UPDATE 6-27-06

Filed under: Uncategorized — tkm June 27, 2006 @ 10:0 am

Most of you know I have decided to discontinue my involvement, which includes random posting on Moe’s Forum; at least for the present time.  But, I will continue to provide Citizens of Portsmouth and the surrounding community information with documents, soundbites, and video clips through my website http://portsmouthcitizens.info/blog.  This will give me the satisfaction and assurance that material I disseminate to the public is accurate and unaltered.

Last night I edited the page on my website titled School Zoning with the video clips from last night’s Regular City Council meeting (6-26-06); this page can be found on the right hand side of the webpage and accessed by clicking the title.

Any time I update pages on the right I will provide the date updated next to the subject matter and leave said date next to the title for one month; the date in the right hand column should provide browsers easier scanning for new material. After one month I will remove the date in the right hand column, which does not mean the material I posted on that page will be removed.  Also, just remember, the way you return to the main page of this website is by clicking the Portsmouth Citizens header at the top of each page.

In the near future a Forum will be setup to provide information and provide you, the citizens of Portsmouth and the surrounding community, the opportunity to provide constructive, productive and positive feedback to the Forum Administrators and the public.  This Forum will work to ensure information about problems and concerns happening in our community are known and for you to provide the feedback required to find solutions without the threats, the personal attacks and to move our community forward in a positive direction.

I want to thank everyone for their continued efforts in moving our City forward in a positive direction and hope to continue working with those who have these same goals.

Teresa
email: concerned@portsmouthcitizens.info

RENTAL LICENSE FEE

Filed under: Uncategorized — tkm June 25, 2006 @ 14:0 pm

Just visited the updated http://www.mollette.info website and noticed on the Reports page http://www.mollette.info/wst_page4.html Kalb has delivered a letter to council pertaining to the Rental License Fee Program; half way down the page under Council Packet Correspondence.

CLICK: Kalb Letter

Could this memo from Kalb indicate that Council with the support of the Mayor are conspiring to do to the “Rental” property owners what they did to the “River Campground citizens”? A couple of months back several “River Campground citizens” attended a “Regular Council Meeting” to express their disappointment on how Council was contemplating raising the fees at the River Campground without first providing a plan or justification through documentation on why. After several of the citizens spoke Council decided to table the Ordinance for this particular meeting until further information could be compiled and Ordinance would be placed on the agenda in the future after all the details were worked out.

Well, guess what happened. Yes, the Ordinance was placed on a future “Regular Council Meeting,” and added to the agenda on the very night of the “Regular Council Meeting” just prior to the Legislative portion of the meeting. This intended behavior by Council insured citizens were not given any advanced opportunity to know this Ordinance would be revisited at this current “Regular Council Meeting”. The Ordinance was added to the Legislative Agenda as a second reading and passed that night. It’s called circumventing the law.

For more information see following:

CLICK:  http://www.mollette.info/Letter page/ of the Council Information website http://mollette.info or

CLICK:  Letter #06-032 and

CLICK:  This is a link to the City of Portsmouth’s website where you can read the approved meeting minutes from the “Regular Council Meetings” of 4-24-06 and 3-27-06.

Now, let’s continue with why I started this post. The “Rental License Fee Program,” was tabled after the 2nd reading and could be revisited in response to the above linked letter from the Mayor at the “Regular Council Meeting” scheduled tomorrow night 6-26-06 @ 06:00pm. From past documented information I would have to guess the Rental owners of Portsmouth will face the same demise as the “River Campground Citizens”?

Come to the “Regular Council Meeting” tomorrow, Monday, 6-26-06 @ 06:00pm to have a voice in your City Government or listen to the radio on WPAY 1400 the AM side @ 06:00pm.

Teresa

MOE’S FORUM

Filed under: Uncategorized — tkm June 24, 2006 @ 10:0 am

I will no longer be an Administrator on Moe’s Forum.  The decision to end my association as a Forum Administrator was formed after a long discussion between me and Joe Ferguson, the Forum owner, on the goals and directions Joe perceives for the Forum.  Joe and I are basically in the same ballpark when it comes to the goals for the Forum, but my concerns are associated with the actual management of these goals by Joe.  So, with this said I requested Joe to remove me as an Administrator of the Forum.
 
I believe in the truth.  I believe the citizens of Portsmouth need a chance to be able to express their ideas and provide facts to the community.  I hope Joe can deliver what he expresses to be his desires for Moe’s Forum, but as of late I don’t see this happening.  The change that is taking place with Moe’s Forum has not been for the good of the community, its citizens or for the long haul of the Forum.
 
The original reason I agreed to be an Administrator of Moe’s Forum was to help share the efforts required to review, moderate and maintain a Forum we could all be proud of.  My initial feelings about Moe’s Forum were, “This could work,” and “This could be good for the community.”  I still believe a Forum can work but it must be Administered and maintained to the highest standards, fairly and without personal prejudice or discrimination.  This is not happening.  Moe’s Forum has provided a few the opportunities to bash and humiliate at will while promoting other citizens to remain banned from the Forum and not given the chance to rebut their accusers’.  Sound familiar, Portsmouth!  Not only did Joe ban Julie, which prevented her from rebutting her accusers, he left the attacks by the accusers on the forum for all to read.  Another incident was when Joe deleted two very informative and well written responses posted on the Forum from a young adult, the Mayor’s older daughter.  These posts expressed her concerns associated with the article written by Julie and her portrayal and feelings towards her loving and caring parents and her younger sister.  Why did Joe decide to remove the post?  I sure did ask Joe.  His reply to me was, “No, I did not receive a request to remove it but felt as owner of the Forum that was my decision.”  Is the Mayors daughter that wrote this post an adult?  Yes, she is 22 years old.  Did she post anything out of line or false? No.  But, yet she was discriminated against because she was the daughter of the Mayor and because the owner felt he had a right to silence her.  How many other posts have been deleted because of one person’s emotional ties to a subject?  I don’t know. You will have to ask Joe that question.
 
I am one who does not believe or approve of the unsubstantiated personal bashing, but I am not against the facts being told.  When people are able to post and communicate on gathered facts and information it provides an opportunity for us all to advance as informed citizens.
 
Most of you are probably wondering what happened.  Well, I will try and explain some of the details.
 
Julie Stout was banned from Moe’s Forum due to an article written concerning the Mayor’s daughter and her webpage on MySpace.  Would I have written the article in the same manner as Julie?  No!  Would I have written an article expressing my dissatisfaction with the MySpace website and the attempts by pedophiles, molesters, rapists, and sexual deviants to use this website as the yellow pages for their next victim? Yes!  Some don’t agree with Julie’s article, as I mentioned above I don’t necessarily agree with her technique, but people it’s reality and it was factual.  All information contained in Julie’s article was found on a website on MySpace.  This information was placed on MySpace by this 16 year old adolescent.  I hope Julie’s article saved this girls life and maybe the life of other 16 year old girls in our community.  Many on here complained about Julie’s conversation with her 6 year old daughter and how that had to be exaggerated because what mother in their right mind would have that conversation with their 6 year old daughter?  Some expressed Julie must not be a fit mother.  Well, let’s look at it this way.  Just this past week Channel 3 news broadcast a segment in which they were talking with a mother of a young child, girl, who had been sexual assaulted by a church administrator.  This mother expressed pain, disgust and disbelief about how this could have happened to her daughter.  Also, during this same segment concerning this church administrator it was revealed another one of this mans victims was a 6 year old girl; the total victims molested by this man are still climbing.  People this happened in LUCASVILLE, OHIO—open your eyes!  What if this 6 year old child was Julie’s child?  Just maybe this 6 year old would not have to live the rest of her life remembering what this man had done to her.  Julie, with her teachings are helping to protect her child’s safety, Julie has the fortitude to keep her child safe even when dealing with a controversial topic.  So, is Julie a bad mom for keeping her children safe?  I don’t think so.  What about you?  Do you believe in the safety of your children and grandchildren?  I know I sure do!
 
With all that said Julie being banned is still not the reason I left Moe’s Forum as an Administrator.  Julie was banned and I believe that is Joe’s right to ban who he wishes, but when he allows others to bash and demoralize an individual without the right to respond—this is wrong.  If Julie was to remain banned and unable to respond to her accusers,  all posts concerning Julie should have been deleted immediately, but I know of at least three requests by Andrew, Julie’s husband, to delete slanderous and libelous posts about his wife, which I might add continued to remain on the Forum even after the requests were made with Joe using the excuse, Andrew is too emotional and personally involved to request the posts be removed; I felt Joe was being unfair and biased so I requested these same posts to be removed.  Joe refused to remove the posts and informed me, “I was too emotionally involved with the issue to request removal of posts”.
 
On 6-22-06 Julie found that her home computer had been left logged in by her husband.  She managed to post a couple of times on Moe’s Forum; one of these posts included a topic concerning Joe’s wife.  Do I think Julie’s posts were inappropriate?  Yes!  Do I feel that a discrepancy existed in the eventual deletion of Julie’s posts and the Administration of Moe’s Forum by Joe?  Yes!  Joe removed Julie’s post immediately without taking into consideration the facts behind the post.  Was Joe personally and emotionally involved in the topic of the post?  Yes.  Was the removal of the post done more out of emotional response rather than an Administrator/Owners responsibility?  Yes!  Did he let his emotions dictate his removal of these posts?  Yes!
 
I know many on here will say, “But, Joe had every right to remove said posts—Julie was banned.”  Ok, I’ll give you that but let me give you another example.  Another poster on Moe’s Forum accused me, “The Mollette’s,” of taking drugs, which at this time I will take the time to tell you this is the farthest thing from the truth.  I hid the post until I could locate Joe and request his review and deletion of said post.  But, instead he felt compelled to dishonor me and repost the thread on the Forum and then informed me I was too emotionally connected to the situation and accusation posted to request removal from the Forum.  My question would have to be, “Did Joe tell the Mayor he was too closely and emotionally involved with the post to request removal of said post on Moe’s Forum to a link to an article about the Mayor’s daughter?”  No!  Was the article in question and written about the 16 year old false?  Not from any evidence I can see from the information contained on the girl’s MySpace website.  Did Julie’s article articulate information already contained on a website and posted by this 16 year old for millions of strangers to see concerning facts about her?  Yes!  So, this brings me back to, was the post about the “Mollette’s” factual?  Absolutely Not!  Did Joe deliberately leave the post about the “Mollette’s” up even after he removed a post that personally and emotionally affected him as owner and Administrator?  Yes.
 
A last thought.
 
Moe’s Forum was created to bring accurate and timely information to the public.  Not to discriminate against the citizens of Portsmouth, which has happened and continues to happen with the local newspapers and the radio stations of our area—they print false, misleading, inaccurate and one-sided information; it’s all for “The Haves” (as the saying goes).  Well, now aren’t we seeing this same form of deception and discrimination on Moe’s Forum?
 
As a community “The Little People” were not allowed the opportunity to disseminate information to the community or receive information about the community.  These people had to sit back and listen; they had no way to get factual information to the population or receive information that affected their lives.  Now we have the opportunity with the internet sites and forums to provide everyone a fair and reasonable opportunity to get involved due in part with all the websites and forums popping up in our community.  But, what has Moe’s Forum turned into?  At the top of Moe’s Forum is a banner showing his support to ban the Portsmouth Daily Times due to the misinformation and one-sidedness of the newspaper.  With the current Administration of Moe’s Forum do we have any more than we do with the Portsmouth Daily Times if one person Administers and dictates the suitable content and relies on his personal and emotional feelings to control and Administer this website?
 
When it pertains to the city government we have a council that dictates what is best for the community with their own personal and emotional agendas.  Is this the path of Moe’s Forum?  You decide, I already have!
 
Therefore, I wanted to let you know why I have resigned as an Administrator of Moe’s Forum, but hopefully I will always remain Joe’s friend!
 
My hope is to continue http://portsmouthcitizens.info/blog website with the same dedication and commitment I’ve shown on Moe’s Forum.  I will try to show that those dedicated to reforming the city of Portsmouth should do it through facts and documentation, not through selectively repressing the truth and discriminating against those who disagree with you.

Teresa

TIME TO MOVE FORWARD

Filed under: Uncategorized — tkm June 21, 2006 @ 21:0 pm

Steve,

I am comfortable knowing the citizens of Portsmouth feel Teresa is their advocate.  Your statement that “your wife stands and rants as part of the weekly show” is your spin or rant, Hayes, involving Teresa and is an old tale.  Teresa was vocal at Council meetings before I was on Council so why would it change?  Prior to being a member of Council I always thought it was amusing that I would speak on a topic at a Council meeting in a diplomatic and methodical manner but was ignored and Teresa spoke with very direct words, clear minded, and demanding voice which received the attention of the media.  It accomplished the goal of raising the concern to the public in an attempt to create a paradigm shift in a positive direction for our Council and Mayor.  I will say at that point, you formed an inaccurate opinion about Teresa which you still spin today.  I am not sure if you developed it from the media or hearsay but you did not form it from attending Council meetings.  You then started using your radio spot to express those inaccurate and slanted views about Teresa before she ever uttered your name, Hayes, in public.  This continued to be your spin on your morning show after Council meetings instead of discussing or critiquing the decisions of Council.  Do you, Hayes, have an agenda with your slanted reporting?

My agenda is clear; it consists of personally investigating each item before Council and judging it based on the merits of the issue.  I come to Council meetings with an opinion but I maintain an open mind to learn something new.  I am willing to discuss the issue respectfully and negotiate for the best option.  I am discouraged when the issue is not discussed in public and votes taken to pass the Ordinance anyway.  This type of decision making is regrettable and leads to problems.  I am interested in the views and opinions of the public because I feel the City needs those citizens to be a part of the solution and not a victim.  Our City government is foolish not to create an atmosphere that encourages this resource (approx. 20,000 citizens).

I believe it is extraordinary the private entity Southern Ohio Growth Partnership (SOGP) which represents the City of Portsmouth by Ordinance does not routinely communicate and update Council (citizens).  The communication could dispel the rumors and build trust.  As a missed opportunity, during the Marting Renovation Public Forum held at the Scioto County Welcome Center, opposing views were silenced by removing citizens from the parking lot because it was deemed private property.  This property was falsely deemed private because the majority money used to purchase and build the structure was taxpayer dollars.  Communication is Key!  I have questioned the appropriateness of a water contract which takes effect November 2006.  I feel the Ordinance was improperly approved by Council which provides a source of revenue for SOGP at the expense to the other users of water (citizens).  My concern on this issue started when I asked the Mayor (President of Council at that time) why he voted in favor of this 20 year water contract; he stated he didn’t know.

Hayes, you falsely state that you are a target of mine; I believe it is the other way around.  You continue to use me in an effort to silence other websites or Teresa.  If you have an issue with my website http://www.mollette.info,contact/ contact me.

Again, Teresa has every rite to be vocal about her opinion which you and others wish to silence.  Your slant, spin, or rant concerning her relationship with me is what you focus on instead of listening to what she has to say.  I feel your spin is an attempt to silence her.  She is a taxpaying citizen and has every rite to express her displeasure with the decisions of Council.  I applaud her and any other citizen that has made the extra effort to attend a Council meeting to express their views.  You, Hayes, spin our relationship as if it should bother me, it does not.  On the personal note I will share this; my relationship with my wife is special…..I am very fortunate…..I can best describe our relationship as the small surface between two (2) spheres touching; not one inside the other as you spin.  Again, I do not fear informed citizens.

Again, you falsely accuse me of controlling the content of other websites (i.e. Shawnee Sentinel) because a link to my website is located there.  If you have issues with http://www.mollette.info/ contact me.  If you have issues with other websites contact them.

Again, you falsely accuse Teresa of being “the driving force in trying to take down a 16 year old girl on the web.”  This is inaccurate and false; I suggest you discuss your accusation with Teresa and get the facts.  The reality Hayes is it not my type or style of writing and I do not approve of getting personal.  I believe it became personal between the Mayor and Ms. Stout when the Mayor stated on a public forum that Julie Stout was an “unfit mother”, but again one does not justify the other.  As it has been said before; the continued use of a 16 year old for your agenda, Hayes, is wrong!

I do not have an opinion on “MySpace.”  The news media has reported problems associated with the website site “MySpace” which may be used by some to exploit our youth.  Our three (3) boys are in their mid-twenties.  If I had a granddaughter or grandson on the internet I would be concerned if they were posting personal data or photos on “MySpace” because I feel based on the news reports it would raise their odds of being the victim of an unwanted experience.  Keep in mind using your spin “guilty by association” could also be applied and viewed as promoting unwanted violations.

I do not have a “personal angst targeted at the mainstream community.” Review my Letter page on my website at http://www.mollette.info/ before you form an opinion.  My frustrations are directed at a lack of respect or concern for the citizens by the individuals who should be their representatives and not rulers.  The City has an enormous amount of work to overcome this type of approach to citizens.  Citizens have commented “The City needs to run like any other business”, I agree.  I am disappointed by your lack of insight and the predestined spin to make a statement that “I do not show common sense or empathy for my fellow human being.”  If you had attended City Council meetings you would have a different opinion based on observation and witness.  If you desire to review past City Council meeting minutes (very informative) I have actually linked the City of Portsmouth government website on my website http://www.mollette.info/.  Unless based on your spin or rant the City is now a target of yours by association and a link.

I remain positive on Portsmouth because it is home and I believe we are all here for the same goal and must work together to make the City of Portsmouth a better place to live as stated on my website http://www.mollette.info/.

“I am committed to improving the quality of life in the City of Portsmouth by strengthening our neighborhoods, delivering superior services, embracing the diversity of our citizens, and making Portsmouth a desirable, safe City in which to live, work, raise a family, shop, study, play, and grow old.”

With that said, in an effort to create a paradigm shift to move Portsmouth forward I have attached an email sent to the Shawnee Sentinel Website at their email listed address shawneesentinel@adelphia.net.

Shawnee Sentinel, It has been brought to my attention the Shawnee Sentinel website includes unsubstantiated personal attacks on various individuals. This type of writing is hurtful and divisive which dilutes the efforts to exercise accountability and citizen participation. In the past the Shawnee Sentinel stirred my interest to attend City Council Meetings concerning the purchase of the Marting Building and for that, I will am eternally thankful. I recommend if the Shawnee Sentinel is going to survive and be a separate voice for the community the personal attacks must stop. The Shawnee Sentinel website appears to have become a National Lampoon series but many readers are not aware of the change in direction. Please remove any personal references concerning Mr. Steve Hayes and MySpace because these statements have been reported to me as unsubstantiated and are very divisive. Contact me if you have any questions.
Bob Mollette
 

Keep in mind, Hayes, this is a two way street.

Per your request I will not publish your previous response.

Respectfully,

Bob

MORE ON THE FLIP SIDE STORY

Filed under: Uncategorized — tkm June 20, 2006 @ 9:0 am

I am posting an email written by Bob Mollette in response to the Flip Side article posted in the Sunday Community Common.  In relationship to this letter I am also posting the reply received by Bob from Steve Hayes on June 20th.

Even with the public attacks against Bob and me that existed in Hayes’ Flip Side article Bob’s response email to Hayes and the Community Common remained on a professional level.  But, when you read the associated response by Hayes to Bob the unprofessional mannerism, personal attacks and threats reek throughout Hayes’ email.

Documentation is everything!
 

Response from Bob Mollette to the Flip Side

Mr. Hayes,

This is in response to the questions included in your opinion column published June 18, 2006 in the Community Common titled “The Flip Side” concerning my website http://www.mollette.info/ and my wife’s (Teresa) blog www.portsmouthcitizens.info/blog.

My website http://www.mollette.info/ is my effort in working with the citizens of Portsmouth to ensure accurate information is made available to the public and encourage our large diverse resource of experience and knowledge to participate.  I encourage and respect different views and opinions.  I do not fear well-informed citizens.

I am responsible for my website http://www.mollette.info/ content and Teresa is responsible for her blog www.portsmouthcitizens.info/blog content.  I encourage your review and solicit any comments, questions or issues which develop.  These two sites are made available for public use and informational material.   Either of these two websites may be linked by you or anyone for that matter and if false information is identified current contact information is provided for correction.

I encourage all citizens to participate in City Council Meetings.  Teresa’s rite to participate in a public forum should not be discriminated against because she happens to be married to a Councilman.  I hope City Council will chose to provide a better format to encourage open two-way communication between Council and the public on new and existing City business and issues.  I am optimistic that Council Meetings will be broadcast by tape delay on Adelphia/Time Warner in the near future.

Again, open communication is key to the City’s success!

I encourage your involvement and if I can assist in the future contact me.

Respectfully,
Bob Mollette, 3rd Ward Council
http://www.mollette.info/

_________________________________________

email response received from Steve Hayes 6-20-06:

Bob,

You and your wife use the Sentinal to promote you, snd only your personal point of view and agendas. Teresa is hell bent on destroying anybody she disagrees with. just because I have a Myspace site, does that make me a sexual preditor? Her spin says “Yes.” Why? She knows nothing about why I and most media outlets use them. she is the one who is quite uniformed.

By association of having your home page linked to the SS, you are accountable for helping destroy peoples lives. Your viel is thin Bob.

I and many are banding together to bring your little world of hate to an end. You are an ELECTED OFFICIAL. If you and your wife want to destroy Me, the Mayors daughter, and all who dare disagree with you, bring it on. I welcome you any morning to come on the air with me live. You certainly wouldn’t have a problem with that would you? To answer some of my question about our ” tandum” rule  3rd ward council and the things they write about people.Why is it that nobody else in town ever gets credit for helping make Portsmouuth a better place? This freedom of speech the SS spews is a joke. As long as it is our point of view, it’s fine. All else is a conspiracy or lie from all the crooks. The article has opened many eyes to what ” Team Mollette” is all about……Have you ever heard the term “Guilty by Association?” The lies, enuendos, half truths and spin lies at your feet Bob. Be man enough to accept it. Or…have Teresa do it for you.

We ain’y buying it anymore my friend.

Next Page >>>