On the subject of the Senate, Wallace asked if the majority leader is Mitch McConnell, won’t that hurt some of the “boldest” parts of Biden’s election promises? Buttigieg first stressed that Georgia’s runoff Senate races are likely to be extremely competitive, and if Democrats don’t win, McConnell’s caucus will have a decision to make. – Advertisement – “Is his purpose in Washington to defy the American people? Who, along with the president and the House of Representatives, will believe in expanding, not taking away health care, ensuring that the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes instead of slashing their taxes, no matter what, raising wages, treating climate change as real?” Basically, Buttigieg posited, does McConnell want to move forward with progress or stop progress?Perhaps the biggest takeaway? Just how very important the Georgia Senate special election really is. The double runoff will be held on Jan. 5, 2021. The Georgia run-off is January 5th. Request an absentee ballot by Nov. 18. Early in-person voting starts Dec. 14. And REGISTER TO VOTE here by Dec. 7. And give $3 right now to rip the Senate majority from Mitch McConnell’s cold dead hands. Here’s that clip.x As my colleague, Hunter, noted, the Trump administration is not expected to make any major moves when it comes to handling the pandemic before Donald Trump leaves office in January. On the other hand, as we count down the days until he takes office, Biden is likely to urge the American people to listen to health and science expert recommendations (what a breath of fresh air, eh?), including wearing face masks and practicing social distancing amid a literal global pandemic. Wallace opens the dialogue by saying that Biden claimed the American people gave him a “‘mandate for action.’” Wallace then referenced the House’s slimmer majority and what he describes as the “likelihood” of a Republican-controlled Senate. Wallace asked Buttigieg, “The question is: What mandate?”- Advertisement – – Advertisement – Buttigieg’s answer is nothing short of refreshing. “Well, I think he has a mandate to deliver on the winning campaign agenda that the Biden-Harris ticket offered the country. This not only earned us the support of the majority of Americans who voted for him to be the next president, but also, we should remember that those who supported him, and a remarkable number of President Trump supporters support the agenda that Joe Biden is going to lead our country forward with.In other words, the idea of getting serious on COVID and having a science-led approach, which he’s already underway on. The idea of raising wages and protecting workers. And making sure corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share in taxes. Taking climate seriously. Doing something about racial justice. As we look forward, whether we have a divided government or not, I know this. What Joe Biden wants for the country is what most Americans believe is right for this country. And that, I think, is where the real propulsion of his administration will be. Just as it’s been the propulsion of this campaign and led to this win.”- Advertisement –
Close Forgot password? Please put in your email: Send me my password! Close message Login This blog post All blog posts Subscribe to this blog post’s comments through… RSS Feed Subscribe via email Subscribe Subscribe to this blog’s comments through… RSS Feed Subscribe via email Subscribe Follow the discussion Comments (19) Logging you in… Close Login to IntenseDebate Or create an account Username or Email: Password: Forgot login? Cancel Login Close WordPress.com Username or Email: Password: Lost your password? Cancel Login Dashboard | Edit profile | Logout Logged in as Admin Options Disable comments for this page Save Settings Sort by: Date Rating Last Activity Loading comments… You are about to flag this comment as being inappropriate. Please explain why you are flagging this comment in the text box below and submit your report. The blog admin will be notified. Thank you for your input. +5 Vote up Vote down Guest · 349 weeks ago I do not understand the concealed firearm issue. The city building has had the same security since it was built and now they feel unsafe because a “no concealed firearm” sign is no longer present. REALLY! You really think that sign protected you against a person with evil intent. This really defies logic. Report Reply 3 replies · active 349 weeks ago +1 Vote up Vote down Wellington · 349 weeks ago Wow only in wellington go figure Report Reply 0 replies · active 349 weeks ago 0 Vote up Vote down Citizen · 349 weeks ago Liberals are strange animals. If someone is intent on coming in the building and shooting people do you really think they will come to the door and see the little sign with the gun with the red circle and slash on it and say “Oh crap, I can’t go in there and shoot afterall, it’s a no guns allowed building”. You are much safer with a trained person having a gun on them than being without. Criminals don’t follow the rules, only law abiding people do. Mrs. Korte really feels protected by that little sign? Pathetic! Report Reply 0 replies · active 349 weeks ago +2 Vote up Vote down Get a Plan · 349 weeks ago I amazed at how some of you have reacted to this. When the City Building was built we did not have people walking into public buildings like schools and shooting people. There have been instances in the past few years of this occurring at City Council meetings across our country. Yes it’s Wellington and it WILL NEVER HAPPEN HERE. That comment is the most common thread at every school shooting across this country. So what is wrong with a plan and being prepared. Times have changed and so has society. No a sign at the door will not matter but a plan may save those inside. Report Reply 3 replies · active 348 weeks ago +2 Vote up Vote down To Old · 349 weeks ago It is coming where we are going back to the bonnie and clyde days since we have cars. But if a horse rider coming with a gun shooting then I’m digging out my bonnet. I don’t condemn guns but don’t approve of tom **** and harry carrying concealed. Then it’s the biggggggg guns I personally condemn to tom **** and harry. That is only me. Report Reply 0 replies · active 349 weeks ago +5 Vote up Vote down anonymous · 349 weeks ago Law-abiding, non-felons should not have to carry concealed. Open view, holstered, for all the honest world to see. This works in any strong society. Why feel you have to “conceal” anything, unless you’re wearing a tux or a formal gown. I guarantee that criminals who see a pistol on somebody’s hip in a mini-mart or a bank will think twice – and probably/hopefully – not rob it. Report Reply 1 reply · active 349 weeks ago +2 Vote up Vote down wondering · 349 weeks ago I agree with the above comments about a sign on the door will keep the criminal element out. Who ever came up with that idea was smoking dope. I’m one who has a permit, and I follow the rules as to where I can carry. You learn that in class. There were no criminals in my class, that I was aware of, since we all had to have a backround check and fork over money to the State of Kansas. Report Reply 1 reply · active 349 weeks ago +5 Vote up Vote down Hmmm…. · 349 weeks ago I work in a place that has no firearms signs on the outside of the building. It also has no smoking signs. Either people don’t read the no smoking signs or think them a suggestion. Just out of curiosity what will happen if you are in a building with a no weapons sign and get caught? Can the owner of the building press charges, or is it just a suggestion? By the way, it has crossed my mind that those signs just tell the people on the outside that there are no guns on the inside for the employees to protect themselves with. Report Reply 0 replies · active 349 weeks ago 0 Vote up Vote down Goober · 348 weeks ago Guns and Democrats don’t mix. The majority of the mass shooting in recent years have proven to be democratically related. They were either registered Democrats or live in a Democratic family. Ban Democrats and problem is solved. Report Reply 2 replies · active 348 weeks ago Post a new comment Enter text right here! Comment as a Guest, or login: Login to IntenseDebate Login to WordPress.com Login to Twitter Go back Tweet this comment Connected as (Logout) Email (optional) Not displayed publicly. Name Email Website (optional) Displayed next to your comments. Not displayed publicly. If you have a website, link to it here. Posting anonymously. Tweet this comment Submit Comment Subscribe to None Replies All new comments Comments by IntenseDebate Enter text right here! Reply as a Guest, or login: Login to IntenseDebate Login to WordPress.com Login to Twitter Go back Tweet this comment Connected as (Logout) Email (optional) Not displayed publicly. Name Email Website (optional) Displayed next to your comments. Not displayed publicly. If you have a website, link to it here. Posting anonymously. Tweet this comment Cancel Submit Comment Subscribe to None Replies All new comments by Tracy McCue, Sumner Newscow â€” The Wellington City Council adapted a policy to remove “no concealed carry” signs from two of the buildings for which they were in place.The council also directed city staff to implement a safety plan and to educate municipal employees in case of an attack by a gun-shooting intruder.The new policy came at the request of the Kansas State Legislature who issued a proclamation that counties and municipalities must update its Concealed Carry Handgun policy to adhere to state policy or improve security measures within.It may not be a huge issue anyway, considering that the city has only had two signs on the 20 municipal buildings in Wellington in the first place. Wellington City Manager Gus Collins said there was a “no concealed carry” sign at the front entrance of Wellington City Hall on S. Washington and the Electric/Water Department complex. Another sign was placed at the Wellington City Lake years ago, Collins said, but unbeknownst to him it was removed.Â The other 17 buildings never had signs in place to begin with.The city’s CCH policy did generate plenty of discussion amongst council members. The council devoted almost 30 minutes to discussing the intricacies of the law at the meeting Tuesday, following a near one hour discussion during a work session in November. The policy will go into effect on Jan. 1, 2014, but there is a possibility that the state of Kansas could change the policy and the municipality must come up with a new plan, said Mike Brown, Wellington City Attorney.The state’s CCH law, which was enacted at the 2013 legislative session, is a rather complex one and Wellington Police Chief Tracy Heath was on hand to explain it.Basically, Heath said, the state legislature has made the CCH laws less restrictive and has encouraged municipalities and other governmental entities to implement similarly lenient policies as well. The state mandated that by January 1, 2014, all municipalities must submit a policy to either remove the signs, or to have the signs in place but have a security plan implemented that would protect employees.Heath said the latter is an expensive proposition. Just to secure the Wellington city administration building the city would need a metal detector and two security guards.“Even at minimum wage, that would cost the city anywhere from $90,000 to $100,000,” Heath said.The other alternative is to allow people, who hold a licensed CCH permit, the right to enter a public building. The thinking being a person with a CCH license could protect themselves with a weapon on hand if the gun-shooting intruder enters the facility.There are a lot of gray area to this law Heath said. For one thing, it does not address private property. A business or home owner can still restrict the use of concealed weapons.Also, there is questions of what constitutes a concealed weapon. Heath said Kansas has never addressed an open weapon policy. For instance, people can legally carry a pistol in their holsters in the open for everyone to see, but they can only carry a gun hidden inside their pockets/coats only if they have a CCH permit. He estimates in Wellington there are around a 100 people who have CCH permits.Heath also said the current CCH law is going to change in four years anyway, when the state will then prohibit any city/county policy from making any restrictions to concealed carry regardless. Thus there is no need to implement expensive security measures.None of the council members had any issue with removing the CCH signs, but there was much debate over how far the city should go in protecting its employees from an intruder.For instance, the city administration building is built in a way where a gun-shooting intruder can enter the front door and secure the building where there is little room for employees to escape.Council member Jan Korte said she would like a door or something up at the council chambers that could get her out of the building if such a person came in ready to shoot.Heath said he has spoken with other municipalities and he has yet to hear of any governing body ready to tackle the expenses of securing a building with metal detectors, bullet proof windows and security guards.â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢Annexation revisitedÂ Due to a technicality in which at the previous meeting, the council’s apparent approval to annex the 11.5 acre property southeast of the Wellington Wal-Mart to build a 96-unit $7-8 million apartment complex (see story here) was apparently not approved after all. At that meeting, the vote was 3-2, with council member Kelly Green not in attendance. The vote did not constitute a majority required for an ordinance’s approval. A quorum is four votes on a six-member board. This was not discovered until the next day.Tuesday, Green voted with the majority to make it 4-2, thus officially approving the ordinance.At the same time, the Wellington City Planning Commission was meeting in a separate building and voted 5-0 to recommend the rezoning of the property from a I-1 to an R-2 multi-family zoned lot. The council will now need to determine whether to accept the Planning Commission’s rezoning recommendation at the Dec. 17 meeting or deny it.â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢Twelve employees recognizedThe Wellington City Council recognized 12 employees for their service to the city for 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 years.Those employees were:10 years –Floyd Thompson, sanitation department;Dewey Rhodd, sanitation department;James McEachern, wastewater department;Glen Berryman, wastewater department.15 years –Michael Tredway, police department;Harold Parkey, fire department.20 years –Victor Sandell, fire department;Douglas Kinney, lake department;Mark Bales, golf department.25 years –Tracy Heath, police department;Marry Green, clerk department.30 years –Judge Frank Korte, legal department.â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢In other business, the council approved:â€¢a resolution of the sale of city of Wellington public building commission bonds to help fund the new WRC center;â€¢extended the agreement between the Wellington Fire department and District No. 6 rural department for fire protection.â€¢allowing the financial statements and financial reports of the city to be prepared to show compliance with the cash basis and budget laws.The city council also met in executive session for 20 minutes to discuss business practices.