Public Discussion?
The house organ of the Barrie Tilghman administration granted her highness a “guest editorial” in Saturday’s addition. In yet another attempt to rebut evidence of her gross fiscal mismanagement of Barrieland’s finances the mayor claims, “We do not need campaign rhetoric. We need public discussion.”
I immediately ran to the library and looked up “public discussion” in the official “Barrieland Dictionary”. Public discussion is defined as “any public discourse, written or verbal, that is in agreement with pronouncements made by Queen Barrie or her vassals in the Barrieland court”.
I then looked up “campaign rhetoric”. The official dictionary reads, “see uncivil behavior“. Looking up “uncivil behavior”, the dictionary states, “any words (verbal or in writing), thoughts or deeds that are contrary to the official pronouncements of the Barrieland government or those of Queen Barrie herself”.
At the risk of being uncivil, we need to examine the claim put forth by her highness in Saturdays editorial. Mayor Tilghman denies that the city spent $2,500 on coffee mugs. She claims that the city did spend $1,500 for cups as Christmas presents to the employees of the public works department. Before the Mayor, John Pick and DIS director Pam Oland cut off council access to the monthly disbursements reports the evidence was unimpeachable. In the May, 2005 report to council it clearly states that the city spent $2,546.00 for “stadium cups” for the the public works department. Thanks to the Mayor we now know that the city purchased 175 of these cups. They are nice cups. I have one. Unfortunately they are not worth over $14 each, but it’s not Barries money they are spending. I do wish to commend the Mayor’s office for having the forethought to purchase Christmas gifts, albeit at taxpayer expense, in April rather than waiting until that pesky Christmas rush. I could be wrong, perhaps the Mayor wasted an additional $1,500 on the coffee mugs and teh $2,500 was another poor use of the taxpayers’ money.
The Mayor claims that a candidate for council (Louise Smith) made the claim that the city spent $300,000 on banners. That was not Ms. Smith’s claim. Ms. Smith is opposed to the city spending a proposed $300,000 on a “City Living” campaign that includes expenditures such as the banners.
Mayor Tilghman states that the city paid $0 for these banners. That claim is false on its face. Every banner was installed at city expense. That means that the taxpayers of Salisbury paid for installation. IF we take the Mayor’s word that ALL of the banners were paid for with private funds, the TAXPAYER still paid for the installation. Unfortunately we can’t take the Mayor’s word for this because she refuses to release the monthly disbursement reports that have been requested by Councilwoman Debbie Campbell.
Mayor Tilghman concludes her little propaganda piece by stating that candidates and citizens are welcome to come and ask for information. How can we accept that statement when she refuses to provide even the most basic information to current members of the city council.
In an attempt to help determine whether or not the Mayor has spent the taxpayers’ money properly Councilwoman Campbell has asked for some basic information. Note that this information is prepared on a monthly basis in the Department of Internal Services. Producing the reports would not cost the taxpayer any additional money other than the little time it would take to email the reports to Mrs. Campbell. Also note that these reports were prepared FOR the city council, but the Mayor has chosen to withhold this information from Mrs. Campbell, her own “council leadership” and the public.
Mrs. Campbell has been forced to file a FOIA request for the information. I have also requested the information. I believe that the public has a right to know if the Mayor has spent any more of their money on things like $10,000 office suites and $2,100 in finance charges at Lowes.
If the Mayor complies with the request, we may get to see this information JUST before the council elections. I seriously doubt that this will occur, but we can always hope.
Technorati Tags: Salisbury, politics, salisburypolitics, TilghmanTimes, BarrieTilghman, Gannett, media
powered by performancing firefox
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
Her Majesty is “truth challenged”, as they say now in PC-land. She lied about the audit. A bald lie, in public, on camera, and one that was quickly and easily found out. This may be more than an ethical problem. It seems more like a mental illness, and it means that nothing she says is worth anything.
Numbers are what we need now, assuming that the books haven’t been cooked. Let’s see the numbers, and never mind the stuff that the Daily Times prints from the pen of Her Truth-Challenged Majesty.
I lost my cookies when reading that Barrie-Bassett blend of BS, which always hits a high point the week before a Salisbury City election.
But you omitted their most outrageous statement — the last sentence: “Citizens deserve facts upon which to base their opinions of city government.”
Barrie and Greg must be on something to suggest they really believe that.
That’s why all those closed meetings and making opinions on legislation “privileged and confidential” and stating the the waste water treatment plant is “99% in compliance” and fibbing about the audit being done…and on and on and on while the Daily Times does nothing to inform the public of many major matters.
It’s called the “mushroom” style of governing — keep the public in the dark and full of __hit — and the “Slime” is Barrie’s handmaiden.
On Tuesday (primary election) we have the chance to end this outrage by (i) bouncing Comegys off the City Council and (ii) voting for Terry Cohen, Tim Spies and Louise Smith. If they are elected in April there will be much less harm done to the City residents before we bump Barrie in 2009.