June 27, 2013 at 1:57 pm #5561
Anyone know the actual reason why the inauguration of the mayor and council was postponed from 6/25 to 7/1? (at least according to the Sea Coast Echo.) I’ve been around for quite a while and I have never heard of postponing an inauguration because of scheduling conflicts!June 27, 2013 at 6:01 pm #5560
To be very frank with you khm, I am learning that these small time crooks(read politicians) can do anything they wantJuly 3, 2013 at 9:23 am #5586
well, I do know the newly elected mayor is remaining on the POA board so I’m sure there will be MANY scheduling conflicts in the future!!!!!!July 4, 2013 at 11:18 am #5590
Talk about conflict of interest if he does stay on the POA BOARD, I guess their growing. Now the POA has two offices,the original and now the City Hall. I didn’t think he could stay on the POA board and be the mayor at the same time.July 9, 2013 at 8:20 am #5605
1. The following is a quoted paragraph from the ACLU lawsuit against the city of Diamondhead.
“2. The POA is a “state actor” with regard to these provisions because it is inexorably intertwined with the City of Diamondhead. Among other reasons, POA rules, regulations, bylaws and covenants regulate all—or at least nearly all—residential properties within the City of Diamondhead and the POA and City act as, and hold themselves out to be, interconnected entities.
3. Since our current mayor is also on the POA board one can clearly see that the POA and the city are interconnected entities. Consequently, we cannot win the ACLU lawsuit against the city. Therefore we should contact Elton Kyger and other board members and express our stance about spending any additional money on this losing lawsuit.July 10, 2013 at 5:28 am #5607
I disagree!!!!!! We don’t need 2 POAs. One is bad enough.July 10, 2013 at 6:42 am #5609
Perhaps my comments are misunderstood. We (POA) can’t win the lawsuit the ACLU has filed against us (POA restrictions on freedom of speech by city residents through the covenants) so let’s not waste our money paying lawyers in an to attempt to win.July 27, 2013 at 11:36 am #5647
I wonder what our new MAYOR and new city council members think about the previous mayor and city council members when Chancellor Schloegel
stated in her decision on July 22, 2013 relative to the Diamondhead Baptist Church that:
“THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH ALL PROVISIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL BUDGET LAW OF TITLE 21 AND FAILURE TO DO CARRIES A CRIMINAL PENALTY” The previous Diamondhead Mayor & city council failed to comply with this law. Therefore are they criminals?
lJuly 27, 2013 at 4:37 pm #5649
Its no excuse for violation of the law, PERIOD. Especially when its done excluding public scrutiny to avoid criticism and hide self serving interest.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.