POLL: Should the mayor resign? [Archive]

AngelWing

02-10-2007, 10:15 AM

I don't think she should either. I too think she has worked harder as mayor than the previous one ever did building up Demopolis' presence in the state for business and grants.
She has not been found guilty of anything yet and I still believe the whole thing has been blown way out of proportion. You get a few who don't like her because of her actions with Vickie Taylor and are bent on bringing her down one way or another no matter what she has done for the town in the mean time.
I have asked before to the members of DemopolisLive, if you have a grievience with Cecil about how she is handling something in the office of Mayor, or you feel she isn't doing something that needs to be done, then stop sitting around complaining about and accusing her of not doing her job or worse yet doing something illegal and go and talk with her!
I did folks and believe me, it made a lot of difference in how I saw things. Cecil is a caring, God fearing woman that loves this town and works her fanny off trying to build it up. Most of the problems that come up, like the River Walk project, have been held up not by Cecil but by the council. That is completely out of her hands. Everyone loves to blame the mayor if something goes wrong or isn't done, well guys it's not always the mayors fault, there is a whole council of men sitting there that can override anything she wants done and they do.
Until she is proven without a doubt to be guilty then she needs to be in office.

mmcd3182

02-10-2007, 12:09 PM

I voted yes, because I believe she'll either plead to a lesser charge or will be found guilty of the current charges against her.

HOWEVER:

If she is found innocent of this crime, then I think she should continue in her mayoral endeavors.

However, if she knows that she did wrong, or if she thinks her presence at city hall will only cause detriment to Demopolis then she should kindly resign.

From the information we have, it seems like the second is more probable.

dave

02-10-2007, 12:22 PM

Bottom line--she stole funds from the City. She applied for them and was denied, then took them anyway. This is exactly what we don't need at City Hall. She should go.

ec14

02-10-2007, 12:41 PM

Bottom line--she stole funds from the City. She applied for them and was denied, then took them anyway. This is exactly what we don't need at City Hall. She should go.

Please explain exactly what happened for us that dont know.
-What exactly did she apply for?
-Who did she apply to?
-Who denied her the benefits?
-Who went ahead and paid for the benefits?
-Why would someone who writes checks for the city just pay for anything he/she is told to without knowing if this is allowed or not or even questioning it? They should know what they can pay for and what they cant even if it is the mayor telling them to pay for something.
-Did previous mayors (even before Caldwell) receive these benefits?

ec14

02-10-2007, 12:43 PM

Dave, I am just reading your post in the other thread. You may have answered some of my questions there.

Red Neck Biker

02-10-2007, 12:52 PM

Yes! She needs to be gone now.Be a big enough person to admit to your wrong doings and step aside.

ElizabethP

02-10-2007, 13:25 PM

I agree she needs to step down from what she is doing. plus she needs admit of her wrong doings about what she did.

AUFAN

02-10-2007, 17:59 PM

Just because she made a very big mistake does not mean that she is not a good mayor. My lord, look what Bill Clinton did and to me he was not all that bad of a leader. Anyway time will tell if she will or should be removed. JMO

DQ4BAMA

02-10-2007, 18:40 PM

She should go now... She is giving Demopolis a very bad rep... She ran on the saying of BEING A FULL TIME MAYOR.. Looks like she made a going of cutting corners for her personal profit..
(Insurance or money it still adds up to be nickels and dimes)

MotherOf3Boys

02-10-2007, 19:25 PM

Well I agree with you summ_1_two but she has already admitted to doing wrong when she turned herself in!!!? Now she just needs to step aside!

Aries

02-10-2007, 19:32 PM

Big difference in should and would.........

Tana

02-10-2007, 20:20 PM

Bottom Line...........Innocent until proven guilty!!!!!!

BIG JIM

02-10-2007, 21:36 PM

Yes, and effective immediately.

AngelWing

02-10-2007, 22:25 PM

Well I agree with you summ_1_two but she has already admitted to doing wrong when she turned herself in!!!? Now she just needs to step aside!

I disagree with you on this completely! She turned herself in because she had to, not because she is guilty!!

Does anyone here know anything about the judicial system besides leagle and demopolite?? She has only been indicted not convicted of anything!!
If she didn't turn herself in then the police would have had to go and physically arrest her and bring her in, now wouldn't that look great for the town in all the papers, having the mayor dragged off to jail in a police car!

Turning herself in was the right thing to do no matter what. She hasn't been proven guilty, why should she resign? What if she's innocent, which I believe she is! Everyone is so hot to run her out of town on a rail and she hasn't even had a chance to defend herself yet. It's beginning to sound like the old west thinking of string up the bad guy then ask questions later. Too bad if they actually were innocent! I've really become disappointed in a lot of the members of this site for I thought we all more civilized than that. :(

Ranger

02-11-2007, 00:05 AM

I disagree with you on this completely! She turned herself in because she had to, not because she is guilty!!

Does anyone here know anything about the judicial system besides leagle and demopolite?? She has only been indicted not convicted of anything!!
If she didn't turn herself in then the police would have had to go and physically arrest her and bring her in, now wouldn't that look great for the town in all the papers, having the mayor dragged off to jail in a police car!

Turning herself in was the right thing to do no matter what. She hasn't been proven guilty, why should she resign? What if she's innocent, which I believe she is! Everyone is so hot to run her out of town on a rail and she hasn't even had a chance to defend herself yet. It's beginning to sound like the old west thinking of string up the bad guy then ask questions later. Too bad if they actually were innocent! I've really become disappointed in a lot of the members of this site for I thought we all more civilized than that. :(

Well they physically arrested the police officer they wouldn't let him turn himself in. Now did that make the city look any better.

dave

02-11-2007, 00:55 AM

I admit I'm not a fan of Williamson, before or after this latest fiasco. My personal dealings with her have not been good either--for someone that's apparently good friends with my mother she certainly treated me with a lack of respect. That said, I still think she should resign, not because I don't like her, but because she stole from the City, she lied about doing it, and resigning now will look better for the City and a felony conviction forcing her out will.

Again, to sum this situation up. Forgiving her for any monies obtained prior to June 6th, 2005, she continued to accept free health insurance on the City's tab another year + AFTER she was denied these benefits by the Water Board. AGAIN, she directly asked the Water Board for these benefits and was DENIED, to her face--she was there. If she was trying to "negotiate" a deal with them prior to that meeting, it was dead on June 6th, 2005. She cannot claim she didn't know she wasn't supposed to get them BECAUSE SHE WAS TOLD IN A PUBLIC MEETING SHE COULDN'T HAVE THEM. Also note Williamson has to sign every check that's written by the City--so please don't claim she wasn't aware she was still receiving benefits after June 6th 2005.

Speculation and emotion aside, these are facts open to the public. And ask yourself if, even after she's told she isn't to receive the benefits and continued to take them, why did she pay it back at all? Why, after it's discovered by an independent auditor would she THEN decide it wasn't right and paid back the money. She was already told it wasn't hers to have over a year prior, yet apparently felt she should still receive them. Why pay it back now? I'll tell you why--because NOW she can't hide it anymore.

mama g

02-11-2007, 08:06 AM

No. I don't think she should have been indicted and I don't think she needs to resign.

Playing "Gotcha" is not wise leadership.

AngelWing

02-11-2007, 08:59 AM

Well they physically arrested the police officer they wouldn't let him turn himself in. Now did that make the city look any better.

Ranger you got me on this one, I don't have a clue what you meant by this. I don't know what police officer you are referring to or why he wasn't allowed to turn himself in, all I'm saying is that Cecil turning herself in does not constitute guilt on her part in any way. Maybe the court thought the police officer you mentioned wouldn't turn himself in without a fight, I don't know. That has nothing to do with Cecil.

Ranger

02-11-2007, 09:09 AM

Ranger you got me on this one, I don't have a clue what you meant by this. I don't know what police officer you are referring to or why he wasn't allowed to turn himself in, all I'm saying is that Cecil turning herself in does not constitute guilt on her part in any way. Maybe the court thought the police officer you mentioned wouldn't turn himself in without a fight, I don't know. That has nothing to do with Cecil.

The officer Terrence Smith.

Statpat35

02-11-2007, 09:34 AM

Either way... I think if she is found guilty she needs to stepdown because how can anyone look at her the same especially if I was planning on bringing in a business I don't know if I would a crook as a mayor.... it just looks really bad on the city.....IMHO

pamalam36732

02-11-2007, 09:45 AM

I think (IMO) that "willingly" or not, she has hurt the city and citizens of Demopolis. In order for those hurts to heal and for the city to regain any respect that it might once have had and in order to put all the negativity behind us she should resign. If she truly wants what is best for the city she will consider this. I do not think even if she was found innocent, that she would ever be looked at the same again.Remember this is only my opinion.

thegurlnextdoor

02-11-2007, 13:24 PM

I disagree with you on this completely! She turned herself in because she had to, not because she is guilty!!

Does anyone here know anything about the judicial system besides leagle and demopolite?? She has only been indicted not convicted of anything!!
If she didn't turn herself in then the police would have had to go and physically arrest her and bring her in, now wouldn't that look great for the town in all the papers, having the mayor dragged off to jail in a police car!

Turning herself in was the right thing to do no matter what. She hasn't been proven guilty, why should she resign? What if she's innocent, which I believe she is! Everyone is so hot to run her out of town on a rail and she hasn't even had a chance to defend herself yet. It's beginning to sound like the old west thinking of string up the bad guy then ask questions later. Too bad if they actually were innocent! I've really become disappointed in a lot of the members of this site for I thought we all more civilized than that. :(

I have to disagree with you.according to the papers she paid back the money.......by this being said it sounds like she TOOK the money right?.....
taking money that does not belong to you , ( the way i was raised" )IS STEALING

boss

02-11-2007, 17:27 PM

I think a better solution would be for the Mayor to take a leave of absence.
With all the leagle stuff going on, I don't think she will be able to function as the Mayor. I believe a person is innocent until proven guilty. I've said this before and I will always believe this.

red

02-11-2007, 19:42 PM

i don't know what to think about all of this. it doesn't look good on our town thats for sure. i agree she should step down and let someone else take over running the town who doesn't have so much going on at the moment. whether she took the money or just borrowed it and paid it back is still considered theft. if you take something it doesn't matter if u put it back, the point remains that you took it. now she must face the consequences of her actions.

sparkles01

02-11-2007, 21:01 PM

Yes she is innocent until proven guilty but if proven guilty the best thing for her to do will be stepping down. I just don't think that she is setting a good example money has already been taken from the city before and I would think she would have tried extra hard to make sure it did not happen again.

Newport

02-11-2007, 23:49 PM

If she is found guilty she will have to step down.No felon is allowed to hold office. It is going to be hard for the mayor, council, and water board to work together through this and maybe she should take a leave of absence for the good of the city, but she certainly should not resign now.

BOHNTR

02-11-2007, 23:50 PM

Either way... I think if she is found guilty she needs to stepdown

If she is found guilty there won't be any stepping down. She will be removed by state law!

BamaBluEyez36

02-12-2007, 06:35 AM

You know Demopolis has always had one thing or the other going on behind the scenes, politically or in one of the City Departments. The Mayor is supposed to be above reproach (yes everyone has faults, we're all human) but when the citizens of Demopolis elected her I don't think they wanted more scandal in office than there had already been in past instances. I think what is best for our town should be considered here, not what is best for one individual. (Just one woman's opinion.)

AngelWing

02-12-2007, 08:56 AM

I have to disagree with you.according to the papers she paid back the money.......by this being said it sounds like she TOOK the money right?.....
taking money that does not belong to you , ( the way i was raised" )IS STEALING

Why would her paying the money back mean that she stole it?? That just doesn't make any sense!

If I found out that I had been receiving a benefit that I wasn't supposed to and owed a certain amount of money then I would have paid it back. She didn't argue the fact, once it was discovered, that she was receiving the insurance and wasn't supposed. She had been under the assumption the whole time though up til then that she was supposed to receive insurance because Caldwell was receiving it when he left office. It just made common sense that she would too. When she was told that wasn't the case after the audit was done then she paid back every penny because she owed it, not because she was "guilty" of anything.

Remember too that we are talking about insurance policy here, not actual funds from the till. She paid back the premiums that the city paid for her of the two year period, nothing more.

Why do people try to read guilt into every action she does when what she has done so far has been the correct thing to do under the circumstances. The only thing I can see is that she delayed coming off the insurance in hoping to get the city council to give her the same deal they had given Caldwell which I don't see why they didn't. If they gave it to him, they should have offered it to her as well.

LPL

02-12-2007, 09:03 AM

AngelWing

02-12-2007, 09:16 AM

District Attorney for 17th Judicial Circuit District Greg Griggers said the mayor has been charged with knowingly and intentionally obtaining city funds for personal use and knowingly obtaining city funds for personal use be deception.

The one that gets me is the knowingly obtaining city funds for personal use be deception. Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't it stated in another thread that she had asked for the benefits twice before, and was denied both times.

This I believe was done after the audit discovered she was receiving insurance. She paid back every penny of what the city had paid in premiums in those 2 years too. She asked the council to give her the same deal as caldwell had gotten.

Ranger

02-12-2007, 09:27 AM

Why would her paying the money back mean that she stole it?? That just doesn't make any sense!

If I found out that I had been receiving a benefit that I wasn't supposed to and owed a certain amount of money then I would have paid it back. She didn't argue the fact, once it was discovered, that she was receiving the insurance and wasn't supposed. She had been under the assumption the whole time though up til then that she was supposed to receive insurance because Caldwell was receiving it when he left office. It just made common sense that she would too. When she was told that wasn't the case after the audit was done then she paid back every penny because she owed it, not because she was "guilty" of anything.

Remember too that we are talking about insurance policy here, not actual funds from the till. She paid back the premiums that the city paid for her of the two year period, nothing more.

Why do people try to read guilt into every action she does when what she has done so far has been the correct thing to do under the circumstances. The only thing I can see is that she delayed coming off the insurance in hoping to get the city council to give her the same deal they had given Caldwell which I don't see why they didn't. If they gave it to him, they should have offered it to her as well.

When she was elected and they told her the amount she would be paid was $1,000 and the reason it was more than the previous mayor thats when she was told that she would not receive benefits. Then when she asked for insurance she was told NO by the council on 2 separate occasions but she still advised the city clerk pay the premiums after she was told she was not authorized to receive the benefits paid for by the city. Paying the full amount back to the city still does not make it legal or right.

shortstuff

02-12-2007, 09:28 AM

my biggest problem with the situation is she had no right to order the city clerk to continue to pay the premiums AFTER the council denied her request twice. a former city clerk has testified to that i believe. if she is innocent she went about it the wrong way. i do believe she should resign. alot of people have lost respect for her and i don't think there is anything else she can offer the city at this point.

Ms. Alabama

02-12-2007, 09:38 AM

I don't think she should. I think she is doing a good job with what she had to work with. She has brought a lot of new buisnesses here. She is not perfect, but who is?

Totally agree!

Magic

02-12-2007, 13:19 PM

The Mayor should resign. She knew, as any of us applying for a job, whether or not health benefits were included. An assembly of peers (Grand Jury) were presented the evidence and they all agreed something was done against the law and therefore an indictment was the result. Now she is allowed to defend herself and explain she didn't know she did wrong? She already knew the benefit wasn't allowed and asked the council to reconsider. Then she paid back the money (which wasn't allowed to be paid unless authorized by a city official, the mayor or city clerk we assume) after the council declined again to pay health benefits. Blatant use of authority for the use of funds for personel use is against the law. Much like stealing money and getting found out and then putting it back. The people of Demopolis voted on a mayor and then the elected officials raise their right hand and quote an oath of office saying to the best of their ability they will up hold the office of mayor and that means honestly and according to the law. The same law we citizens are held to.