Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

Mr. Hackworth,

Typos typos! You made another one in stating the PARKER DOCTRINE. The true PARKER DOCTRINE should read ?“We were elected to handle things the way we want to handle them.?”

We, being the operative word here, drew the following 2 definitions from Dictionary.com:

1. Used instead of I by a sovereign in formal address to refer to himself or herself.

2. The plural nominative case of the pronoun of the first person; the word with which a person in speaking or writing denotes a number or company of which he is one, as the subject of an action expressed by a verb.

I?’ll let the citizens pick. Is the PARKER DOCTRINE a declaration of sovereignty or does the PARKER DOCTRINE indeed reflect the policies of all of the elected, appointed and hired officials of the City?

Now back to your Writ of Mandamus. Can a citizen initiate a petition that contains the exact language of your petition with the correct capitalization and start the process anew? Can this same citizen perhaps add something else to change in the Charter that could establish this as a completely new issue?

Just wondering?…?….

Keep up the outstanding work Mr. Hackworth. Your tireless efforts are not going unnoticed.




By Mayor Wannabe

Grandpa's little helper

This time in the morning I have an 18 month old helper who loves to see what grandpa is doing. I did notice the ''more'' was spelled wrong after I posted it. I didn't learn to type until I was in my mid-fifties so give me a break on my typing skills. Once they prefect the talking computer maybe I'll have a chance to make a correctly typed document.

Your other question needs some study. If you are asking can we/me or others run and a new initative with the correct spelling, the words we want to change capitalized, reasons on why we want to change the words in the form of whereas clauses, the answer is YES. The court found nothing wrong with the form. They found nothing wrong with the capitalized words that had whereas clauses. They turned us down with those three little words. tenthreefourthsmanager. Maybe some one in their spare time can create some new words with the charactors that they shot us down with. Just looking at it I see the words ''tent'' ''free'' ''man'' ''our'' and that is without re-arranging the letters.

Actually I'm not blaming my typing skills on this little inocent blue eyed baby here. I just can't type worth a crap.

new words?

Mayor,

I forgot part of your question. Yes! you can add words, but that is what got me in trouble with confusing the Law Director and The Council on the initiative in question.

If you are planning to amend another section of the charter I would recomend using a second initiative. The entire section should be typed out. As the court has said the changes must be capitialized. I would recommend also that before you do amend the Pickerington City Charter go to the Clerk Linda Yartin and get her to give you a copy of that section out of the current Charter. Also have her certify that copy that it is a true and exact copy of the current charter. I would attach that copy to the initiative as you circulate it around town. Then in your amenedment, you would type out the entire section with the changes in CAPS. These poor voters here in Pickerington have such a time understanding what they are reading according to the City governement. So you could show them (voters) the real copy not my mis-typed version and there would not be any questions of what the current charter said or what version you were changing.

Please keep in mind that charter amendments require a DIFFERENT initiative form. I have plenty of copies and I'm in the book. They do not need to be filed with the City Finance Director prior to circulation. When enough signatures are on the petition you then file the charter amendment with the Council Clerk Linda Yartin.

There are a number of other issues that I would like to consider. However the charter is a overall veiw of what and how we want to be governed. You can't go into too detail because the charter is binding on all of us. Some issues we mustleave it to the council to make resonsible decisions on their part.

I think issues like moritorium on housing, finanical disclosure of elected officals, and a growth management plan should be in the form of ordinances. Council and the Manager must be able to manage these plans and ordinances. If they don't live up to the voters expectations then we should vote them out of office. Until we do that then it is very hard to complain about their actions. If they are the only candidates that choose to step forward and run for office then we deserve what we get. Someone needs to step forward and run. We are very limited in how we can control our council using just the charter. The final solution is to find a new council to help Mr. Shaver.

I think someone down the page listed the qualifications for office.

Reply

Mr. Hackworth,

I think the gist of my question was since I understand you cannot appeal the Supreme Court?¡?¦s pitiful decision, I didn?¡?¦t know if you could recirculate exactly the same thing corrected. Then I thought if we had that one going we could throw in something else. Yearly financial disclosure would be an excellent idea.

Now back to the PARKER DOCTRINE. Apparently the city government has either declared themselves a sovereign entity, with Mr. PARKER as their spokes person, or they have sincerely subscribed to the PARKER DOCTRINE, as there were no clarifications made in the Pickerington Times-Sun which I received today. Their Highnesses had plenty of opportunity to correct the PARKER DOCTRINE if it was misquoted or taken out of context. Didn?¡?¦t I read somewhere that the city had hired a new public information officer? Certainly this person would have leapt at the local media to assure that any misunderstandings were cleared up. Therefore, it is now safe to assume that the PARKER DOCTRINE has been adopted by the elected, appointed and hired people governing our city.

For edification, I submit the following:

sov?¡Per?¡Peign Pronunciation Key (svr-n, svrn)
n.
1. One that exercises supreme, permanent authority, especially in a nation or other governmental unit, as:
a. A king, queen, or other noble person who serves as chief of state; a ruler or monarch.
b. A national governing council or committee.
2. A nation that governs territory outside its borders.

adj.
3. Self-governing; independent: a sovereign state.
4. Having supreme rank or power: a sovereign prince.
5. Paramount; supreme: Her sovereign virtue is compassion.
a. Of superlative strength or efficacy: a sovereign remedy.
b. Unmitigated: sovereign contempt.

doc?¡Ptrine Pronunciation Key (dktrn)
n.
?„h A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma.
?„h A rule or principle of law, especially when established by precedent.
?„h A statement of official government policy

Usage: -- Doctrine, Precept. Doctrine denotes whatever is recommended as a speculative truth to the belief of others. Precept is a rule down to be obeyed. Doctrine supposes a teacher; precept supposes a superior, with a right to command.



By Mayor Wannabe