Good morning Mr. Polasek. I will disagree and correct you only when you are wrong.
Congrats on the triathlon

Good morning onestar, it appears this blog is no longer focused on the article. No matter what I write its safe to say you will disagree, which is quite ok. Regarding your statement about violating the law. I suggest you contact the state attorney generals office right away to get things cleared up. Mr kci, I never stated I had a problem with the article. I would be very happy to meet with anyone to discuss any city related issue, feel free to contact me directly.

Have a great day!
Paul Polasek

Mr. Polasek...if there are no factual errors in a story, then what is your problem with it? That it's short? All of the information that was in the shorter article appears again today in the longer article. So...I ask you again....do we NOW have your blessing to comment and come to conclusions? Or should we wait for you and your compadres, Mayor Will and Mr. Halepaska, to tell us what we should think?

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Armstrong said he is "not sure what Mr. Alvarez wishes to accomplish."

"I am determined that we'll do absolutely everything possible to perfect the petition submitted by Ms. Rangel," he said. "We definitely will have a recount."

of course it's all how VICAD writes the article but doesn't that sound like the recount guru is showing a BIAS towards Ms. Rangel ?

did armstrong help rangel redo her petition ? if so how is that allowed ?

this whole deal is really starting to stink

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Hello Mr. KCI,

I did not state there were any factual inaccuracies in the article. I made two statements, the first being about the limited info in the article and the second about some general comments made about “the city”. By the way, to easily count the words just cut and paste the article into Microsoft word and the word count will display at the bottom of the document. I was just curious how long the article was is all. Have a great evening.

Thanks,
Paul Polasek

I called it last week, 'why didn't the city bring in a recount consultant ?'

so is time expired on the recount request ???

that's the big question.

also will armstrong needs to step down as the election administrator. he has too much at stake on this recount.

Mr. Polasek....what part of the 127 word article (geez---you actually counted them?) is incorrect and that we should not be basing our comments on?

By the way...the Advocate has already posted a longer article (I'll let you count the words). Do we have your permission to make comments on it?

Please enlighten us as to the factual inaccuracies of the Advocate article which should prevent the voters of the this city from coming to conclusions about it.

Mr. Alvarez has the right to file his claim just as Ms. Rangel has the right to request a recount. It is interesting, as usual, to read the comments people make based on limited information from an article of 127 words. I would also respectively disagree with bloggers who make accusations about any council member’s impartiality or the cities inability to follow the rules.

Question........ If the two 48 hour periods have expired can the petition be amended??????

Did the city attorney "step in it " again ?

From the May 16 edition of the Advocate:

"City Attorney Thomas Gwosdz said the next step is a 48-hour period to review Rangel's petition. If there is anything missing, Rangel has 48 hours to make a correction. Then the mayor can select a recount committee."

Didn't the mayor appoint the recount committee already? That implies the City Attorney already reviewed the petition. It will be VERY interesting to see if Mr. Alvarez finds valid problems with the petition already approved by our the city attorney. Perhaps we need to hire outside lawyers more often.

Thanks, onestar...while I was typing my comment, you already had the same thoughts posted

"I'm not sure what Mr. Alvarez wishes to accomplish....."

Maybe...just maybe, Mayor Will....Mr. Alvarez wants rules to be followed?

"...we'll do absolutely everything possible to perfect the petition submitted by Ms. Rangel"

Why would the mayor get involved in perfecting the petition...shouldn't he be impartial in all of this? The responsibility for getting the petition corrected is Ms. Rangel's...not the mayor's.

Why doesn't someone at the Advocate ever question Armstrong's blatant favoritism?

I recognise that it is unusual for the city to follow established procedures including the law....but this time the election code determines what is correct not the mayor...what is this "we will do absolutely everything possible to perfect the petition...". That does not sound impartial to me ... it is not the mayor,s petition to protect.... Mr. Alvarez better watch everything, sounds like the mayor is trying to protect his votes

A (3) vote margin should trigger a recount automatically even without a petition.

While you are at it, why not account for he machines that did not operate properly while voting. Like when you vote against something it deleates something else.