Mayor's husband should have been more forthcoming

I and my editorial staff found out after the letter had appeared that this was in fact Kelly's husband.

We have no problem with relatives of elected or appointed officials writing letters to the editor and we'd publish them as long as they aren't defamatory or potentially libelous. That's no different from how we treat any other letter.

But as the author, identify yourself clearly. Mr. Stanley may have thought that he was being cute in referring to himself as the first man of Oak Forest. But with a different last name from Kelly's, he wasn't exactly being completely clear. Identifying himself flat out as Kelly's husband would have been the wisest thing.

So with nonsense like this, let Kelly wonder not why her claims of open and honest government under her watch hold less and less water with residents.

She could be one of the most honest and open mayors in all the south suburbs. But it only takes a few incidents to call that into question. Incidents like her handling of property annexation near the corner of 167th and Cicero Avenue; the city's claim to money found at the LeClaire Station apartment fire last year, which was not handled very openly despite being on a city council agenda. And how about her handling of Lindsay Laycoax's dismissal? Laycoax was allowed to walk away with full retirement and benefits despite running a rental system of fire equipment for personal use; equipment paid for by taxpayers who Kelly was elected to represent.

In all those cases, Kelly appeared to meet the very minimum of what she was required to do. There was no inclination, no indication she was willing to go above or beyond that.

And now this, her husband defending her in print without fully identifying himself as her husband? The voters in Oak Forest have every reason to be skeptical.

Kelly appears bent on only doing what's required if there could be even the slightest hint of controversy or dissent.

If she wants the credit she thinks she deserves for being open, regardless of what any other community is doing, perhaps following the spirit of openness rather than just the letter of it would be a start.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9/26/2008
Wow you are out for blood, that's not the wisest approach. I won't reveal my name because I don't need your animosity. You can believe what you want and try to make people think the same. I know Felicia and have for years, she is a great lady to know, a very hard and honest worker. Felicia will give you the shirt off her back. We support her and hope this will not break her spirit. We feel this person has come on too strong and does have the full understanding of what she does for our entire community. She has always been there for everyone at anytime of need, it is her generosity & kindness that keeps us supporting her.

I have never heard Felicia talk bad about anyone, she will listen to your complaints about others and not comment at all, that is more then what I can say about other folks in this town

Felica - Keep up the good work

Oak Forest
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9/25/2008
Felicia wrote "There is no time for Political Judgement. The next 6 months are our only chance to elect the most qualified candidate"

Felicia, this is actually backwards thinking. The next 6 months ARE the time for political judgement. The next 6 months are when Hank, Joanne, or whoever, gives us their plan to run Oak Forest. The ONLY time we get to ELECT the candidate of our choice is  on ELECTION DAY. Until then, it is our CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT use our "political judgement" to determine who we will vote for in April. That's called the POLITICAL PROCESS.

Part of that process is hearing what each candidate's plan for Oak Forest is. We've seen what Mayor Kelly has given us, but as of yet I don't see a thing from Mr Kuspa. That concerns me--and I'm NOT interested in a one-on-one with him to find out either. Put it in print, for all to see--plain and simple. I don't think that's too high a bar for us to ask for in Oak Forest, do you?

"To Assume one's character is unfair". I'm not concerned about his character (yet). I'm concerned with his PLATFORM--his ideas, his goals for my town. Since he has yet to put forth anything that resembles those items, then I guess I have NO CHOICE other than "assume". That is the only logical thing to do at this point, and there's no arguing that point.

You also wrote "This is no room for criticizing one's character and or their supporters, ~whether~ (I corrected your spelling here) you are a right or left wing what we must know is what a candidate will do and how they will act in situations for which they have not been adequately prepared"

Really?? Since when did we repeal the 1st Amendment? You know, the one about Free Speech? You pontificate for several paragraphs about how YOU feel, but criticize others for expresing their opinion. While you may not like what others have to say, or how they say it, you da## well better remember that many have died (including some in my family's past) in order for you and I to express ourselves here, on Oak-Watch, or ANY OTHER PLACE WE FEEL.


WELL, THIS IS THE BEST PART!!!!!

Finally, this nugget from you. "Again, I am speaking for MYSELF and no other. I will not respond to any negative post regarding my philosophical opinion, for it is the privilege OF MY OWN TO THINK AS SUCH......"

I ask that you all reread that line a couple of times before moving on.....

I've been fairly nice to you so far, Felicia. But I am now going to lay down the hammer on you, once and for all. YOU ARE A PLAGERIST AND A FRAUD. (I guarantee that right about now, the hair just stood up on her neck, folks)

The majority of your post, your "speaking for yourself and no other", was almost a VERBATUM repost from a Salon.com article that was published by Robert Burton, M.D. yesterday. Here's the link, people:


http://salon.com/env/mind_reader/2008/09/22/voter_choice

If that link does not work, simply Google "Robert Burton My Candidate, Myself" and read the whole article, both pages. You'll see that Ms DePyper has plagerized the writer's work. That, my friends, is against the law.

Felicia, your credibility on this board, and all others, is now gone. Unless you publicy recant that post, apologize to these readers, and admit that you plagerized another person's work, I will contact Salon.com and the author. I'm sure they would be glad to get ahold of you and ask for a written apology as well.

I guess I no longer have to "assume your character", since you've made it perfectly clear that your are willing to steal another person's thoughts and try to convince others that they are your own. How utterly disgusting. I hope your family, friends, and children all read this and call you out on it.


End of Story.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9/24/2008
For those seeking evidence of a liberal bias on this blog, as well as Oak Forest Watch, posters are increasingly expressing their displeasure with Mayor Kelly, (one refers to Kelly as "Rude, The one who lied to us" another states she is Toxic. I believe strongly in free speech, for their own political views, yet I find several aspects of this particularly interesting. The first is the dismissive attitude of some supporters that many residents seem to share. The implication is that Kelly is not only bad, but so obviously bad that anyone who supports her must be an "idiot or socially unacceptable."  This is not just on this web site -- I've noticed this in my own daily interactions. There is no attempt to engage or convince, but only the syllogism,  "You support Joann Kelly, therefore you are an idiot. "To attack one's character is injustice."