Marconi Update

Back on August 11, 2009 I spoke with Mr. Marconi, he agreed to take part in MiddletownUSA.com's interview of candidates. He did indicate that it would be several weeks before he was able to complete the interview. Yesterday Morning, September 1, 2009 I emailed Mr. Marconi to ask about the status of the interview.

This is the email in it's entirety..

From: Randy Lewis [mailto:rlewis@xponex.com]
Sent: Fri 8/28/2009 9:45 AM
To: Marconi, Anthony
Subject: MiddletownUSA.com


Mr. Marconi,
I just wanted to check the status of our interview.

Randy Lewis
Xponex media
email: rlewis@xponex.com
phone: (513) 422-1907 ext.357

This morning I received this in my mail box..

From: "Marconi, Anthony" <amarconi@cityofmiddletown.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 7:25 AM
To: rlewis@xponex.com
Subject: RE: MiddletownUSA.com

Randy,
 
It is on my list.
 
Thanks, Tony

Was never going to get the three in this house whether he responded or not.    Anybody but an incumbant!   

Well, let me say this about that:

Mike_Presta wrote: Well, let me say this about that: Marconi and most of the others better be busy studying the "workbook"!!!  And even if they all do study it, you'll never convince me that he and at least FOUR of the six others will NOT be able to fully understand what all of that cr*p means!!!  Therefore, if they don't ask AT LEAST about two hours worth of questions, it can only mean at least one of three possible things has occurred:   1.  They are going to vote on something with most of them having NO IDEA what it really means; OR 2.  They have already discussed this CITY BUSINESS at a "pre-arranged meeting with at least a quorum present"; OR 3.  They have been involved in a series of discussions, a la those that were the basis of "Cincinnati Post v. City of Cincinnati", wherein a series of meetings were held with less than a quorum of council members present at each--to discuss the same subject--for the purpose of avoiding the requirements of the Ohio Sunshine Law.   Needless to say, possibilities 2 and 3 are both illegal (which usually doesn't stop our council, as long as they can find ANYONE ANYWHERE who says it's OK).  Possibility number 1 is just stupid, which makes it just as likely as 2 or 3.