Chris Redfern questions Betty Shultz’s credibility for asking what others are…
One of the things I dislike is the blame game, how this is played in politics and real life is when you are accused of something, you make an accusation about that person instead. The question of the meeting that the 8 Democrats on City Council and the Open Meetings Laws in Ohio was raised here on Glass City Jungle yesterday morning and it had been raised by others as well, I would point out that everyone who raised it with me was not a registered republican nor an elected republican office holder. I also seriously doubt Betty Shultz reads this blog and she’s never had any contact with me at all, so it’s obvious others were asking the same question. Hence, Chris Redfern’s quote as listed in the Blade article, City of Toledo Dems’ private talk questioned:
“One should question Betty Shultz’s credibility every time she opens her mouth,” Mr. Redfern said. “When Tom Noe asked Betty Shultz to jump, she asked how high.”
Makes me wonder if this means that anyone who has raised this question is going to have their credibility questioned rather than just getting a response to a question that is a valid one to ask. Especially when we know that the City Council President discussion was one of the things covered as shared by Todd Hoffman of the ODP, here on this blog:
Lisa-
A discussion about the City Council President was only one issue among many addressed in a very constructive meeting that Chairman Redfern had in Lucas County. ODP is actively working with local leaders to strengthen and unify the Lucas County Democratic Party.
I was told through the political grapevine that Attorney General Marc Dann had been asked for a ruling on this, and I contacted the AG’s office yesterday to ask if them if they could confirm a public opinion had been requested and if so, when an opinion might be expected, I haven’t gotten a response yet as to that question. Let’s face it, our ethics laws and our open meetings rules are confusing, and there should be nothing wrong with asking questions when there is a concern. If the concern is unfounded? Asking merely reassures people that everything was done the proper way. There is an understandable issue when it comes to trust and the Democratic Party here in Lucas County for quite a few people, from within the party as well as outside the party. That is not going to go away over night and it’s going to take work on all sides to restore trust, which as suggested before, starts with better communication rather than witty sound bites.
That is so funny…an Ohio Democrat questioning the credibility of anyone..lol!
August 25th, 2007 at 10:00 amAhem…let’s remember some of us are also Ohio Democrats.
August 25th, 2007 at 10:04 am“Ahem…let’s remember some of us are also Ohio Democrats.”
Quite and when the party drunk on power abuses the privaleges of office, shine the light and turn off the tap.
Shultz’s lapse in ethics is a thing of the past.
This is present day Toledo and here the party in power is again walking in circles doomed to keep repeating the mistakes.
August 25th, 2007 at 10:11 amWith all respect, Chris Redfern was right IMO when he said Betty Shultz had no room to talk due to her shady history, simple as that.
August 25th, 2007 at 10:27 amI should have inserted “leaders” in my first post…hehehe
August 25th, 2007 at 10:36 amIn this city, the leaders are all shades of “Shady”. Pot/Kettle
August 25th, 2007 at 10:37 amYeah, what Rockets Man said. Ditto.
Lisa, Chris didn’t blame someone else; he pointed out a fact about his accuser, which put her accusation in context
I wonder how anyone can draw a line between council business and party business in regard to that meeting. So much depends on what, exactly, was said — and I doubt we’ll ever know that.
August 25th, 2007 at 11:11 amLet us say for the sake of discussion.
An allegation of an Open Law violation is filed and acted upon and there is evidence to support the allegation and there is a charge filed and the charge is held and the parties fined and charged and so on.
Does it make a difference who(m) file the claim?
We want transparent government and then we accuse some of past troubles as not being capable of lodging a complaint.
Do we expect those that held the meeting to come forward and deny the claim and share with us the meeting minutes with out a tussle and struggle?
August 25th, 2007 at 11:26 amThere is a definate lapse in credibility involving Ms. Schultz, Ms Thurber, Ms. Perz and any others involved with the money laundering escapade with Mr. Noe.
The point here is that there ought to be some contrition shown or at the very least a period of time taken out of the public arena for self-reflection.
Instead what we see is self-serving sanctimonious statements and commentary when there should be some sense of shame for the wrongdoings. In other words, those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
August 25th, 2007 at 11:38 am“There is a definate lapse in credibility involving Ms. Schultz, Ms Thurber, Ms. Perz and any others involved with the money laundering escapade with Mr. Noe.”
Those involved, locally, have paid what was due, in fines and charged and so on.
In the mean time we call for transparent government and the majority party allegedly acts improperly and someone steps up and possibly calls them on it and the reactions seem to be that the person should not comment as they did something and they were fined and charged and so on and still remain in office and the public did not see fit to remove him or her.
Sure the person erred and all but that was then and this is now and we can wait for someone else to come along but with the fear of reprisals stinking up the city, who is gonna act?
August 25th, 2007 at 11:45 amAlso quite odd or normal for here, when Councilpersons are absent from meetings they sometimes throw up complaints.
Shultz was absent from the meeting and vote for Ashford and so it was with Szollozi when it came to Budget Task Force meetings and both allege some wrong doing.
Maybe if they were present they would know what is going on?
Just a thought.
August 25th, 2007 at 11:54 amIf we’re waiting on 1 or more “virtue Intact” elected leaders to emerge, we’ll be waiting forever. They are all tainted in 1 way or anoter. Such is the nature of Lucas County and Toledo politics and politicians.
It wasn’t all that long ago we were talking about Redfern’s paying his girlfriend from campaign funds for shacking up with her.
Forgiveness is one thing, negligence is another. Just because you may not be yet attoned, doesn’t mean you should keep your mouth shut when a problem exists. After all, if you’ve “been there”, you should have a good idea what it looks like.
August 25th, 2007 at 12:04 pmHer husband has been ill a long time, somethings are beyond your control.
August 25th, 2007 at 12:05 pmI don’t have a lot to say at this point, but when the names “Chris Redfern” and “Todd Hoffman” popped-up, I went into instant skepticism mode. Talk about “pot calling the kettle black” … BWWWWWWAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA … now these two even have big boi bryan clark on their team … the little tent version of the so-called “big tent” at Redfern’s ODP Headquarters in Columbus. They say damn the progressive activists by breaking promises made over a year and a half ago !!
http://www.pdamerica.org/articles/news/redfern.php
August 25th, 2007 at 12:15 pmThe fact remains that certain state leaders and a democrat majority of Toledo City Council met in a closed meeting.
Does this NOT constitute a violation of the open meetings laws?
August 25th, 2007 at 1:03 pmIf we accept as fact that there are no “virtue intact” leaders available, that is a self-fulfilling prophesy of doom and we let cynicism win. Our problem as an entire region is that we vote for and elect popular names who spend boatloads of money, instead of taking the time to really investigate our choices.
Those charged, convicted, and fined should have had the grace to resign and enter into a period of self reflection. He who is humbled shall be exalted and he who is exalted shall be humbled.
This is expecially true if those who have been convicted and paid their fines still refuse to accept responsibility, as I recall, one of them placed the blame on their spouse.
Make no mistake, we’ve all sinned in one form or another, but to allow those who violate the “public trust” to continue to serve the public they have violated seems improper to me and a recipe for disaster.
August 25th, 2007 at 1:08 pmI’ll add, No virture intact leaders currently,. We have the chance to change that starting this fall.
August 25th, 2007 at 1:37 pmPoor Betty, she can’t help herself as she is becoming addle. She can’t seem to recall anybody named Tom Noe. Poor thing.
Here’s the operative question, though: why do the voters continue to elect her time after time?
Oops! Sorry, I forgot: they voted for Carty 3x!
August 25th, 2007 at 1:56 pmSpeaking of ethics violations, hasn’t the current Mayor had a couple, some land deal involving condo’s and some other that I forget at the present.
August 25th, 2007 at 3:19 pmI brought the issue up about a potential open meeting violation on this site at about 5 am 8/24/07. I had emailed a couple of contacts in the media (including the Blade)earlier about it.
Instead of Schultz, they could have said Steven Flagg or any number of individuals who also brought it up. This was going to be brought to the public’s attention regardless. And Schultz being a city council person sells news better than saying I brought it up or almost anyone else.
As to Schultz, whenever anyone wants to challenge the credibility of something they frequently attack the messenger to discredit the message. Whether Schultz had previous ethics lapses or not, her question is valid and deserves an answer.
As to glass houses, I’ll bet if we all are honest with ourselves we have all been hypocritical at times. Anyone posting here believe they are eligible for “sainthood”?
August 25th, 2007 at 4:45 pmNot quite ready for Sainthood yet, but am in line for Royalty as some have a called me Royal Pain in the Arse.
I would like my title to be the Worster of Shire
August 25th, 2007 at 4:53 pm“Anyone posting here believe they are eligible for ’sainthood’?”
Sorry, I’m not Catholic.
August 25th, 2007 at 5:49 pmCome to think of it, I’m not sorry either.
“we’ve all sinned in one form or another” I would just rather not hear the questions from Ms. Schultz or other political veterans who disgraced themselves with their actions.
August 25th, 2007 at 7:14 pm“I would just rather not hear the questions from Ms. Schultz or other political veterans who disgraced themselves with their actions.”
Would you rather those folks just totally not perform the duties of their office, just sit back and be quiet, and cover up wrongdoings of which they may be aware?
“See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil”
August 25th, 2007 at 7:44 pm“Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone”
So, it’s a non-issue or only a non-issue because it was raised by Shultz? My original point is that it was being asked by other people, Steven has stated he is one of those willing to put his name out there as asking and others called and asked me too.
The point here is that a valid issue was being poo-poo’d away by making a comment about the person raising the question rather than the question. I don’t care if it was Satan who raised the question, if it’s one other people have also raised does it not deserve an answer? I believe it does and I don’t think the “shoot the messenger” type syndrome that happens all to often gives us a positive end result. Sure, it takes away the attention from the real question, as we see here, some here focused on her rather than the real issue…
What’s that old saying…even a broken clock is right once a day? What if this was Betty’s one right moment…
August 25th, 2007 at 9:13 pmBullseye. Right on target, Lisa Renee.
August 26th, 2007 at 6:40 amRoland,
With all due respect, I would rather these people go away for awhile and contemplate their misdeeds, show contrition, and commit to a new set of values.
Personally (and this is merely my opinion) I would rather not have those who have only recently been charged and found guilty of campaign finance violations spouting off about or lecturing or pontificating about anything.
I’d rather not trust the foxes to look over the henhouse.
And I believe that Democratic Party politics is not the public business.
August 26th, 2007 at 10:58 am“And I believe that Democratic Party politics is not the public business.”
I agree also, but, the City of Toledo Charter makes it clear that if there is to be a reorganization meeting held to do just that, then there is a required notice time to be posted.
Section 32A. President of Council.
At the organizational meeting on the first business day of January following each regular City election, the Council shall elect one of its members as President who shall serve as President at the pleasure of Council. The President shall preside at meetings of the Council, perform such duties as presiding officer as may be conferred upon him or her by Council, and shall prepare the agenda for the meetings of Council in consultation with the Mayor, or the Mayor’s designated representative, and with the Clerk of Council. In the event of the death, removal, or resignation of the President of Council, the Council shall elect one of its members to fill the vacancy. If the President is temporarily disabled from performing the duties of President for any cause, the Council shall elect a President pro tempore to act during such disability.
(Amended by electors 11-7-00)
August 26th, 2007 at 11:08 amLisa Renee -
Our relationship with the Administration is broken, hurting our ability to make change and deliver services to the city. Obviously, my urgency about changing council leadership in order to enter into a period of greater cooperation and respect with the Administration was shared by a very diverse group of Council members.
Strength vis-a-vie the Administration and among our colleagues were the factors I valued most, as I believe they set the tone for respect & cooperation in doing good things for Toledo. Second, my level of trust with the potential council leader should be high. Third, the quality of their relationships with my colleagues – embodied by their ability to earn the necessary seven votes. The requirements of a successful legislative leader are complex, personal, and often are evaluated through private judgments of colleagues. Once legislative leadership is settled in good faith (it wasn’t when Rob got elected 1/06), it is easier to work in a bipartisan manner on substantive public policy. I value transparency very much, and am willing to take risks here to share my insights.
Countless other factors entered into our conversations. I made the point repeatedly about Ellen’s professionalism, intelligence, strength and savvy – as both great traits for a Council President and as potent tonic to the recently negative perceptions of Democrats, women and the image of our community. Ellen had six Democratic votes if she could get her seventh.
Last December, a group of African-American leaders came to several of us and flatly laid down the challenge to support Wilma Brown. I and others disagreed. The case was made for her tenure as the longest serving Democrat on Council, her ability to get along with the Mayor, and yes, the desire to recognize African-American leadership in the wake of many prominent departures (i.e. Ford, Bell, Mickler, the late Bill Copeland, Griffin, et al.) and the loss of state candidates Bradley(R) and Sykes(D). Some felt at the time Wilma had gotten too accepting of some of the Mayor’s more questionable proposals, and as a result, Democrats couldn’t reach a consensus.
Last week’s meeting called by State Chairman Redfern wasn’t the first this year and won’t be the last he conducts with Democratic elected officials and activists as we together seek to build on the momentum of 2006 for greater success in 2008. Before we agreed to meet with Redfern, we sought and got assurance (from Redfern and each other) that the meeting would be conducted in a manner consistent with laws governing municipal legislative bodies. I understand the questions being asked, but am comfortable with our anticipation of the meeting and our proper action. Many of us were glad we had an opportunity to have a cup of coffee and talk about what unites us: jobs for Toledoans, fighting crime, progressive victories in 2008 and beyond. I genuinely seek greater cooperation and effectiveness among colleagues at the local, state and national level.
After the meeting, of course, after we went our separate ways, dozens of conversations occurred and we in fact made the change many of us long sought as a necessary step to improve our relationship with the Administration in order to get things done for our community.
Without question, we have now accepted a greater deal of responsibility. We recognize the considerable challenges our community faces: population loss, an increasing tax burden, home foreclosure, education, crime, the 2008 budget, high-profile worries like Southwyck and flooding, as well as no less important individual concerns such as trimming trees at Cuba-Saturn Park. We look forward to working together to solve problems and encourage success for Toledo.
August 26th, 2007 at 1:21 pmFrank, had anyone – including Todd Hoffman when he was here stated what you just did?
That would have ended a great deal of the speculation on that aspect of it. It’s reassuring to know that you as well as some of the others discussed the topic of making sure you were in compliance of the open meetings rules. Thanks for the clarification on that aspect of it, I appreciate it.
August 26th, 2007 at 1:29 pmFrank – I’ve heard it before, “we sought and got assurances”.
Many of us that have commented here and over at Swampbubbles would like to know what assurances, who was contacted for an opinion and whether discussing the change of leadership is council business and therefore subject to the open meetings laws.
Pardon me, if I refuse to accept your comments on this issue at face value! My roots are in the “show me” state.
Regardless, I think the action in light of concerns in this community was just plain bad judgment on the part of state and local democratic party leadership and the council members involved.
August 26th, 2007 at 1:51 pmLet me add what I have said so many times before – just because you can do something (as in legal) does not mean you should do it.
August 26th, 2007 at 1:54 pm“Our relationship with the Administration is broken, hurting our ability to make change and deliver services to the city.”
And city council is doing what about it? To make nice, nice with the administration?
More of the same walking in circles wondering what can be done while the city slides further down the economic spiral?
“We look forward to working together to solve problems and encourage success for Toledo.”
That indicate that we can expect people to show up for meetings and not complain they were shut out and then make allegations that there were secret meetings and then when the budget actually gets discussed, some is going to explain how the next cut or fee is going to be introduced to balance the books as we head into a year where the administration has stated that the MLK might not be completed because of fiscal woes but yet like last budget can we expect council to approve expenditures that suddenly were fundable after the budget was passed.
August 26th, 2007 at 2:12 pm“Thanks for the clarification on that aspect of it, I appreciate it.”
Just from where I sit the clarification made it seem that legislative matters were discussed or possibly could have been discussed.
If Redfern or Hoffman had said that this is a caucus of the Democratic party members to discuss Democratic policy and the platform, well heck ya it was clean as that says that, at least to me, the matters are Democratic party policies and not city business.
But no, Hoffman said, :A discussion about the City Council President was only one issue among many addressed in a very constructive meeting that Chairman Redfern had in Lucas County.”
So, inquiring minds are interested in the “many” addressed.
August 26th, 2007 at 2:16 pmWhich would all be absolutely great..If Ashford and Carty got along. They don’t. They hate eachother and have for a very long time. Choosing Ashford was not the right decision to get better relations with the administration. Your “deals” are for crap, your motives are suspect at best and Frank…you betrayed the public trust, just like your enimies.
August 26th, 2007 at 2:33 pm“If Ashford and Carty got along.”
Lemme see if I got this correct.
We have a city council with a democratic majority and a democratic mayor and the state democratic party leader comes to Toledo and meets with the democratic members of the city council, no mention of the Mayor attending, and the democratic Mayor does not like the democratic President of the city council.
And we expect the city to move forward?
How?
August 26th, 2007 at 3:18 pmThat’s it in a nutshell NC… Hence the Mayor’s comment he thought it was the wrong decision and partisian politics… They’re on the same Party??..lol
August 26th, 2007 at 4:13 pmBut then, you have our Mayor, a Republican disquised as a Democrat, and actually more of a Hawk. He “tried on” Independent for a minute, until he realized he hadn’t had an original thought in 20 years. Carty is the very definition of “Fluffer”
August 26th, 2007 at 4:19 pmI appreciate that Frank Szollosi has the chutzpa to state his views and his reasons for taking the positions he takes. Whether you agree or disagree with him, everything else aside, the man does not shy away from public accountability and responsibility. I respect that.
August 26th, 2007 at 4:45 pmNC, I appreciate the clarification that they did at least ask the same question before they met as some are asking now. More details as to was Marc Dann asked, since it’s obvious John Madigan was not asked else he would have said so, would be a further clarification of the situation.
Roland, I would agree with you on that, I’ve agreed with Frank and disagreed with Frank in the past and I’m sure we will agree and disagree in the future but he is much more forthcoming with information and sharing his reasoning than many of our current elected officials.
August 26th, 2007 at 4:52 pm“…the man does not shy away from public accountability and responsibility.”
If he does not respond to questions and comments then the dialog is one way.
I have written with questions, silence is returned, that is what the e-mail does not bounce.
And I very much would like to know what steps he and the rest of the council are going to take to reconcile the gap between the council and the Mayor to facilitate some action for us, the citizens.
Knowing full well that we are all different and have different views but there has to come a time of some mutual understanding and agreement or are we going to just keep walking and talking circles?
August 26th, 2007 at 4:54 pm“More details as to was Marc Dann asked, since it’s obvious John Madigan was not asked else he would have said so, would be a further clarification of the situation.”
The Attorney General has confirmed that his office was asked? Political Grapevine is a reliable verification?
Madigan has been asked or is alleged to being asked if Shultz follows through.
We have one member of city council who is not part of the Majority that alleges a infraction and naturally the Majority will claim there is nothing wrong.
Just the same as a member of the Minority who failed to show for meetings and then claimed the Majority acted improperly.
Has any thing changed? Did I miss something?
August 26th, 2007 at 5:01 pmI call ‘em as I see ‘em. Sometimes, I do not see ‘em as other people see ‘em. But, we all have our own perspectives and our own notions on how things are and how things should be.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:23 amThat said, I have three points to put forth.
1) In regards to the comments on this thread on Frank Szollosi, I put this comment to my own posted topic about Frank Szollosi over on Roland Hansen Commentary: “I do believe that the most recent events in regards to the renewed efforts at unity within the Lucas County Democratic Party along with the upcoming 2007 Toledo City Council District elections and the upcoming 2008 Presidential election year will have some very positive effects.
I am very hopeful of seeing a Frank Szollosi that is much more proactive in approaching the concerns that confront us all.”
2) I have received information about the meeting with Chris Redfern, Ron Rothenbuhler, and local elected Democrats. My sources include more than one reliable person who was in attendance at that meeting. They have described to me the manner of how the meeting was conducted. Upon hearing their description, considering who they are and that I have known them for many, many years, and the fact that they would have absolutely no reason to mislead me, I have concluded that in my opinion the Sunshine Laws were not violated at that meeting.
3) In regards to comments about Betty Shultz, I will never, ever question her credibility. I have known Betty Shultz since before she was an elected official. When I first met her she was a vocal activist involved in the schools, West Toledo community activities, and Democratic Party politics. Many years ago. my very good friend Dick Mack (may he rest in peace) and I strongly supported and worked toward getting Betty Shultz elected to the Washington Local Board of Education. We did the same when she ran for Toledo City Council. She has since left the Lucas County Democratic Party and is now a member of the Republican Party. Regardless of her political party affiliation, Betty has been an outspoken person who champions the causes in which she believes. With Betty, “what you see is what you get.” The Noe incident aside, I have absolutely no reason to ever question her credibility.
And one more thing —
August 28th, 2007 at 12:22 pm—- just kidding.