is so hard to accept about that?  Why are so many of you confused?  Do you know what C.R.G. is?

 

C.R.G. stands for Citizens for Responsible Government.  Let us define starting with the easy ones in my own words.  Citizens are the people of the venue that the government serves (city, state, nation, etc.).  The Government is the entity or people who are elected, hired or appointed to serve the people.  That should be pretty clear to us all.  I think they are confusing the last part “Responsible” as meaning, “I want Wal-Mart” or “I don’t want Wal-Mart.”  I have included the definition of responsible from Dictionary.com.

Responsible re·spon·si·ble as defined from Dictionary.com:

 

1. answerable or accountable, as for something within one's power, control, or

2. anagement (often fol. by to or for): He is responsible to the president for his decisions.

3. involving accountability or responsibility: a responsible position.

4. chargeable with being the author, cause, or occasion of something (usually fol. by for): Termites were responsible for the damage.

5. having a capacity for moral decisions and therefore accountable; capable of rational thought or action: The defendant is not responsible for his actions.

6. able to discharge obligations or pay debts.

7. reliable or dependable, as in meeting debts, conducting business dealings, etc.

8. (of a government, member of a government, government agency, or the like) answerable to or serving at the discretion of an elected legislature or the electorate.

 

As you should now see, C.R.G. is about holding government officials accountable to the people that they serve!  Eventually, elected officials will wake-up and realize that they are in office to serve the people (public servants) and their self-serving or arrogant stands will not be tolerated!  C.R.G. is not for or against Wal-Mart.  They are for the people, majority, minority or both at the same time.  It doesn’t matter, they are just for the people.

 

I don’t think C.R.G. is taking both sides.  They are on one side, the same side each time, the people’s side.  C.R.G. does not go out looking for a fight; they are there to respond to citizens who wish to correct a problem that the citizens have in their governments.  In these two communities, as far as I know, the citizens have asked for C.R.G.’s guidance in a recall effort of local officials for a reason that should not be of ANY importance to C.R.G. and it isn’t!  Again, they are there to help citizens who wish to correct a problem that the citizens have in their governments.

 

In both cases, the recall efforts transcends Wal-Mart and go to the very heart of the problem, the politicians who are not listening to the people’s wishes and not following the proper processes.  There may be corruption once both cities dig into them.  You want the people to uncover the truth and expose any wrong doing, don’t you?  

 

As for a recall being a waste of taxpayer’s money, there is a reason that this option is part of the setup of our government.  Look into the process.  Checks and balances!

 

To start, it is my understanding that there is a filing of an attempt to recall.  Next, and most importantly, they need to gather valid signatures equal to 25% of the number of people who voted in the community in the last election for the Governor.  These may not even be the same people who voted in the election.  It could be new people who moved in, people who did not vote or people who did vote but have changed their mind.  All that is need is they are Cudahy or Muskego, respectively, residents and are eligible to vote.  They don’t even have to be registered, just be able to vote.  That means, they have not lost the right to vote because of a felony or are not the correct age.  All of this is not costing the community anything!  Not one cent! 

 

But if they are able to gather the signatures, then it becomes obvious that there are at least one quarter of these voters in the community that are unhappy enough with the elected official to desire a recall of that official. 

 

Let’s face it, if that was an insignificant number, then the elected officials would not be so afraid of it.  This is not the number of people desiring the recall; it is the number of signatures that must be collected in a limited amount of time in order to force the recall.  To an elected official who has done their job and been responsible to the citizens to represent, this should be nothing more than an inconvenience.

 

As to waiting for the person’s term to end to “throw the bum out,” why would you?  You would be giving them a blank check for 3-6 years without accountability.  That statement is basically, do what YOU want for your term and we will sit by and take it! 

 

NO!!!

 

Elected official’s represent and are responsible to all their constituents, those that voted for them, those who did not, and those who didn’t vote.  THAT IS THE PROBLEM IN POLITICS TODAY!  Too many people vote or don’t vote for that matter, then stick their heads in the sand and allow their officials to do whatever they want.  Make them realize whom they are there for and that there is no free pass!

 

Finally, as to the mistake that Orville Seymer from C.R.G. made in Muskego with not having the correct person from the correct district file the paper work, the people have the right to no longer ask him for help, or as some would say, “throw the bum out”.  Those in Muskego still show trust in C.R.G. and have properly filed the paper work and have begun the signature drive again.

 

However, most people will probably see this as an oversight or a mistake and most humans are not infallible.  Again, my understanding is that he is corrected the error and are proceeding forward.  It is suspicious to me that some people’s standards for elected officials are so loose, while their standards for someone who helps to make them responsible to the people are so strict.  Not just for the C.R.G. people, but to those helping out on the recall.  Look at this as an audit of the elected officials in power and in that audit the power is restored back to the people truly in charge.

This site uses Facebook comments to make it easier for you to contribute. If you see a comment you would like to flag for spam or abuse, click the "x" in the upper right of it. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use.

Page Tools