Do us all a favor and go back to California Hall. I remember you saying you would stay out of politics and spend time on your boat after you LOST the election.

Roger, there is no outrage on Marco Island. The only outrage was when you moved to our beautiful, quiet island and proceeded to tell us all how much you knew.

You came to Marco and tried to recall councilors who are leaders in this community. They are well respected and have dedicated many years of service to Marco Island while you have done nothing! Everything you have tried to do on Marco Island you have failed at! It is amazing that you even have the audacity to still write letters to the editors and attend council meetings when you happen to be visiting from your home in California. You were decimated in the election. No one cares what you have to say; you are an uninformed, ostentatious, egghead.

Go home Hall and SHUT UP! Wow, some people just don't get the message. Sounds kind of paranoid and delusional. Maybe Hall and Columbo have been smoking out of the same pipe...

Roger Hall is:

A.) an Imbecile
B.) self-important
C.) high and mighty
D.) ALL OF THE ABOVE

He is a genious (in his own mind) and we should all bow down to him when he speaks. I have never seen such a pompous self-absorbed individual in all my life and I have been around for a long time.

I met Roger Hall one time at the library when he was campaigning and I was turned off almost immediately. I think we're all a litle shell shocked by what Hall and others tried to do to our community but the guy is entitled to his opinion and perception of the facts so let's cut the guy a break. I know I am guilty also but the posts above are pretty nasty.

jeeeeez...i agree with marcofacts comment..."pretty nasty"...last time i checked marco is still in america and each person has the right to his/her own opinion without being called names in a public forum...and by the way...check the tax roles...hall is homesteaded on marco island....not california....we're all from somewhere.

Again, my fellow residents: Let us try to refrain from making nasty comments, especially about those who have a sufficient amount of backbone to identity themselves in their letters or blog comments.

As to former Councilor Tucker, I too am concerned that if he were to be hired as the city's attorney, he would become the 8th councilor in terms of decisions made by the City Council. I say this as I have witnessed first hand his comments and decisions regarding the rights of the community versus the property rights of individual owners. As many of you witnessed, Mr. Tucker turned his back to me at City Council meetings any time I chose to speak on an issue, especially when I said "community rights." I would say that that is a sign of a bully and coward who, when ultimately faced with someone who stood up to his biased opinion, could or would not be swayed from an opinion that, as best as I can tell, only benefited himself.

My question to you is this: do you really want a person, as your city attorney, to bring his political bias to the table when advising the city council

Mr. Kiester, you have shown once again your total lack of professionalism and one-sided rhetoric. You ask all the bloggers to refrain from nasty comments yet you use this vechicle to call Mr. Tucker a bully and a coward. My question is, and always has been, do we the citizens of Marco Island want someone like you, (guilty of breaking the law) to represent us?

If Tuckers firm can save the city money don't you think it's in the best interest of our community to at least research his proposal? We all know your logic, let's save money if, and only if it suits you agenda or the sgenda of your handlers. I don't blame Tucker for turning his back to you; I would too rather than look at your glaring red constipated face.

Your friends are a rare breed. Take Godfrey Davies for example, they lead, lose and leave. I'd be real careful Chucky (Sunshine Chucky is what I like to call you) pretty soon you'll have no friends. There is no honor amoung theives.

Kiester, my intentions were noble but you, like all of your friends think it is acceptabe to insult those you disagree with but it is apparently not ok to insult you or your vocal minority friends. Really sounds like a double standard to me. Also, what fight do you have in this? Sounds like you have a personal vendetta against Tucker. Put your emotions aside and do your job! Isn't it your job to save the city taxpayers money? If you really wanted to show us what a great guy you were then maybe you would embrace Tuckers proposal and consider it if it saves us all money. You have shown us your true colors too many times. i hope you run for office again just so you can be beat down and thown out with the rubbish!

Shame on you Mr. Kiester! As our representative you should be above all of this. Your involvment in these blogs may be a violation of the Sunshine Law which you have already shown us you have no consideration for the law! You are the only councilor on council that has broken the law with the exception of Walter Pierson. You should be recalled or resign.

Once again we see the city's spokespeople attacking the messengers when they can't attack the facts. There are a lot of attorneys that could serve as city attorney and save the city money without violating the intent of the charter and bringing a major bias to the position. The city's supporters would serve their masters better if they didn't feel the need to be so hateful. Tucker was responsible for hiring the current firm. If that was a mistake, why would we give continue to give that man a major role in Marco politics?

What all of us must realize is there is NO question Mr. Tucker would have been re-elected by a Landslide Majority of the Marco Island population, had he been allowed to run again. More importantly, if he had wanted to run again, if allowed, after having given up a large portion of his life and time to make our City a better place. His little finger has been responsible for more positive and beneficial actions for Marco Island and it's residents than Mr. Hall, any Sunshine Law violators and all the negative bloggers above, combined. Those that hold on to his wonderful words of wisdom, only do so to try to justify unjustifiable opinions (Asbestos and Sunshine Law).
There is NOBODY, NO ATTORNEY, that knows our Charter better than does Mr. Tucker. Who better to defend it, be involved in changing it, or to interpret it than Attorney Glenn Tucker. After all, he has a legal obligation to perform his legal duties appropriately. If it is not a violation of the Charter, and if his firm can save the City money, then we should pursue it. If we cannot, then it is the City's loss. Keep in mind that other firm's have to spend billable hours researching aspects to the Charter that Mr. Tucker's firm would not have to do. His rates are lower and so on and so on.
It's about time that the minority understand that Mr. Tucker spoke for a large majority of us, especially when addressing the Public and fellow Councilors.
Ed Issler

You know Ed, Kiester is no different than the rest of the very loud and obnoxious vocal minoroty...they still don't get it!! Kiester is not the voice of Marco Island like he and Columbo like to beieve he is. Kiester is just an obstructionist that has a hundred or so followers. He is a disgrace. Like you said before, Tucker has done more than all the Halls, Kiester and Columbos combined. WHEN WILL THEY COME TO GRIPS WITH REALITY? THEY LOST BY A LANDSLIDE IN THE ELECTION YET THEY STILL ACT LIKE THEY ARE THE MAJORITY. IT'S GETTING REALLY OLD!!!!!!!

It seems to me that when Councilor Kiester states his opinion on the blogs he is breaking the Sunshine Law again. It is very inappropriate for one of our city councilors to post such negative comments about a fellow councilor.

As Issler wrote, Tucker has done a lot for our community and would have been reelected if was able to run for office again. On the other hand, Kiester will never be reelected if he is foolish enough to run again.

JCHAMBERLAND: I try to keep my blogs on subject and applicable to the original Letter, as did you. Mr. Kiester has already been convicted, no need to insinuate further violations, which is not what he did above. We should all keep in mind that Mr. Kiester, when serving on Council, has his opinions and very often shows his being out of touch when he speaks on a particular subject. But he is trying and doing his best. In fact, if you think about it, he is quite harmless and actually serves the goals of the majority by his presence on Council, given the current makeup. Unless there is a good candidate running next time that is as concerned about Marco's future as those elected in the last election, Mr. Kiester is not a bad choice to keep on Council. Think about it until we see who decides to run. He (Mr. Kiester) is certainly better than Mr. Neylon or Mr. Hall !! But, there will be some other GOOD candidates that will be running, I assure you.
Ed Issler

This indivudial's attempt to reinstate himself in the City government is reprehensible. It is obvious he wants to keep his fingers in the pie and lick them whenever he can. Any attorney that publically tells a falsehood to advance his/her viewpoint and latter admits that he did it, should not be trusted with public resources ever again. What makes his lack of earnestness and tact while serving on the City Council qulifiying factors to be a trusted advisor? Obviously from the 11 or so comments above, the citizens of Marco Island seem to approve of his behavior. Tells me something about the citizens of Marco Island.

Instead of insulting Mr. Hall, why don't you tell us all why you would want a person who has lied (and if you don't agree, let us know what you thought happened with the photo evidence he claimed he had), a person who has continuously gotten away with a myriad of conflicts of interest on this island, a person who refused to vote on topics at the city council meetings (that was his job as a council member), a person who encouraged balking at the citizens of Marco who wanted to speak at meetings but were turned away, a person who is arrogant, condescending and untrustworthy. Why would you want a person like this on anything on this island. If anyone needs to leave, it's not Mr. Hall, it's Mr. Tucker, he's so full of himself. Oh, and Fossil, the 11 or so comments above are only from people who have nothing else to do, but to reap any benefit the likes of Mr. Tucker can give them. And believe me, it's not pretty. The reason he has gotten away with all he has is because money talks and bs walks.

Tuckers service to this island has put him in a serious financial situation. He owes back taxes, his practice has dried up and rumor has it he may have to sell his retirement home in Everglades City. So for all you conspiracy theorists out there Glenn has done nothing but served this community faithfully for 12 years and it has cost him a lot! All for ignorant, self-serving, selfish people who don't appreciate a moment of it! And he did it all for $6000 a year.

It is ironic that the people that step up to do so much for our community are so often attacked by the people that do so little. I am not a fan of Tucker but that shouldn't play into the equation; can he do the job, is it legal per the charter and can he save the taxpayers money? If it was based on personality alone he would have never gotten elected. Tucker is a nasty arrogant guy but Roger Hall makes Tucker look like Mother Theresa.

Semper, Tucker owns a lot more than a retirement home in Everglades City. Funny, how many people I know leaving Marco Island instructed their realtors to not use Tucker's firm for closing. I wonder why that is? MarcoFacts, Roger Hall didn't tell a lie to the people of Marco Island and then admit to it as though it didn't matter. Roger Hall has done nothing to make anyone believe he is dishonest, he spent his own money on the recall effort and never used a dime of taxpayers money.

Semper_Fi,

I almost got a tear in my eye reading your post about how destitute poor Glenn Tucker has become in service to Marco Island.

But then I went to the Collier County Property Appraiser Site, and did a search for “Tucker.” On the list that popped up, there were five properties that had Tucker, CO-TR E. Glenn” or “Tucker, TR E. Glenn” listed as the owner, in a couple of different land trusts with the same person, Donald W. Rhodes. One of these properties is homesteaded. Total “just value” of these properties is $6,487,947.

Further down the list were entries for “TUCKER, E GLENN=& BONNIE,” where he was listed as the owner, along with Bonnie Tucker, of five other properties. None was homesteaded. Total “just value” of these properties is $2,104,368.

And finally there was an eleventh, homesteaded property which listed “Tucker, Glenn” as the sole owner. This location is the same address shown for “E. Glenn Tucker” in the Marco phone book. “Just value” of this property is $651,967.

Grand total of the “just values” of these 11 properties = $9,244,282.

So I dried that tear, and wondered why you would make up that story you posted. Or did you hear it from Glenn?

It is now becoming clear that Mr. Hall was correct. A Florida Court ruling is now making the rounds on the internet. All one needs to do is Google each partner in Tucker's firm to see who it concerns. It seems a certain partner of Tucker's law firm has had problems in the past with truth telling. Unlike Tucker's public admission, this person lost a job. Why would the people of Marco Island agree to hire these people to give them advice? Mr. Hall is correct it is an outrage. I also question Tucker's loyalty to his own firm. Why would he seek a public office knowing his action would again out one of his people. Is he that selfish?

I love to read these postings. Given the right responders, they can really bring joy and a laugh to one's day. I guess some of those above would hire an attorney that was living out of their car instead of an attorney that was wealthy. That would be smart. Or, I guess somne would hire an attorney from Naples or Miami, instead of an attorney that had an interest in doing what is best for Marco Island, his client and location for many of his investments. Many of you seem to forget that Mr. Davies owned 4 or 5 properties on Marco, all of which were in Districts not yet funded for sewers. He, who you followed like the Pied Piper, had a vested interest in defeating the Sewer initiative. And now, Mr. Davies has high tailed it out of town. Mr. Tucker needs no support or justification from any of us. His personla success and business success should be an obvious sign to all of us that he is astute, and concerned for Marco Island. His Council Service alone demonstrates that. But don't stop telling us all how successful Mr. Tucker is. The way you do it, gives the masses a good laugh. Would love to see your attorney, if in fact, you would choose him or her based on their lack of success. Stll getting a good chuckle !! Keep it up, please !!!
Ed Issler