Thursday, August 4, 2011

The Villager on the 2003 Clerk-Treasurer Election

Apparently the bias in the Villager has been long-standing. The November 2003 issue featured details on candidates as provided from Meet The Candidates Night. I found the following interesting:





















ClerkTreasurer
Suzanne R. Coulter, incumbent
• 6 years as MP Treasurer
• Chosen by State Auditors Office
to assist in training other
treasurers
• Changed the Village accounting
system from completely manual
to a State-approved
computerized system
• Endorsed by Minerva Park
Police, MP EMS, and MP Swim
Club Board
• Chairperson of MPCA Children’s
Committee for 5 years

Loree B. Cox

[Editor’s Note] At Candidates
Night, Loree Cox, candidate for
Clerk-Treasurer, distributed
literature that alluded to “improper
activities in the Clerk-Treasurers
Office.” Complaints have been
filed against Loree Cox with the
Ohio Elections Commission, as a
possible violation of Ohio Revised
Code Section 3517.21B(10). At
press time for this newsletter, this
issue had not yet been resolved,
so we are unable to publish her
literature here.


The Villager supported Suzanne Coulter (who was running for re-election) but instead of pulling facts from Loree Cox's literature, they made a complaint against her and publicized the scandal they created.

The Village needs games like this to end.

2 comments:

  1. Why would you be bringing up something from 2003? Got nothing better to do with your time? For your information Suzanne Coulter's complaint against the person running against her that year was validated by the Ethics Commission Franklin County. So stop writing about things you know less then nothing about.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I bring it up because it happened and it is just another testimony as to how things have been run in Minerva Park since this administration has taken office (read over).

    Why shouldn't the residents of this village be informed of what has happened? It happened. People deserve to know. And this blog gives everyone, including yourself, the opportunity to share their thoughts and feelings on the situation.

    Regardless of whether Suzanne's buddies on the commission ruled in her favor (though I certainly hope it was an anonymous record and no names were released to the members of the commission...) the fact that Sharon Beirman and Suzanne's buddies in the community building chose not to publicize Loree's information shows the kind of game that is being played.

    Even if Loree had committed some kind of violation, she should not have been treated guilty until proven innocent and not publicized in the Villager.

    -Jessica Rhoads

    ReplyDelete