To the Editor:
The holidays are over, we are in a new year, and it’s time to start looking ahead and making resolutions. One of my resolutions is to do at least one thing a month to help make our city a better place.
The city council/mayor recall petition have gone down like the Hindenburg. What a pity. All that time and work spent collecting signatures was time and work wasted. Personally, the high point of the recall for me was watching one of the sponsors chasing his papers and signs around the landfill while getting a face full of grit on a windy day. I believe this is the same person who is now trying to get the results appealed. It brings to mind a saying I heard as a youngster about beating a dead horse.
To those of you who signed the petitions, congratulations, you did what you thought was right. The petitions are public record, so I know every name on the one filed against me. Does it matter? Indirectly, yes. By knowing who signed, I also know what I consider to be a much larger and more important group of people. Those are the people who did not sign.
I hope for this new year everybody will put away their animosities and work together to keep Ely a great place to live.
To the Editor:
On December 20, 2014, my daughter unexpectedly passed away at the age of 41. The following Monday, I took my son-in-law to County Social Services to apply for burial assistance. We were denied assistance and told that we needed to return an electric scooter—that my daughter was given six years prior—before they would assist us; my daughter, who was severely disabled, returned the scooter three years ago because it was defective. Regardless, it was an old, donated scooter that was given to my daughter—as a disabled person—with no expectation of being returned.
My son-in-law spoke to Bunny Hill, the director of social services, to explain the scooter had been returned to the old annex building on Campton by my daughter and her neighbors. Even though my daughter was never required to return the scooter, Bunny still refuted to provide services despite it being returned; and, with my son-in-law being more than qualified for services, that should have been moot. I have heard that Bunny has done this to other people in our community before, leaving their loved ones in limbo.
My understanding, is bunny has discretion in these matters and I feel that she chose to be spiteful and hurtful toward our family. During the worst possible time in our life, rather than performing her duties as a social services director with compassion, tact and fairness, she chose to deny services to a qualified person. All this being said, it should be added, we asked who her supervisor was and Bunny said she was her own supervisor; implying she answers to no one.
Martha M. Jones