Civil Discourse
At Monday night’s Salisbury City Council meeting we were treated to more of the same (perhaps worse). I thought that I had attended just about every type of government meeting and / or function possible in the United States. I have even witnessed the Taiwanese parliament engage in a riot amongst themselves (via TV of course). One thing that I had never witnessed, until I began attending Salisbury council meetings, was the routine attack on citizens and a general rudeness by their “elected representativesâ€.
Let us start with the council president, Mr. Dunn. While not approaching the heights of his full blown meltdown last February, Mike just couldn’t control himself when it came to being rude to the public.
When Kate Manizade spoke during the comment section of the developer reimbursement ordinance she made the mistake of asking some questions. Outside the borders of Barrieland this is a common practice and council members attempt to provide answers to constituents. Ms. Manizade kept asking about water capacity, without any answer. Finally she asked Mr. Dunn, “Do you know?â€. Mikey’s response, “Yes, we knowâ€, followed by a stare that would melt a glacier. I’ve repeatedly chastised my 13 year old for being similarly rude, but it would be unfair to place him in Mikey’s league. …perhaps my five year old nephews, on a really bad day.
One of the more amusing moments of the evening came via the beloved Queen of Barrieland. After a flow of comments by citizens opposed to millions of taxpayer dollars going to subsidize developers HRH let all present know that she would be “dissecting each and every commentâ€. I personally find this quite amusing. I have been unable to decide if this was some kind of veiled threat or a “promise†that she would somehow refute claims made by her constituents.
The best little tirade of the evening came when Lynn Cathcart chose to “express herself†at the expense of a gentleman named Tim Chaney. Mr. Chaney wanted a chance to speak again, I assume to refute one or more of the countless inaccuracies and misrepresentations flowing forth from the council bench. Mr. Chaney should have known better. After totally misrepresenting remarks make by local community leader Terry Cohen, Ms. Cathcart decided to cut loose on Mr. Chaney.
Thanks to Joe Albero, you can watch it here.
Whenever one of these officials has the gall to complain about citizen apathy and lack of attendance at council meetings they need only look in the mirror, and at each other.
Sphere: Related ContentIf you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
It was indeed a disgusting display by Barrie, Mike and Cathcart on Monday night. They are arrogant beyond description. They were each so full of disdain and contempt—directed at the CITIZENS for simply asking questions and questioning the Council’s actions. Barrie, Mike and Cathcart cause me to become physically ill.
Moistrear’s timely comment on another blog is repeated below:
**********************************
MIKEY MAKES ‘EM & THEN BREAKS ‘EM
Council rules, that is.
Recall that episode a month or so ago at the City Council meeting attended by the big-wigs from Britain. Debbie Campbell exercised a council member’s privilege to call on someone in the audience for comment, and Dunn had apoplexy.
Then, at the very next opportunity, as I recall, the dream team struck that rule from the rule-book.
Well, at last night’s City Council meeting, following a 5-minute “break” in the action, Dunn called on someone to repeat some comments he had made about the matter that the council had acted upon just before the break.
I can take it, if they are picking on me I guess they are leaving someone else alone. However, they should be able to take it themselves, before gaveling people down or having them removed.
You bring up several great points here. The most important one to me is the fact that Mike Dunn did in fact have the answers to her questions but refused to answer.
Mind you, some time later today I will post on my Blog Site the video of Mike Dunn actually saying, (JUST BEFORE Kate got up there) “Does anyone else have any questions or comments?”
Well Mikey, YOU ASKED if anyone had any questions and by law you’re supposed to answer them. I surely hope the Council keeps up this kind of behavior because it will seal the deal when it comes to votes.
When you get some 4,000 hits a day on a Blog Site, there’s no doubt these people are squirming.
During the City Council meeting on Nov. 27, 2006,when I heard the City Attorney once again tell the council, in effect, that Debbie Campbell’s legal-based concerns were not worth serious consideration, I could not help but recall what happened just a year ago when the Council was discussing that “PDD†zoning for the old mall, which also was passed by 4-1 vote but later declared to be illegal by the Circuit Court.
The following is extracted from the minutes of the Council meeting on Nov. 28, 2005, when the question of legality was raised by city residents including Ms. Campbell:
**************************************************
“Mr. Wilber noted that the Planned Development District section has a few standards, but not as many development standards as the Planned Residential District section. Mr. Wilber opined that this would not create a legal defect that would kill this Planned Development District and in his opinion would pass legal muster if passed by the Council.
[text omitted]
“Mrs. Shields, Mrs. Cathcart, and Messrs. Comegys and Dunn voiced their support of the proposed legislation. Mrs. Campbell believed there were still a lot of answered questions (distributed copies of November 13 and November 23, 2005 e-mails to the City Solicitor – attached to official minutes) and, therefore, moved to table Ordinance Nos. 1965 and 1966 for discussion at a work session. The motion died for lack of a second.”
**************************************************
It’s deja va all over again! Thank goodness for the rule of law.
Any suggestions as to where the number of approved but not yet built hookups can be found? I’ve been told that number is very hard to pin down. I really don’t think Mike knows, even though he sure wouldn’t have told me if he did.
I strongly suspect that there is no such number, that it changes depending on the whim of the developers whose developments have been given the go-ahead by the City, and that John Jacobs, as a P.E. with a signature on a document claiming only 83,000 additional gpd are in the works, is in violation of the American Society of Professional Engineers Ethical Code. It’s a violation of engineering ethics to sign a document as a Professional Engineer without reviewing the contents, or without being sure the contents are correct.
Jacobs, if you’re reading this, I’d love to hear your rebuttal.
If I’m not mistaken I think I heard the number of 14,000 unit applications waiting for approval, I heard it at either a city council meeting or Planning and Zoning meeting. I hear so much crap at those meetings, I must clean the Sh** off the bottom of my shoes to rehash the moment.
Thanks Nosweat, but the document I have only alludes to 323 already approved hookups. The ones not yet approved, if the number really is 14,000 would consume, using the canned figure of 250 gpd per unit, 3.5 million gpd. That’s a low estimate. At peak consumption over the past 5 years we’ve sucked down about 9 million gpd. Needless to say, the consumption has risen since 2001. But if we’re already too low in reserves at 26% (of say, 8 million gpd that would be about 2 million gpd) then these 14,000 units can’t happen until we get a new plant and new tower..at least one of each. And when is that supposed to happen?
In other words, those 14,000 units will knock out our reserves.
Again, Jacobs, what do you say? Mayor Tilghman, wht’s the plan? You have to give up the Powerpoint presentations for a minute and look at the reality.
Cato:
It looks like you have not seen the DT today, which has a full-fledged attack by Barrie and her City Council “helpers” on Ms. Campbell for her recent public commentary about matters of public interest. They really don’t like facing the light of day, and it shows.
The DT’s coverage of Ms. Campbell’s commentary is even more absurd than anticipated — but not by much. No discussion whatsoever of the points and matters that she has mentioned — the prior lack of real coverage in “the disgrace” being one of the reasons for the commentary.
Instead, the Bassett bunch becomes (once again) the organ for Barrie & the Dream Team to attack those who hold them up to public scrutiny.
Tres bien, Debbie — viva la blogs!