the third and final main event of the night

well with that out of the way we moved on to what gets me excited about the political arena the main event. this i believe was to be discussed last and least. so lets get to it already.....

-Chumleygate
ok maybe thats to extreme. I like the chumleys as much as the rest of the kenai, they haveworked hard, built a successfull bussiness, hired a lot of our friends and nieghbors, and are down right good folks. that said lets get to the facts. the borough needed some equiptment and chumleys had it. Hugh chumley had hired onto the mayors staff as chief of staff and not filled out a single form which was necessary for this not to be a conflict of interest and when this was found out poeple started saying he got the sell becuase of his new position. (thats a very crude outline of the situation but consise).
so the mayor got right on fixing the problem and all (most) of the money was returned to the borough. all fixed right? wrong. so now someone decides to absolve mr. chumleys oversight of the rules and try to "restore his reputation" by waiving the requirements that got him in trouble in the first place. the argument with this is that mr. chumley didnt know about the form and had even tried to find out if there was anything that needed to be filled out. failing to find anything he proceeded with the job at hand and found himself in trouble for not knowing about this form (i know I'm sounding redundant its becuase this was all drilled into our brains for about 30 minutes).
there was champions for both sides: one saying - forgive mr. chumleys ignorance becuase it was an honest mistake (which is likely) and the other saying - all has been righted so why are we now needing to pass anything. the final blow came from assemblypresident sprague when he stated that after reviewing the facts and just the facts.... no waiver or special favor would be shown to the newly hired chief of staff mr. hugh chumley.
in conclusion - Ignorance is not a defence. I was told that once by a judge after explaining my misunderstanding of a fishing law for the kenai river. whether you mean to or not, or knew or didnt know does not negate the laws and rules. i found it ironic when assemblyman haggerty stated that he felt it would not be fair for mr.chumley to reciever a waiver and no one else (which was how it was worded by the way) and then mr. chumley chimed in with an agreement along those same lines (he must not have understood the resolution very well either, the part where it siad this would only apply to him and never be used as a presedence in the future.) the right vote was cast by the majority and laws and rules were upheld as indeferent toward person or position. i found assemblyman fischers defense of mr. chumley to be as a friend and not as an assemblyman elected to do the will of the people.