Council question must be answered as quickly as possible

I can't believe this hasn't been an issue before? In the last umpteen years a council member somewhere in this state has had to have had a run in with the law. We can't be the first.

Probably not the first. But must be the first with someone that took to time to find a way to try and get rid of someone they disagree with.

At last someone gets it. All of this is just a reason to get rid of someone(s) they don't agree with or that actually do their homework and know the issues at hand. Thank you to the editorial opinion of the gazette for seeing this as it actually is. A vendetta.

I would still like to know why our Attorney General's Office did not give an opinion on this matter. I thought that was the job of that office. But I'm sure they are way too busy throwing away millions on suing the Feds over Obama Care and John Boy making a big name for himself. That guy has never done anything in his political life that was not connected to name recognition for a future run for whatever office he was after. Wonder what will happen if the lawyer hired decides that one or both have to go.

How do you spell lawsuit?

Marlin,

Did you ever consider that maybe those "way younger girls" were his sister and her friends, or maybe just looked younger than they actually were?

Just sayin'

Does this editorial mean to take the credit or the blame for the problem now facing the city?

I feel the blame lies with the person or people who choose to make an issue of it. Like oh maybe the calls to the gazette to look into it or report it on the front page, just sayin' or back to the vendetta thing, the voters decided on the two in question. However the other 3 were appointed in their beginnings (yes the voters did vote to retain one as I recall) so maybe the ultimate goal is to have an appointed city council instead on an elected council. Food for thought.

The blame lies with the reporter? LAUGH! SO if no one knows you broke the law its a no harm no foul?

I feel that if the City Council members cannot respect our laws, they should be on the council. Both of these men have broken a law that is disruptive and harmful for the community the have been chosen to serve.

You can't pick and choose what laws you want to follow. Ignorance is now excuse for breaking the law, and I'm not talking about the Councilmen, I'm talking about breaking the law by not following the statute. The argument here however, is that the statute is either too vague or too harsh. Surely the statute was set in force by a specific incident, it would be interesting to know what that incident was, this is, I believe the "intent" that Nate Schnider was referring to.

So that being said, there may be blame placed on the Councilmen for breaching the law, there may be blame placed on someone for opening the can of worms.... But there certainly can't be blame placed on those which are enforcing the law (statute) at hand, because if they DIDN'T, then THEY would be breaching the law.

The cat's out of the bag, the City, which seems to be under constant scrutiny, can't afford to risk a charge of baisism in either direction, and I assure you, no matter which way they leaned, there WOULD be that charge by someone.

As I said before, the cats out of the bag, now it needs to be addressed. Ultimately the statute needs to be refined.... And I think we all know that a state statute cannot be ratified by a city government. To repeat, the City of McCook, cannot alter a state law.

In short: the City of McCook cannot make the decision for or against. A ruling by an outsourced council cannot make the decision for or against. Because business must go on, the outsourced opinion would allow the City Council to continue to function in some capacity as it was intended without the repercussions of being accused of biases.

Well here is the statute.

19-613. Council members; qualifications; forfeiture of office; grounds.

Members of the council shall be residents and registered voters of the city and shall hold no other employment with the city. Any council member who ceases to possess any of the qualifications required by this section or who has been convicted of a crime while in office shall forthwith forfeit such office.

This is where they struggle to define crime. As navyblue pointed out in another article the difference of violation of an ordinance and commiting a crime which breaks the law of state level or higher.

Though it is true that it would be considered a crime if the state declared ordinance violation a crime through a statute.

However, I couldn't find any such statute. The only thing pertaining to it was that they could not exceed a fine of $500 per violation of ordinance.

I also looked two see where either violation was a crime according to state law, but I could not find either to be there.

I believe first a judge (Nebraska Supreme Court) should handle this since it is concerning a (city) government official and because it is the act of interpreting STATE legislation. Second, the attorney generals office (John Bruning) does not want to get their hands dirty because it is so close to elections!! You just have to love Law and Politics!!! Third, who has the authority to force resignation of council members?? The Mayor? Fourth, I think it is a little extreme to force these two officials out of office. Shane violated an ordinance because a court led by the city prosecutor who is also a council member himself determined that his CHICUACUA!!! was a "potentially vicious dog" I think this is wrong and should not have been brought in court. The prosecutor also should have abstained due to conflict of interest!! A city ordinance is not a state law clearly!!! Aaron Kircher I cannot comment on it except the fact that he represent the city of McCook and should be conscious of his actions at all times. Regarding the public disturbance I feel that either he knew better and should resign or that he was screwed over by a crabby prick of a neighbor. I really don't know the scenario. But I do say this if you Western Nebraska keep driving away the youth because of your intolerance there wont be much of a western Nebraska left. Why do you think "we" leave?? Be open minded to our generation and how we do things. You had your turn it is ours now!!

-From a Current Law Student(from McCook) that will never return to Western Nebraska because of the lack of progressiveness and jobs.

Benlaw, I do not get it that some bloggers think folks are "out to get" the council members because of their age. The statute in question does not address age. Although I strongly disagree with how the statute is written, it is the law and the city must follow it. The voters in McCook elected the entire council. They gave their trust to Aaron and Shane. Both have participated in the business of the city. I think by having the two on the council demonstrates that the voters were/are open to individuals regardless of age or experience.

Benlaw, I would think that a law student could deduce the difference between people wanting a law to be followed and people being prejudiced against age. I don't think anyone commenting on these stories has expressed any bias against them based on their age. I have seen plenty of people "cry wolf" in regards to ageism, but those same people wouldn't care at all if two council members in their 50s or 60s were at risk of leaving because they violated city ordinances or the like. Heck, some of them would probably make some sort of "corrupt politician" joke.

People who try to treat issues as having "bias against the young" are no less detrimental than those who actually have those biases. As Dennis said, Aaron and Shane were both voted in, so I think that speaks volumes more about McCook's stance on young people than the circumstances surrounding this debacle. I don't want Shane or Aaron to leave the council, but it'll just cause problems down the road if we don't follow the law properly now. In fact, if I recall correctly, another article stated that Shane's dog ordinance violation wouldn't fall under this law, so we only have to worry about Aaron now.

Dennis and Bjo,

Good posts.

As far as Aaron, his would have been a noise ordinance violation.

So neither would have been a crime.

Nebraska Statutes 15-256 - Public safety; disturbing the peace; power to punish

A primary city may punish disturbance of the peace or good order, clamor, intoxication, drunkenness, fighting, obscene or profane language, or other violations of the public peace by indecent or disorderly conduct, or blockading any street, sidewalk, way or space, or interfering with the passing of people.

This means it is simply a provision for the city to establish the ordinance. I don't think this infers it is a crime. But perhaps I am interpreting it wrong.

Thanks for providing that, bberry. I certainly hope that your interpretation is correct.

I guess the time is here and the tale will be told as the attorney that has been retained is ready to issue his opinion. It would be a great loss if the two in question were asked to resign as they are a great asset to the council. Age should not be an issue, however I have heard Dennis say and read in a couple of his responses on other issues that some additional life experiences were in order specifically directed at the younger council members, so that is were the age thing comes to play, it is of the council's own doing, not the public's. I just hope that all ordinances and laws are completely researched and everyone is on the same page, this controversy is not good for the city or anyone for that matter. It needs resolved in a professional, adult manner. It also brings to mind why everyone hesitates before running for any public service you are under a microscope all the time. Right is right wrong is wrong. This applies to everyone, regardless of position or age. However vendetta's and personal feelings should have no place in politics but it is what it is.....

Ruby, age is not an issue. A young person could have experience in being involved in school activities, organizations, civic events, job experiences...an old person could lack maturity , judgement or even the life experiences just much as a younger person. You are correct that I believe in experience, training,education. I also hope, like you, that decisions are made on facts not feelings. This is a sad day in the history of our community.