In a July 24, 2008 article in the Morning News, Eureka Springs Ald. Eric Scheunemann gets top billing for his position on not voting on a Council that he says is illegally constituted. The City’s Mayor, Dani Joy, vetoed the election of Pat Matsukis by Council to replace a Council member who had resigned.
Scheunemann says he is bringing about a “peaceful revolution” in a corrupt time.
A court case has been filed against Joy, and will be heard by the Honorable John Lineberger. Judge Alan Epley had recused.
Mary Ann Pownall, member of the Cemetery Commission, and wife of Planning Commissioner Ken Pownall, had written a letter to the Arkansas newspapers, the Governor, the Attorney General, Rep. Brian King, the state Ethics Commission, the President of the Senate, and Robert C. Balfe, objecting to Scheunemann’s position.
She and her husband, along with a handful of others on a local bulletin board, Geekfest, have been strongly supportive of the Mayor, and opposed to Ald. Scheunemann’s actions. They have also vehemently opposed Ald. Rae Hahn and Kathy Harrison, who have signed on to the lawsuit as residents, not as public officials. At one point Pownall and her husband began a stealth group to attack those they opposed, but most people they listed as members asked not to be included.
In a statement representative of the tone of the conversation on Geekfest, Ms. Pownall said, according to the Morning News, “”I want his name thrown out of politics forever. I don’t even want him to run for city street sweeper.” – Resident Mary Ann Pownall.”
Filed under: ES Folk | Tagged: Ald. Eric Scheunemann, Council, Eureka Springs, Legal Matters, Mayor, Politics, Pownall
you know, it’s not just people on geekfest that object to this kind of behavior……….
but then you certainly do have the right to not get your facts straight because you are just an opinion blog………
Begging pardon but I did not say it was only people on Geekfest. I said it was a few on Geekfest who are part of the group– obviously, you are one– who take this position. Last I looked there were only nine unduplicated respondents out of 3022 members of Geekfest supportive of Mary Ann Pownall’s letter. That’s pitiful few. I’m sure there will be lots of private messages now, with this comment up, asking more people to support her. My guess is she’s a little too rabid for many.
You also may remember when Ken Pownall wanted to develop a major organizing effort opposed to certain alders and supporting the Mayor. He and others tried their hardest to get people to email City Hall and the alders. The total number of emails was ten, according to Mayoral Assistant Diane Wilkerson’s response to ES Folk’s FOIA (corroborated by City Clerk M.J. Sell’s response to the same FOIA).
You all talk big, but you aren’t that numerous.
The Morning News obviously does not think Ald. Scheunemann is as obnoxious as this little Geekfest group. I must admit that for me personally, I find Ald. Scheunemann’s commentary unnecessarily repetitive. That is not, however, to say that to be repetitive is to be wrong. Scheunemann could very well be correct. We’ll have to wait on the court’s decision against Mayor Joy to see.
As far as ES Folk’s editorial position on Ald. Scheunemann’s decision to vote “Present” goes, we have currently taken no position. Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised says a vote of “present” registers an objection that something is wrong.
How many of those 3022 members on Geekfest live out of town and aren’t part of Eureka politics? How many of those 3022 are “sock puppet” names that are “duplicated”? So there has only been 9 responses that support it. Many people of Eureka don’t even use Geekfest or your blog. Any further discussion of this on here is futile as usual. I am getting dizzy reading all the slanted writing.
How many emails were received in the same time period that were NOT supportive of the Mayor ? I find, much to my dismay, that not many people take the time to write their elected officials.
One comment about Eric’s votes. He DOES vote on action items when it suits his purposes. If it is illegal for him to vote at any time, isn’t it illegal for him to vote ALL the time?
Hmmm… a little bias is showing, Watchdog.
Shouldn’t that be “We’ll have to wait on the court’s decision one way or the other to see.”???
If bias is bad at the LCC, isn’t bias bad here as well?
I believe Scheunemann votes only on matters of procedure, not on substantive issues. Why don’t you clarify since you are so insistent on putting him in the wrong?
Don’t think it’s my bias showing in the article. It is reporting accurately. As for your citing my mention of the court case, I referred neither one way or the other to how it might come out. I said we would have to wait to see if Scheunemann is right or not. That isn’t bias one way or the other. It actually says what you say it should.
So intent are you on making the devil out of ES Folk, you totally neglect the fact that I say we have no editorial position on Scheunemann’s voting “present.”
There are other issues we do have an opinion on, and we mark them as such.
On the issue of emails. I counted only the emails that were part of an extensive campaign to support the Mayor run by Ms. Pownall (along with her husband and one other party who stuck in). I did so because it was relevant to the article. Had there been an apposite campaign against the Mayor, and it were relevant to the article, I would have addressed it.
I would very much appreciate it if you would quit setting up straw men in order to attack what isn’t there, isn’t said, isn’t true, or isn’t relevant. Differ on the issues, please.
Thank you.
I am not the one putting Eric in the wrong. He is doing that all by himself.
I guess I now need to go back and document Eric’s votes on “action items”.
The bias question revolved around your statement that implied the judge WOULD decide against the Mayor, and had nothing to do with your position on Eric’s voting present. I should have not put a paragraph break between these sentences…
Is this better?
Hmmm… a little bias is showing, Watchdog. Shouldn’t that be “We’ll have to wait on the court’s decision one way or the other to see.”???
I am doing my best not to demonize anyone here. There are no devils involved, just a lot of good intentioned people who happen to disagree on some issues.
Oops! I just re-read my comment. It doesn’t make sense the way it is. You’re right– as written the comment was grossly “loaded,” but it truly was an error– a Freudian keystroke perhaps, but an error re: the court case.
It should have read “Scheunemann could very well be correct. We’ll have to wait on the court’s decision in the case brought against Mayor Joy to see. [emphasis added to indicate what was intended.]
I cannot make a legal judgment about Eric (although I have argued myself silly trying to convince Eric of the “error of his ways.” ) I do believe there is a reading of the statutes that would support him.
Unfortunately the Attorney General does not respond to requests for an opinion from citizens, only from state legislators. Or so I’ve been led to understand, the Morning News article notwithstanding in its implication that the AG might respond.
Error explanation accepted. I know how sometimes the “thinker” goes faster than the “typer”, and you can leave out a crucial part of a post.
You are correct about the “average citizen” not being able to ask for an AG opinion. In addition to legislators, so can the Governor, prosecuting attorneys, state department heads, and election commissioners.
But then, as discussed in another thread, what good is an AG opinion when Eric says they hold no more weight than an “avereage” citizen’s?
Some AG opinions I accept, some I do not.
Some lawyer’s opinions I accept, some I do not.
Some court decisions I accept, some I do not (hence the possibility of an appeal).
Some Council member’s opinions I accept, some I do not.
Some average citizen’s opinions I accept, some I do not.
And sometimes the average citizen’s opinion gets okayed upon a reversal in the Supreme Court.
So, let’s leave off Eric. I’m reading a mystery about someone with OCD. I picked it up as a mystery to relax with. After what goes endlessly around in that mystery, Eric’s head, your posts, Council yacking, my mind, and this town in general, all I can think of is that I want to put the mystery down. Don’t think I’ll finish it.
Make a deal with me?– let’s leave Eric unfinished. Let’s put him down.
(If you want, take one last word, go ahead. But I’m going to leave Eric for now, at least unless/until someone writes a letter about him like Mary Ann Pownall’s that is so overboard even the media raises its inky eyebrows.)