[mccookgazette.com] Overcast ~ 44°F  
High: 44°F ~ Low: 37°F
Friday, Apr. 29, 2016

Councilman steps down

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

McCOOK, Nebraska -- Howard Olsen of Simmons Olsen Law Firm told the McCook City Council that two City Council seats were forfeit at the time of the presiding councilors' convictions in county court.

The opinion, from the Scottsbluff, Nebraska, firm, came Monday evening during the council's semi-monthly meeting at Council Chambers.

Olsen was hired to provide an unbiased legal opinion on the potential forfeiture of seats occupied by Councilmen Shane Hilker and Aaron Kircher.

The scenario stems from Hilker being convicted in May of harboring a potentially vicious dog and Kircher being convicted in November of disturbing the peace.

The situation raised the possibility of a multitude of legal expenses for the city, ranging from disputes of council actions to the cost of a special election. The special vote may be necessary to fill the vacated seats because a required notice of vacancy wasn't filed within 10 days of the forfeitures.

Ultimately, Coucilman Hilker accepted the implied forfeiture of his council seat and read a prepared statement thanking his family and supporters at the close of the meeting. In the statement, Hilker said that while he personally didn't agree with the law, he understood he was still subject to it. Hilker said he hoped his time on the council had helped change perceptions about youth and show that one person can make a difference in a short time.

Mayor Dennis Berry voiced concerns about legal scenarios in which one of the vacated seats were filled, then the courts ruled the forfeiture of the seats to be unconstitutional.

Olsen replied by saying that the city would have to give consideration to that, and that a constitutional challenge would take some time. Olsen said that he supposed there could be argument that the statute wasn't constitutional, but the city's responsibility was to protect its citizens and to do things legally, to the best of its abilities and at a minimum cost.

Councilman Kircher raised several questions about the implied forfeitures, at one point asking Olsen if there was anything preventing the council members from being reappointed to their forfeited seats.

Olsen replied that that was a very good question and said he thought there was a similar scenario years back, that coincidentally he believed occurred in McCook.

Olsen said that in that scenario the councilman who was elected, had received some sort of a misdemeanor before he took office. Olsen said that they pled him out very quickly before he took the seat to avoid conflict with the statute.

Kircher explained that reappointing himself and Hilker to the vacated seats could avoid future conflict created by appointing someone else to the seats, as well as avoiding leaving the seats vacated while it was decided in the court system, citing the potential for an increased length of time due to appeals.

Schneider replied that he didn't believe there was anything legally that would prevent their reappointment to the seats but said he would have a concern with the appearance of the move and "how that would be taken, by whomever."

Councilman Kircher told the Gazette after the meeting that he couldn't comment on any acknowledgment or denial of a forfeiture at this time, but confirmed the lack of support for the reappointment. "Every indication I've had is that Shane and I being (re)appointed to our seats is not something a majority of the council is willing to do. Even though, legally, it affords the city the best protection, since all decisions from an appointment onward would not be able to be challenged, regardless of any court decision on the validity of the statute," said Kircher.

Kircher said he believed it would also be the quickest way to fill the seats with two people who were actually elected for those terms.

A citizen in attendance at the meeting asked Berry how the city was going to operate when any traffic ticket could remove a council member from office. Councilman Hilker added that, at this point, any police officer had the ability to remove any council member at will, with Berry replying "if you're convicted."

Kircher added that it would include even violations as broad as zoning regulations, with Berry again repeating, "if convicted."

The same citizen inquired as to who brought the scenario to the forefront, saying "We don't know who brought this up and why."

Schneider replied to the man several times that it was statutory in nature and eventually responded to repeated questions by saying that it really didn't matter. The citizen argued, "Yes it does. It matters to me. I want to know who put this thing in an uproar."

Councilman Calvin echoed Schneider's reply that it didn't matter who the person was who originally brought the matter to the city attorney's attention, the importance was focusing on resolution.

Olsen said it would be unwise for the council to take any action until after it is determined whether the two council members would refuse to vacate their office and suggested offering a five-day period for the councilors to make a decision.

If confirmation is received that Kircher will dispute the forfeiture, the city will ask County Attorney Paul Wood to pursue the legal removal of Kircher from office through District Court.

Olsen said that legislative history was no help because it only went back to 1971 and the statute dated back to the 1920s. "We are stuck with the plain language of that statute, that talks about crime and then the plain language of crimes," said Olsen.

Other items on the consent and regular agenda:

* A claim for damages against the city from Vicky Drake, Robert Edwards and Tamara McAdams was received and instructed to be submitted to the City's insurance carrier for review and appropriate action. The claim cites $1,000 to $1,500 in damage to personal property at 1401 1/2 W. Third Street, that was caused by 8 to 10 inches of black waste water that their plumber believes to be a result of a negative water flow from a city line. No discussion took place pertaining to the claim and it was approved as part of the consent agenda.

* Councilors discussed the annual renewal of current McCook retail liquor license holders, during which Councilman Gonzales and Councilman Calvin inquired about disturbances at Sports Night Club occurring at a higher rate than at the other liquor retailers. It was ultimately decided to approve the automatic renewal for all current area liquor license holders, including Sports.

* The agreement with Miller & Associates Consulting Engineers for the design of the failed 16" transmission main and water treatment plant waste stream lagoon facility, were approved. Both projects were approved previously for the current budget and will utilize the State Revolving Fund program, which allows for an 80 percent loan and a 20 percent grant.

* MO Dough LLC was granted a special liquor license to serve alcohol at the Nebraska Farmers & Ranchers Convention at the Chief Motel on Jan. 27 and 28.

Fact Check
See inaccurate information in this story?

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on mccookgazette.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

City before self. Service before self. Even with a poorly written law Shane Hilker demonstrated his leadership and love of McCook by stepping aside. Shane, thanks for your time on the council. I hope you run again. You have my support.

-- Posted by dennis on Wed, Dec 21, 2011, at 7:53 AM

It's definitely an unfortunate circumstance however the State Law is just that. Mr. Hilker did the right & upstanding thing by stepping down as to not cause the City any more undue harm. Mr. Hilker has my vote also if he chooses to run again! Hopefuly Mr. Kircher will realize that it's the best thing for the City also.

-- Posted by Rural Citizen on Wed, Dec 21, 2011, at 8:15 AM

SO-o-o-o, Dennis, one person set out to have two elected councilman removed. If that is so right, why does it feel so wrong?

-- Posted by Grandma B on Wed, Dec 21, 2011, at 10:00 AM

Grandma, I agee that the law is wrong but it is the law, Nobody, and that includes me-should be above the law. It does feel wrong but the city is bound to follow the law to protect the city.

-- Posted by dennis on Wed, Dec 21, 2011, at 11:17 AM

ok, Dennis, when we stumble upon a poorly written, or poorly thought out law, what should we do? Do we just go home and say, well wrong is wrong, but at least we have law? Sometimes a Rosa Parks sits at the front of the bus. Sometimes a person with a lot of commitment to their community stands up and says, this needs to be changed. It's not easy, but, really, some laws need to be challenged.

There's more than just this law that doesn't smell right, however.

-- Posted by Grandma B on Wed, Dec 21, 2011, at 1:36 PM

It is in the process of change right now. The League and Sen. Christensen are working on the revisions. As to whatever you are thinking does not "smell right" I am not sure what you mean.

-- Posted by dennis on Wed, Dec 21, 2011, at 1:49 PM

Grandma B, regardless of whether its a poorly written law and we don't agree with it, the council members are doing the right thing FOR THE CITY to step down, wait it out and rerun at a later time. Sounds like the League & Sen. Christensen are doing what they need to do to get it changed for the future. Sounds to me like the "doesn't smell right" situation that you are implying is just a tactic to start rumors which is highly unnecessary.

-- Posted by Rural Citizen on Wed, Dec 21, 2011, at 2:27 PM

Grandma B, you are apparently very close to Mr. Kircher but he is not doing anything right for the city by refusing to resign his seat or saying he doesn't know what he intends to do. As usual, Mr. Kircher is making this all about him and has never really had the city's best interest in mind. He is always about how he feels not what is best for McCook. What doesn't "smell right" is Mr. Kircher actions in this matter. He apparently doesn't respect any law official or law itself. That is apparent with the many times the police were called to his home for disturbing the peace, which was one time too many times and finally resulted in a ticket and a verdict of guilty in the court. Mr. Kircher still defies the legal system when he didn't resign his position on Monday evening as advised by the law firm of Simmons Olsen. He is willfully putting the city of McCook in a position that could lead to severe consequences.

For once Mr. Kircher should think about the right thing to do for the city of McCook and resign his position immediately. The law is being reviewed and will take some time to resolve I am sure. By refusing to resign he is putting any business done by the council on behalf of the city of McCook in jeopardy, just the kind of guy we DON'T need on the council.

-- Posted by citizen1976 on Wed, Dec 21, 2011, at 7:14 PM

citizen1976 it was a recommendation. That is it. Wouldn't you say that without a court ruling on this that stepping down wouldn't be exactly in the best interest for McCook's citizens. Wouldn't the best interest for McCook's citizens be to have people in the council that a majority feel represent them best. As a voter I always want the people that I voted into a position to stay in the position to represent me. By stepping down with nothing more then a recommendation, the council members are opening up a majority of McCook citizens to the chance of being represented by someone that doesn't represent them. That is if a person is appointed who's views differ from the current elected council members.

Food for thought.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Wed, Dec 21, 2011, at 10:19 PM

No if I wanted to say that stepping down wouldn't be exactly in the best interest of McCook's citizens I would have said that. What I did say was "for once Mr. Kircher should think about the right thing to do for the city of McCook and resign his position immediately".

The legal advice was given to the City of McCook, the McCook Council Members, the City Manager and the City Attorney on what to do about the FACTS which already exist and are not subject to being changed. It was there job to advise the city on how to respond to facts in such a manner as to protect the interests of the city and its citizens.

Based on the facts given, there opinions are based on the facts and what would be best for all involved. Any person who is elected by the people to serve the people should then do what is best to protect those people and the city in which they live in. Putting ones self interests above those who they are representing is just selfish. Apparently Mr. Kircher believes his self interests are more important that those of the citizens of McCook or the city itself.

Right now we are already being represented by a councilman that doesn't represent us, so I personally would welcome someone new. I also personally don't want to have to foot the bill for any legal expense that could result in his lack of respect for McCook and its citizens and consequences for him remaining on the council when he lawfully shouldn't be there. Until the statue is updated Mr. Kircher needs to abide by how it is written. . . "Any council member who ceases to posses any of the qualifications required by this section or who has been convicted of a crime while in office shall forthwith forfeit such office." A "crime is an act or omission for which one is subject to punishment by public authority. An ordinance violation is therefore a crime. Read the report, apply common sense, do the right thing.

-- Posted by citizen1976 on Thu, Dec 22, 2011, at 12:07 AM

"the FACTS which already exist and are not subject to being changed."

What facts? The advice they received was based on poor interpretation of a statute.

Plain and ordinary meaning is subjective and does not apply since it is already defined within state statute.

"A "crime is an act or omission for which one is subject to punishment by public authority. "

State statute says this about the definition:

"28-104. Offense; crime; synonymous.

The terms offense and crime are synonymous as used in this code and mean a violation of, or conduct defined by, any statute for which a fine, imprisonment, or death may be imposed."

So being there "unlawfully" is still questionable.

I feel though, as if I'm beating a dead horse.

I do pity those unable to think for themselves though.

-- Posted by bberry on Thu, Dec 22, 2011, at 8:13 AM

So if lawyers are always right about their interpetation why do we need courts to solve issues about this type of thing? I have a feeling if you polled 1000 lawyers on this you would probably get in the neighborhood of a 50-50 split.

"Right now we are already being represented by a councilman that doesn't represent us, so I personally would welcome someone new."

That is your point of view which you are allowed. But do to the voting it would suggest that the majority feel this person does and you just happen to be on the other side of the fence.

"I also personally don't want to have to foot the bill for any legal expense that could result in his lack of respect for McCook and its citizens and consequences for him remaining on the council when he lawfully shouldn't be there."

Two things there hasn't been a COURT ruling if it is lawfull for him to remain a member. It was just a recommendation by 1 lawyer. Also, I am sure McCook gets plenty of money from the surrounding area via sales tax that you could say the cost is covered from people outside the city if that makes you feel better.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Thu, Dec 22, 2011, at 8:34 AM

Another thing I find interesting that seems to be overlooked is the state attorney generals response to it. He stated that it wasn't a state issue. If it isn't a state issue is he implying that a state law wasn't broke? Is he just being lazy(if this is the case it should be looked into)? I honestly don't really know what to take away from his response. My guess would lean towards lazyness.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Thu, Dec 22, 2011, at 8:39 AM


You must be one of the few that believe Mr. Kircher doesn't represent the city. Since his election Mr. Kircher has done his research, questioned the things that need to be questioned, and stayed up countless nights so that he was informed about the subject at hand, he has always done what he feels is right for the tax payers. I'm not sure where you get that he is selfish, but if you would do your research you would realize that although cops were called multiple times, all but one time, there was a lack of evidence to write a citation. Meaning, he was doing nothing wrong!!!

I personally think this is all total bs and nothing more than someone who doesn't like Mr. Kircher's and Mr. Hilker's view points trying to get them out of office. They committed a ordnance violation, in my opinion this isn't a crime.

-- Posted by citysupport on Thu, Dec 22, 2011, at 9:17 AM

I'm a little concerned about how ticky tacky this is and how such a minor offense could result in many wasted tax payer dollars.

Maybe Dennis could clarify this. How are we to accept that the city police dept could take it upon itself to remove or not remove councilmen by either ticketing them or not ticketing them?

If there is a councilmen in the future that may be trying to clean up something corrupt going on can that corruption not be used to turn the city police and prosecution into a tool to remove said councilman? And furthermore, could this ticky tacky law be used to retain a guity councilman with special connections to NOT be for guilty or have things swept under the rug?

I see this fiasco getting worse and worse at this point. I think we are going to see special treatment of city councilman to save the town money. I see corruption taking hold on a small time level. This is not good.

This stupidly vague law MUST be defined by degrees of offense. We must define it by degrees of misdemeanors or felonies or whatever. I don't want to see this used as a tool to get rid of someone trying to stop other from doing something monumentally stupid...like buying an old Army Airbase for water!!!!!!!

-- Posted by Justin76 on Thu, Dec 22, 2011, at 10:16 AM

Both resign. Call a special election and reelect them into office and in the interim the law can be rewritten. Simple, effective and the electorate will still have the people they want. This is probably to simple, and my opinion cost less than $1000.00

-- Posted by Ed on Thu, Dec 22, 2011, at 10:48 AM

Or how about electing people that can stay out of the Court system? Is that too much to ask? I can see Mr. Hilker arguing a city ordinance but Mr. Kircher committed a criminal offense. He was warned several times for these late parties and disturbances at his residence. Should we have somebody on the council that is still throwing late night parties and disturbing the peace of neighbors? He needs to mature first, then run for re-election when he is done partying. Pretty simple folks.

-- Posted by homebuilder on Thu, Dec 22, 2011, at 11:11 AM

Another thing I wondered, what else is on these councilmen's criminal record? Is this just a glitch in the road or do these two have a history of contact with law enforcement?

-- Posted by homebuilder on Thu, Dec 22, 2011, at 11:16 AM

"Maybe Dennis could clarify this. How are we to accept that the city police dept could take it upon itself to remove or not remove councilmen by either ticketing them or not ticketing them?"

All tickets are challengeable. Since they did not challenge the tickets, both admitted to violation.

However, this is not a crime in my opinon.

Both violated an ordinance. Neither violated a statute.

As far as criminal history, they are removeable when a crime is committed while in office, not prior to holding the position.

-- Posted by bberry on Thu, Dec 22, 2011, at 11:45 AM

All I know is that I harbor a "potentially" vicious dog. I love that darn dog to pieces. I haven't been ticketed for her yet, but if you get into her food bowl whilst she is chowing down, you might get a finger removed. This leads me to believe that I should never attempt to run for a position in town as I will just be removed from it. I failed to yield at a stop sign once out in the country in the dead of night...no headlights for miles, but the policeperson with lights off down the road said I rolled the stop sign. I digress.

I hate to be a grammar troll, but here: there, their, they're; then, than; you're, your, yore; to, too, two. Each of those is a different word with a different meaning. Merry Christmas.

-- Posted by speak-e-z on Thu, Dec 22, 2011, at 12:10 PM


Here is the state statute for disturbing the peace which Mr. Kircher was convicted of. It is a state law, not a city ordinance. Next time know your information about something before for correcting someone who is right. The Vicious dog is a city ordinance. About criminal record. Lets see if there is a pattern of criminal behavior. If this is a one time incident, then ok. They still need to step down and go for re-election. If they have a pattern of getting into trouble, then neither one should represent McCook.

-- Posted by homebuilder on Thu, Dec 22, 2011, at 12:24 PM

Nebraska State Statute Number

28-1322. Disturbing the peace; penalty.

(1) Any person who shall intentionally disturb the peace and quiet of any person, family, or neighborhood commits the offense of disturbing the peace.

(2) Disturbing the peace is a Class III misdemeanor.

-- Posted by homebuilder on Thu, Dec 22, 2011, at 12:24 PM

I stand corrected, I over looked that as a definition.


-- Posted by bberry on Thu, Dec 22, 2011, at 1:48 PM

"I hate to be a grammar troll..."

Obviously not.

Looking at the statute again Homebuilder, you could argue the term "intentionally".

Though in light of this, it's probably best Mr. Kircher resign. It is no longer a question of the definition of "Crime" for Mr. Kircher, since it is a statute but "intentionally". Though I don't think he'd have any legal grounds since he admitted guilt through the violation.

As far as re-election, this would disqualify Mr. Kircher I believe if proven guilty of statute violation. Mr. Hilker could run again, but I'm not sure if I would I were him.

The lawyer is a chucklehead for not looking at the statutes to begin with.

-- Posted by bberry on Thu, Dec 22, 2011, at 2:04 PM

Also looking at that statute under the annotations it says this:

"Under subsection (1) of this section, the definition of breach of the peace is broad enough to include the offense of disturbing the peace; it signifies the offense of disturbing the public peace or tranquility enjoyed by citizens of a community."

You think they could draw the term public peace into question?

If you used the State vs. Palmer argument, although subjective, the plain and ordinary meaning of public pertains to a community as a whole.

Perhaps it is why they allowed for city ordinance provisions in the statute?

What was Mr. Kirchers literal violation citation?

Again, it none of this probably has any bearing since he admitted to the violation, but satisfying my own curiosity.

-- Posted by bberry on Thu, Dec 22, 2011, at 3:18 PM

"Obviously" it doesn't do me much good upon reading your post, bberry, but it made me feel better to pass those little nuggets of information along. I'll sleep better tonight.

-- Posted by speak-e-z on Thu, Dec 22, 2011, at 4:23 PM

Bberry I guess you need to hire a editor for YOUR posts before publishing the final draft on this comments section. Heaven forbid a typo, a missed word, or spelling error happen on a light conversation board.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Thu, Dec 22, 2011, at 4:44 PM

i ADMit toO Gramer erors. Gud think i kAn hellp yu slepe betTur tonite. Aftur awl yuv not hed mutch els too sey.

-- Posted by bberry on Thu, Dec 22, 2011, at 4:47 PM

Much better!!!! I am proud of you.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Thu, Dec 22, 2011, at 4:48 PM

CarlSOn, nede to hiur !AN EDITUR.! GEZE?

-- Posted by bberry on Thu, Dec 22, 2011, at 4:50 PM

Like I said, I hate to do it because people get butt-hurt and this IS a bleepin' blog. All I was saying is that its hard to take an argument seriously when I have to read through posts that demonstrate no grasp of our beautiful language. Typographical errors are one thing...we can post from phones, iPads, etc., but you'll notice that I was pointing out usage of words that we learned in elementary school.

So, bberry, I apologize for offending you, or anyone else. I'll sleep better if you let me be the big spoon.

-- Posted by speak-e-z on Fri, Dec 23, 2011, at 9:29 AM

No offense was taken. I wasn't worried what you thought about my grammar and spelling.

Fight the good fight, big spoon.

-- Posted by bberry on Fri, Dec 23, 2011, at 9:38 AM

Okay I have had just about enough of the he said she said bs, first Mr. Kircher has always had the cities best interest at heart. One example he wanted to reduce the long term debt the city owed on the treatment plant, he was laughed at and told that with the low interest on the loan that made no sense (this was in a council meeting) having worked with lending and notes and interest anytime you can pay off principal it reduces not only length of note but cost of interest as well. That is not in the cities best interest REALLY...... many times people have said at least he studies and reads and understands the issues, some may not like the way he votes or the comments he makes but he has never not tried to look after the tax payer. Grow up look at the FACTS of all that surrounds this crap and I totally agree an officer of the law would have the very chance to change any council persons run if pressure were applied and someone wanted them out. If being home for 10 minutes with 3 friends and no TV on and no Stereo on and barely any lights on deserves a disturbing the peace ticket my suggestion is that they impose a curfew for all of us just to make sure that all noise (cars, TV's dogs etc.) be shut off at 8pm. As for the other times they are not an issue no tickets were written no penalties imposed. As for doing the right thing for the City Mr. Kircher always has and always will, however what you may think is right may just open a new can of worms, as usual some of you just want to see the surface, this could get real bad and real ugly no matter which direction Mr. Kircher takes. Again dig deep people this is just the surface, this is just the beginning. Food for thought, what if and it is a what if, one of the council members from the past violated the law and anything that was passed during that term now has to be corrected? Think about that there have been a lot of large decisions made on the taxpayers money that not all agreed with, that could be invalid because someone on the council violated the exact same law. This goes way past the moment....do the research. What started as a witch hunt has now become a major issue for the city with potential long term damage just because someone has a vendetta against those who lack "life experience" your words Mr. Berry directly said to Mr. Kircher. If every neighbor called in every disturbance or what they felt was a disturbance in their neighborhood the police officers would never ever have enough time to do anything but ticket everyone for disturbing the peace. I personally think they have better things to do. Sometimes when living in a city you just have to deal with some of the things your neighbors do just for the sake of getting along. Again GROW UP.

-- Posted by ruby4 on Fri, Dec 23, 2011, at 9:48 AM

And that would be why I was just hackin' on grammar.

How do you know the FACTS better than anyone else ruby4? I think the only facts in this discussion are those state statutes copied and pasted above. I think the only facts are that this law is what it is and it sets a major precedent (about which you may be on the right track).

To digress only slightly, I am curious as to how we pick and choose which [ones] we follow. I may reference this story:


-- Posted by speak-e-z on Fri, Dec 23, 2011, at 12:21 PM

State Statutes are the facts of which the OPINION was made, correct. My point is (as your link so shows) who gets to decide which one(s) actually get cited all or some....and no matter what happens from here forward could be anyone's guess..

-- Posted by ruby4 on Fri, Dec 23, 2011, at 5:08 PM

"To digress only slightly, I am curious as to how we pick and choose which [ones] we follow. I may reference this story:"

They mut have been using run-on sentences while starting them with a conjunction.

Oh the havoc!

Have a Merry Christmas.

-- Posted by bberry on Sat, Dec 24, 2011, at 10:34 AM

Oh SNAP! You burned me like a yule log! I guess if ya can't beat 'em, join 'em. There's an /s/ in 'must'.

-- Posted by speak-e-z on Sun, Dec 25, 2011, at 2:15 PM

Whut! S in MUT? No weigh?

-- Posted by bberry on Mon, Dec 26, 2011, at 7:35 AM

There is some poor grammar in the following article that needs corrected.



-- Posted by bberry on Mon, Dec 26, 2011, at 7:40 AM

Getting back to the heart of the issue:

I am just curious why this has been followed so closely (i.e., what/who was (truly) the driving force behind this investigation?).

In response to the "if convicted" for a minor misdemeanor, doesn't this leave entirely too much power with law enforcement? In other words if a city has a certain police chief or officer who dislikes the policy making of a public office holder, would it not be very, VERY easy for them to find something to charge them with. Say, for instance, if city council members were very vocal about not building new law enforcement facilities, this would open a very convenient window for police officers to remove someone from office. But, oh yes, our law enforcement in McCook is completely unbiased and just. Indeed.

Truly, at the core of this issue, is two YOUNGER council members who were pushed to be removed from office by an opinion from a lawyer. The judicial system really serves no purpose if the word of an attorney is the "law of the land." That is what courts are created for and what this nation was founded upon--checks and balances!

Finally, as we receive state aid for economic development and have seminars, workshops, and dialogues on how to keep the youth of the city in McCook and get them involved with the community through boards and public offices, we sure spend a lot of time offering them resistance at every turn. It is a shame that some council members offered a differing opinion and refused to give in to the groupthink that has plagued so many of the governing bodies in our state.

In essence, it doesn't take economists, consultants, or other experts to figure out why youth are living the area in droves. Just read back through the article and many of these comments and you will find your answer. I don't care about the statute, it's vague and broad, I want to know who absolutely had to have these men removed from office. Younger generations do NOT want to come back to be harassed, oppressed, and belittled by those who "run this town." Run it right into the ground, baby.

-- Posted by youngergeneration on Tue, Dec 27, 2011, at 2:30 PM

Younger.... Perhaps the two "YOUNGER" councilmen were targeted, and I'm just spit-balling here, but maybe, just maybe, it was because.... I don't know, they were convicted of a crime? I would say that actually they were more likely to have committed a crime, as minuscule as they were, because they, being..... well younger, they would be prone to going out and having a good time. The older ones probably have less drive to stay up until the bar closes.

And to go a step further, I would say that an 80 year old would be less likely to commit a crime than a 50 year old person... (Just to make my point).

Was there an issue with a Councilman? Apparently. I would have to suggest that it wasn't truly with BOTH the councilmen, one just got drug into the equation, that is, of course, strictly speculation but I doubt it has anything to do with age.... Is that really what you suppose youngergeneration. Its McCook against all the young folk?

Shame on McCook,come on, let the kids off the hook, let them repeat bad trends. Don't make them accountable. Is this the desire of the younger generation? Is this what it takes to get kids back to Southwest NE? Ignore the law to build comfort levels with the youth. I recommend we target young professionals with work ethic for our area.

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Tue, Dec 27, 2011, at 9:39 PM

Resign, grow up, target our young, one fell victim because of the other, blah, blah, blah. Truth they were targeted. Why, not because of what they did because of what they would not do... Which is follow blindly and ask no question have no opinions just do as we tell you (we being the other council members and staff) do not question, you do not have the life experiences we have. You all speak of this law. Then read it. Both councilman forfeited the minute they were convicted it does not take a rocket scientist to understand there is nothing to resign from. Look at the conviction dates, which one happened first. Then put the puzzle pieces together they got them both mission accomplished. I ponder do you who throw stones even vote or go to the council meetings or do you just render opinions to keep your negative energy flowing. I am ashamed of all who cast the stones but won't put on their glasses and see what is right in front of them. Shame on McCook and shame on the council.

-- Posted by ruby4 on Wed, Dec 28, 2011, at 6:58 AM

Ruby what did McCook do wrong that you are ashamed of? What did the council do that caused shame? The City nor the council wanted this mess or started the mess. I do agree that those casting stones should be ashamed but it looks like it is you with all the rocks.

-- Posted by dennis on Fri, Dec 30, 2011, at 10:30 PM

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration:

Related subjects