Ask US.. We're the experts.

[Detector]

They look at a cops credit before hiring? I don't know, but that sounds not quite right. A bank president I can see a need for a credit check but most other jobs, not dealing directly with other peoples money, I can't see the relevancy. Uncontrollable circumstances can happen to anyone, I would hope ones job would not be subject to such circumstances.

[Tee]

First off, I want to say that I filed bankruptcy over 20 years ago for medical reasons in excess of 70k. During that time I probably had 1k worth of assets.

Also, I want to say that I don't know the mayor and have no political bias for, or against.

But here is why I have a problem with this:

$170,000 in exempt assets. I assume this is in his savings and his home equity. How many common folk in Dodge City have 170k equity in their home? How many of us have $170,000 in savings? Why do you suppose he filed two days before the laws change? I'll tell you why: because the new laws would not be so lenient as to allow him to keep so much equity while at the same time discharging his debt.

It is clear that anyone that has 70k in unsecured debt, with 170k of exempt assets has done some debt shifting in order to come out ahead in a bankruptcy.

Why is this wrong? Who do you suppose pays for the loss? If you think it is the government then you need to think again. The people who pay for these losses are the taxpayers; in higher costs for goods and in higher taxes and interest rates.

Is it fair for an elected official to offload his debt onto the taxpayers while retaining 170k in exempt assets?

Let me ask it like this... How many of you out there live within your means, are responsible with your income and spending, yet don't have near 170k in equity or savings?

I think if I were the judge, I'd take about 35k of his equity and 35k of his savings and pay back the lenders. He'd still have 100k in equity and savings- not too shabby!

The new laws would have prevented him from getting away with this, and for good reason- he knew this.

Nobody with 170k in assets and 70k in debt is really bankrupt- actually, they are pretty well off.

Should an elected official be allowed to grant himself a free and clear home and a nice fat savings on the backs of the taxpayers? I'll leave that up to you to decide.

[K C Muffin]

At the time I replied the first time, I guess I didn't know about the physical assets and values. I am going to have to change my opinion. He does have the assets to pay his creditors - it's just not cash assets. I could sink my whole savings into my home, purposely run up my debts and then declare - my home would still be untouchable and I believe retirement accounts are also untouchable, if I remember right.

These are the kind of guys the new law is supposed to protect us from. The court ought to make him cash in part of the equity in the home and at least use that to partially pay creditors, but we know it won't. The home is a protected asset.

I've completely changed my opinion, now knowing what I know. Strip the creep of his mayoral duties - he's certainly lost my respect. But I don't know that any of your other commissioners deserve the job either. Good luck!

Actually, Detector, there's a place on employment apps that you sign or not that allows the prospective employer to dig into your past, both criminal and credit. A lot of jobs depend on clean credit histories - insurance being one of them. I had to declare my bankruptcy on my apps (even for state agent's licenses in the 17 states I have them in) for 7 years following the bankruptcy. Partly because they could yank the license if I didn't declare it and they found out and partly because I didn't care if they did see it. I didn't do anything wrong but try to regroup to feed my kids. For some, I realize, it's a whole different thing.

[Detector]

Nobody with 170k in assets and 70k in debt is really bankrupt- actually, they are pretty well off.

That I'll agree with.

The problem I have is with it effecting the job. Isn't a lawyer praised and considered good for doing the client good even if it screws everyone else? Had a lawyer done such a self-serving deed they would just be considered good at their job even if it did cost tax payers a bundle. Voting in sly officials seems to be the norm from what I've experienced.

My point is, if our checks and balances are so poor we need to fear one official being able to mismanage city money, we got a much bigger problem than our Mayor.

[Tee]

Would you want a mayor that would have so few scruples as to offload his debt onto you while keeping a nice fat savings and the equity in his home?

We like to think that our elected official have scruples, morals and will make good decisions for us constituents.

I think this does speak to not only his character, but his conduct.

Do you want someone in office handling budget/spending decisions for 26,000 when they've shown they cannot handle those same decisions for just one person?

If he can't manage his money, what makes you think he can manage other peoples?

[TexKan]

See - always several ways to look at sumthin - I think I'm leanin toward resignation after all. I can see why it's a "moral" issue........

Yes Detector.......they do check credit for cops. That's how they find cops on the take - livin outside thier means, buyin stuff they can't afford, cops don't make a lot of money - cops that can't show "honest" earned income and have a tendency to like jags and cigerette boats are good candidates for being not such "honest" cops........

[Made in the USA]

Tee, TexKan, KCM, I agree with you all! Now I could see if the BR was due to health problems, or losing a job, or something, but I just can't agree with the circumstances surrounding this case as they have been laid out. We have enough incompetence handling our money now, we don't want to jeopardize it any further than we have to!

[Zeb]

best to just not say anything I know nothing about

[Detector]

We like to think that our elected official have scruples, morals and will make good decisions for us constituents.

Now of course that all sounds good, but we know its far from reality. The reality is we want our elected officials to have scruples. moral and make good decisions as long as that all fits in our personal agendas. That why most officials got there in the first place. They're there because more people voted that needed something done be it moral for everyone else or not.

My personal opinion is none of the city officials I've met should be there. Most were voted in to do a job a certain group wanted done. The jobs done now hang'em out to dry. As I said if his job entailed single handedly managing city funds then yes its a problem, but not knowing the circumstances, although it does look bad, I don't feel its right to judge his ability to do his job on it. Besides, would you have waited until you couldn't do it they way he did? Would you have, if you could, keep 170k in assets? Sure you would and it wouldn't bother you a bit what others thought about you for it.

[Made in the USA]

Sure you would and it wouldn't bother you a bit what others thought about you for it.


Sorry Detector, I can't buy that. That may be the way that most people treat things nowadays, but not ALL of us!