Comments

  • BSOD,

    The negative sentiments toward the Mayor are more complex & objective than mere "hate". This has been building over time as the Mayor has repeatedly overstepped his powers and treated the dissenting public as an a nuisance. He recently referred to a group of citizens as "Idiots of Destruction" for expressing skepticism toward the Mayor's overconfident, fiscally-irresponsible positions.

    Let's get a refresher on the limited powers of the Mayor:

    Article II, Section 8. - Mayor's power in relation to City Council.
    The Mayor shall preside at all meetings of the City Council and shall be recognized as head of the City government for all ceremonial purposes, for receiving services of civil process on the City, and for military purposes. The Mayor, as a member of the City Council, shall be entitled to vote upon all matters considered by the City Council, but shall not have power to veto any action of the City Council.

    June 15, 2010 at 2:53 p.m.
  • Why does everyone hate the mayor? I think it's just because you like to throw stones at people in position of power. If everyone who casts these stones can manage to get yourselves elected as mayor, I would caution you as to how fast these stones would get thrown your way.

    June 15, 2010 at 11:45 a.m.
  • Some questions:
    1) Who hired the consultant, and in whose interest is he working?
    2) Why isn't a law enforcement agency conducting the investigation?
    3) Who's responsible for enforcing the City Charter (The Law)?
    4) Why is the consultant reporting findings to the City Council? Is this a PR campaign?

    *From my reissued video blog: www.victoriaadvocate.com/weblogs/para...

    June 15, 2010 at 11:08 a.m.
  • milagro,

    Both Wyatt and Guittard were on their way out (or gone) when they endorsed Rangel. Wyatt resigned his seat and Guittard was vacating his D1 seat for which Rangel was running. Guittard was still a sitting council member in late-April of 2009, so something could have been made of it then.

    June 15, 2010 at 11:02 a.m.
  • published in the advocate in April 2009:

    Denise Rangel profile

    "Key endorsements: Philip Guittard, who has held the District 1 council seat for 12 years

    Support from existing board members: Those who have helped the most are Jim Wyatt and Philip Guittard but has met with most, if not all, of the council members."

    wern't they on are city council too? i think it has happend many times.

    June 15, 2010 at 10:35 a.m.
  • I am not defending armstrong in this comment, I am wanting to empower "those people" by telling you to not just believe and act on one sidede stories that cause a question, create an informed decision and not only act on it but takes others with you whether they follow and do the same or fall. Play them by their own game. Don't stick to tradition, formalities, pomp and circumstance; do't let the big meeting rooms, cameras, salary, title, etc... scare you away. They asked the same questions you have but they know how to get the answers without intimidation. Find out how you too can get anwers other than while being intimidated. Step up and ask your questions, voice your thoughts, know that you have the right to dig into alot of places for the details. Don't let their intimidation keep your mouth shut, it doesn't matter how you say something what matters is that you did. Sorry for the old cliche but "let your voice be heard" !!! If the self titled "priviledged, higher ups" want to play games and win by either default or technicalities, then lets beat them at there own game !!!! "They are so busy running life with a double edged sword that eventually they will forget which edge is up and they will take themselves down."

    June 15, 2010 at 9:22 a.m.
  • I predict a whitewash. The credentials of the consultant were conspicuously absent which leaves room to speculate he's a hired hack, especially when you consider he's reporting directly to the City Council. Shouldn't he be reporting to the Police Dept or a prosecutor?

    June 15, 2010 at 8:47 a.m.
  • Whatever it takes to get rid of our illustrious mayor. Please let's do it. After watching City Council meetings on line and just observing his actions and demeanor in public, it is obvious to me that he is the most rude, obnoxious, self-serving elected official in office. He obviously could care less about public opinion or the will of the people. Why he was re-elected is an absolute mystery to me. He certainly does not represent Victoria or want what is good for the city. His name was familiar and most voters are uninformed and check the most familiar name. If at all possible.....kick him out!!!!

    June 15, 2010 at 8:44 a.m.
  • Does anyone really think anything will come of this? It will cost US THE CITIZENS tax dollars for this consultant to say he did not do anything wrong - why BECAUSE IT IS VICTORIA AND THE OLD MONEY RICH PEOPLE NEVER DO ANYTHING WRONG.

    June 15, 2010 at 7:57 a.m.
  • You don't think this mysterious unnamed consultant was hired to sweep this under the rug do you?

    Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

    By the way who is this consultant and who hired him and when did city council approve hiring him or since this is a criminal complataint did the Police chief hire the consultant

    June 15, 2010 at 7:45 a.m.
  • vox,

    In either case, his words are limited by the Charter he swore to uphold, which is his contract with us.

    June 15, 2010 at 7:13 a.m.
  • It's my understanding that libel and slander are generally not covered by the First Amendment and freedom of speech.

    June 15, 2010 at 7:05 a.m.
  • Judge the video for yourself:
    www.victoriaadvocate.com/weblogs/para...

    June 15, 2010 at 6:32 a.m.
  • The active council members should politely ask Mayor Will Armstrong to resign.

    It is quite clear that the violation was made by the Mayor.

    Furthermore, it is quite clear what the City Charter reads. The question is Why is he still here?

    The partners in crime will come to surface when they began making excuses for the Mayor.

    Not one active City Council member or municipal judge can condone and shun this man’s actions as if nothing ever happened. If any one of them tries, you will have the partner in corruption red handed.

    Also, this city should not be paying for an outside consultant to inform these people how to weasel out of this mess. We already spent enough money on Armstrong for his defense once before.

    How many times does our Mayor have to commit these acts towards our citizens, without anyone realizing he is reaching out for help? This man may need a psychological evaluation. But he needs to step down first.

    June 15, 2010 at 12:10 a.m.
  • What happens if Armstrong has to forfeit his office?

    June 14, 2010 at 9:52 p.m.
  • Just because one becomes a public figure does not mean they lose their right to free speech. The Constitution supersedes any pathetic town charter. Can these pathetic small town, small minded witch hunts please stop? Go watch Glenn Beck play dress up in Nazi uniforms.

    June 14, 2010 at 9:52 p.m.
  • Freedom of speech isn't a luxury when you are in office. There are reprecusions for what you say. And guess what Armstrong ~ you used your freedom of speech to violate Article XII, Section 9 of the city charter. You need to be held accountable just like a other "good ole boy". If you can't keep your mouth shutt (I think we had this problem before with you) and follow the rules then get out of office!

    June 14, 2010 at 9:48 p.m.
  • This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

    June 14, 2010 at 8:39 p.m.
  • get the old man out,time fo a change,time to let some one else do it

    June 14, 2010 at 8:36 p.m.