And Filed In The Office Of The Municipal Clerk: Fill & Download for Free

In the last half of the nineteenth century, growing numbers of women across the United States demanded the right to vote. Though women’s protests achieved small victories, their achingly slow progress was opposed at every turn.Local and state laws granting suffrage to women were struck down in multiple states. Powerful men battled to maintain politics as an exclusively male domain.[1]Photo: “Mrs. Herbert Carpenter marches proudly at the head of a parade for women's suffrage on Fifth Avenue in New York City in 1914.” Bettmann, Getty Images. Photos: The Battle for Women’s Suffrage in the U.S.In light of women’s burgeoning power, one group of men in Kansas decided to humiliate the local suffragettes with a “clever” trick.It backfired spectacularly.In 1887, Kansas was among the first group of U.S. states to recognize a woman’s right to vote in municipal elections.[2]This victory was hailed by the local chapter of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union. Since its founding in 1874, the WCTU had been organizing in support of women’s suffrage, and the issue remained intertwined with their charter’s focus on alcohol abuse.[3]Photo: Still from 1890s Thomas Edison film lampooning prohibition-supporting suffragettes. Intoxication: Lips that Touch LiquorWomen already struggled against severely limited rights in the public sphere. Alcoholism at home was a constant reminder of their constrained political power.The issue of alcoholism strongly affected women in their daily lives, as no laws were on the books to protect them from abusive husbands who spent the family income on liquor.State laws made it impossible for a married woman to retain control of her inheritance or even her own wages. Divorce was difficult, especially because the law routinely granted child custody to the father, not the mother.A woman married to an alcoholic man had little choice to accept her fate.[4]After Kansas passed its 1887 suffrage law, the WCTU moved to cement their gains across the state. One small town, Argonia, had been incorporated only two years earlier.[5] Women of the town were determined to be a political force in future elections.A resident of the newly formed town - Susanna Salter - owned a sterling local political pedigree. Her devout Quaker family supported her education at Kansas State Agricultural College, and she later set down roots in Argonia with her husband in 1882.[6]Her father had previously served as Argonia’s first Mayor, and her husband was elected the first City Clerk. Salter herself had written the town’s first ordinances.[7] She was happy to join the WCTU.Photo: Salter in 1887 at age 27, and in 1954 at age 94.Argonia’s WCTU chapter decided to focus on enforcing the state’s prohibition laws in the upcoming election.[8] The women “nominated a slate of candidates for local office who agreed with them.”[9]They quickly ran into resistance from the local men.One group of men decided to fight back against the encroaching “petticoat rule.”[10] Two of them had previously attended the WCTU caucus and heckled the proceedings.”[11] Their attempts at intimidation failed when their nominated candidate was voted down.This faction of men set in motion their own idiotic plan. They would humiliate the Argonian women of the Temperance Union.[12]A secret caucus was called by this faction. Twenty of them met in the back room of a local restaurant and decided to teach these females a lesson. They drew up a slate of candidates identical with that of the W.C.T.U., except that for the office of mayor they substituted Mrs. Salter's name.They assumed that the women would vote for the W.C.T.U. slate and that the men would not vote for a woman. They thought if Mrs. Salter got only their 20 votes it would embarrass the W.C.T.U. as a political organization.They also felt that such a move would curb some of the W.C.T.U.'s political activities. Mrs. Salter was chosen to be the butt of the prank because she was the only officer of the W.C.T.U. who was eligible for office, the others living outside the town limits.[13]The group printed out ballots with Mrs. Salter’s name as a candidate for mayor. Candidates did not have to file before election day, so the men could do this without Salter’s “knowledge or consent.”[14]The first voters on election day were “shocked” to see a female candidate for mayor.The chairman of the Republican party in Argonia immediately sent a delegation to see her. They found her doing the family washing. They explained the trick and then asked if she would accept the office if elected.When Mrs. Salter agreed, they said, "All right, we will elect you and just show those fellows who framed up this deal a thing or two."[15]In spite of this surprising ballot, the WCTU and their Republican allies quickly mobilized voters to get to the polls.The chauvinist men’s plan backfired in spectacular fashion. On April 4, 1887, Susanna Salter was elected as the first female mayor in United States history.[16]Image: Official notice of Salter’s election as Mayor.You are hereby notified that at an election held in the city of Argonia on Monday April 4/87, for the purpose of electing city officers, you were duly elected to the office of Mayor of said city. You will take due notice thereof and govern yourself accordingly.WM. H WATSON MAYORSource: Susanna Madora Salter -- First Woman Mayor by Monroe Billington, Autumn 1954Footnotes[1] Woman Suffrage Timeline (1840-1920) — History of U.S. Woman's Suffrage[2] Kansas and the 19th Amendment (U.S. National Park Service)[3] History[4] Women in American Politics: History and Milestones[5] Susanna Madora Salter -- First Woman Mayor by Monroe Billington, Autumn 1954[6] Susanna Madora Salter[7] Susanna Madora Salter[8] Susanna Madora Salter -- First Woman Mayor by Monroe Billington, Autumn 1954[9] Susanna Madora Salter[10] Vintage Sexism: Anti-suffrage pamphlet warns of “petticoat rule”[11] Susanna Madora Salter -- First Woman Mayor by Monroe Billington, Autumn 1954[12] Women in American Politics: History and Milestones[13] Susanna Madora Salter -- First Woman Mayor by Monroe Billington, Autumn 1954[14] Susanna Madora Salter -- First Woman Mayor by Monroe Billington, Autumn 1954[15] Susanna Madora Salter -- First Woman Mayor by Monroe Billington, Autumn 1954[16] https://www.womenshistory.org/susanna-madora-salter

Like some other answerers to this question, I will preface by saying that virtually every interaction I've had with a police officer has been a positive one and even this one has a kind of positive ending.A couple of year ago, I was driving my 4 year old son to daycare and was stopped by a police officer. I was smoking a cigarette while driving, (I know, horrible thing to do with a child in the car - I was younger and dumber at the time) and the first thing the officer said when he got to my window was "Put that cigarette out". Of course I complied, thinking he did not appreciate the smoke. He then told me that it was against the law to smoke with a minor in the car in the state of NJ. That was news to me, and I asked him if he was sure and he said yes. He then said that when I had passed him I was not wearing my seatbelt. I was wearing it when he stopped me and was not sure where I had passed him and if I was wearing one, and told him so.The officer returned to his car and stayed there for about 15 minutes. In the meanwhile, I pulled out my phone and did a quick a Google search to see if there was in fact a law forbidding smoking in a car with a minor. From the links I saw, it seemed that at some point there had been some discussion about passing such a law, but it had not gotten off the ground. I noticed the officer talking on the phone while in his car, and guessed that he was trying to find such a statute.So he comes back to my car, and gives me a ticket for the seatbelt and then says I will receive the ticket for smoking in the mail. I asked him again if he was sure there was such a law, and told him i'd googled it and he got quite upset at me and started screaming how I can see him in court if I want to fight it.Of course no ticket arrived in my mail - there was no such law.About two weeks later, I went to the municipal court to pay the seatbelt ticket, and the clerk tells me I have two tickets on file. I was shocked and asked her what the other ticket was for, and she said it was for "Failure to signal". I knew I had never received such a ticket and asked when it was from, and she said "That same officer who wrote you the seatbelt ticket wrote that one at the same time!" I was stunned. He had not mentioned at the stop anything about a failure to signal, he had not given me the ticket and he hadn't sent it to me in the mail. I told the clerk that I'd like to fight it.I went to court and explained to the prosecutor what happened and he told me right away that what he thinks happened was that the officer felt foolish that he was wrong about smoking in the car and so he made the ticket up. He came up with some excuse for the judge and the charge was dropped.A couple of days later I filed a complaint with the Police Department. I was really upset that a police officer would go ahead and completely fabricate a charge just because he felt foolish about his ignorance.About six weeks later I received a call from a Detective in the Internal Affairs department (or it's equivalent, I don't remember what it was called) asking me to come in for an interview. I met him and after I described the incident, he told me that it's possible that I had in fact not signaled and for whatever reason the officer did not cite me on the spot and according to NJ law the officer has up to 30 days to file the summons. So I asked if we could watch the audio/video recordings of the stop. The sound was pretty much worthless but the video clearly showed that I had signaled when he pulled me over. He said he would at that point discuss the incident with the officer to hear his side of the story and get back to me.I didn't hear anything from him until a few months later when he called me and this is how the conversation went:Detective: I would like to follow up and let you know that your case has been closed.Me: Can I get some sort of explanation?Detective: I spoke to the officer involved and he says that you did not signal when he pulled you over.Me: Huh? I watched the video of the stop together with you and we both saw that I did signal.Detective: Well... It's been a while since we saw it and I really don't remember...Me: So go ahead and watch it again.Detective: Um... Just last week we had a power outage and the video was deleted(!). So it's basically your word against his.Me: Well if that's the case why didn't the officer give me the ticket when he stopped me? Besides, he never mentioned the failing to signal during the stop! Isn't that strange!?Detective: He says he did tell you about the failure to signal. And that the ticket he gave you for the seatbelt violation was the last ticket in his book, so he mailed it.Me: I never got anything in the mail. Don't you guys send a ticket certified mail?Detective: Usually we do. In this case, however, the officer says he didn't.Needless to say, I was furious but figured that life is not always fair and since there was nothing for me to do, I'd just have to swallow it.That night, I was at an event and I happened to notice a member of our Township Committee in attendance. I approached him and told him the whole story and asked if it was at least possible to check one thing for me - if the ticket I received for the seatbelt violation was truly the last ticket the officer had in his book. He asked me for the officer's name and my ticket number and said he would see what he could do.The very next day I got a phone call from the Chief of Police apologizing for the actions of one of his officers. He told me watched the video (that was supposedly deleted!) and it was obvious that the police officer was lying. He said that the officer would be disciplined and that I would receive a letter in the mail to that effect.I never did find out what that discipline was.I guess the moral of the story is that there are bad apples in every barrel but hopefully justice can and does sometimes catch up.

Absolutely NOTThe Decision is a Half Baked and Foolish Decision which will have worse consequences.Why do i say so?The Reason is simple. I will illustrate something called the Road Layers Guide to 10 Kms of RoadA Contractor is asked to lay out 10 Kms of Road using High Grade materials and tenders are invited. If like in Singapore or China - the Contractor really uses High Grade Materials - it would cost him Rs. 72 Lakhs and he makes a 30% profit in the best case and 20% profit in the worst case with delays etc.In Singapore or China - he would Tender for amounts ranging from Rs. 70,25,000/- to Rs. 72,25,000/- and would make a good road and make good profits.So Contractor would decide to build the road for Rs. 60 Lakhs and take a profit of Rs. 12 LakhsIn India - Step 1 is to get the Tender and the problem is the lowest tender wins. In other countries - L1,L2 and L3 are chosen based on other things, in India it is the price.So the Contractor is told to bid for Rs. 68 Lakhs to ensure he gets the Tender and also pay a sum of Rs. 3 Lakhs as Commission for ensuring he gets the Tender.That means Rs. 65 Lakh. This means to ensure his profit - he has to build the road for Rs. 53 Lakhs (Instead of Rs. 60 Lakhs)So Contractor decides to compromise on the quality of materials and decides to use second grade material to ensure his profit. Quality starts coming downStep 2 is the disbursal of payments. Every payment comes through a channel - and with each payment - a commission has to be paid to EVERYONE. Without the commissions - payments can be delayed upto 2 years and lost, staff would refuse to do anything at the Municipal offices. The officers would not put up payment requests, would not authorize new requests, clerks will simply “FILE IT” and forget about it for 2 years.An Average of 25% in commissions is needed for paying all and ensuring that the payment reaches the Contractor.This means our Contractor who thought of spending Rs. 65 lakhs now has to pay around Rs. 15 Lakhs in Commissions which means he has only Rs. 50 Lakhs left.This means he has to build the road for Rs. 38 Lakhs to ensure his profit.Step 3 are the Inspectors.The Inspectors (Most of them) will find flaws with the finest roads built and will certify the worst roads built - as long as their “Gift” remains in question.This happens 3 -4 times and unless Inspector gives a clearance - no actual work happens and no payment is made.This means 3 inspections and each time a gift of Rs. 3 lakhs to the Inspector and his minions to ensure a smooth and flawless reportThis means Rs. 9 Lakhs downThis means the Contractor has only Rs. 41 Lakhs to build the road and even if he reduces his profit margin from 12 lakhs to 8 lakhs (Which is the bare minimum he can do- since he too has bills to pay) - the road budget reduces to Rs. 33 LakhsStep 4 are the Political Lackeys.The Actual Politicians wont take anything for such small contracts but their lackeys have to eat and politicians give them license to extort money from all such projects.The Panchayat Board Lackeys, the MLAs Lackeys, The MP Lackeys will all make demands. Either money or a Home Theater Set or a Diesel Generator or Jewelry or a Bike for their sons or pay off the fees of a daughter etc.This will cost at least Rs. 10 lakhsNow the Road budget Reduces to Rs. 31 LakhsSo assuming Rs. 8 Lakhs final profit - this means Rs. 23 Lakhs left for building the Road.So there we have it - Rs. 60 Lakhs with Grade A Materials originally planned with a 12 Lakh profit for the Contractor - Both making decent profitsAnd finally we see - Rs. 23 Lakhs for building a road (1/3 the Budget) and only 8 Lakhs profit for the Contractor - the road will obviously be the worst in quality and the Contractor will barely make ends meet.This is an Honest contractor (who are only 10% ), a Dishonest contractor will take a profit of Rs. 15 Lakhs and ensure the Road is built only for Rs. 15 Lakhs or 1/4th the BudgetAnd the Solution of these geniuses is to punish only the Contractor?????Here are the guilty Parties:-(a) The Tendering Company Officials(b) The Municipality Officials(c) The Inspectors(d) The Political LackeysThey get off scot free is it?????And i have only given example of a small road contract, imagine how many more are involved in a 30000 Crore rupee contract??????EITHER CHANGE THE SYSTEM OR KEEP QUIET. IF YOU PUNISH THE CONTRACTORS - THEN THEY WILL DO WHAT BANKERS ARE DOING - SIMPLY STOP WORKING AND THE NATION WILL BE IN MORE JEOPARDY.IT IS A BAD DECISION. ABSOLUTELY BAD AND WITHOUT FORETHOUGHT.