During Wednesday night’s Salisbury City Council public hearing on the budget attendees had the pleasure of hearing the well expressed views of many of their fellow citizens. None was more interesting than former city councilwoman Lynn Cathcart.Like her fellows, did Mrs. Cathcart offer solutions to save the city (therefore the taxpayers) money? No. Did she provide prescient comments on the current state of the city’s fiscal affairs? No.

Mrs. Cathcart instead launched a tirade pointed at individuals ranging from me, to Wicomico County Sheriff Mike Lewis, and ultimately included every other speaker that evening (save herself and one other). Of course, this is perfectly fine. The First Amendment has not been suspended, even in Barrieland (particularly for a FOB like Cathcart). No, the problem lies with the inaccuracy of Cathcart’s claims coupled with a double dose of blatant hypocrisy.

To quote Cathcart regarding citizens not offering solutions:

“We need more police officers,” said resident and former Councilwoman
Lynn Cathcart. “I have heard people complain about things not being
done and I haven’t heard people make many suggestions on how to pay for
them.”

This is clearly not true. While a few speakers spoke only of taxes or water rates, most of those speaking offered suggestions for myriad spending cuts. Now I understand that a died in the wool liberal like Mrs. Cathcart simply can’t comprehend the notion of cutting government spending or slowing the rate of growth of said spending. That said, there is a big difference between DISAGREEING with the solutions offered by her former constituents and claiming that they DID NOT OFFER ANY SOLUTIONS.

Just as her statement about citizens whining without offering solutions was ridiculous on its face, so too was Cathcart’s attacks on Sheriff Mike Lewis and his deputies:

Cathcart suggested forging an agreement with the Wicomico County
Sheriff’s office to receive help patrolling the city which she said,
after all, is part of the county. “We all pay county taxes,” she said.

In light of recent information indicating an MTV series called “Busted”
had been filmed through cooperation with the Sheriff’s department,
Cathcart said that time could be well-spent doing something to benefit
the city.

“The (Wicomico) County Sheriff’s department apparently
has time to run around filming college students. If they have that much
time, they owe Salisbury the equivalent of six officers,” she said.

Cathcart must not get out of the house much. If she does, she obviously isn’t very observant. Travel around the city of Salisbury and count how many Sheriff’s deputies you come across. While my evidence is admittedly anecdotal, I see them all the time. My favorite example is Eastern Shore Drive / S. Division Street. I often drive that route to Coulbourn Mill Road on my way home. On one day, I’ll pass two Salisbury Police cars and one Sheriff’s car within the city limits. The next day, I’ll see two deputies (like yesterday) and one SPD car. Some days I won’t see either.

For Cathcart to assert that the Wicomico County Sheriff is not patrolling Salisbury is a shamefully false claim! However, there was reason to Cathcart’s apparent madness. As noted before, Cathcart doesn’t except the notion of reducing city spending on such essential items as surveys, paying the city attorney to attend council meetings where his services are not needed, or handing out fat raises to Tilghman’s chosen few. No, people of the same belief (desire for power fails to qualify as a philosophy) as Cathcart, Comegys or Tilghman want MORE MONEY to $PEND!

A competent politician (she saved Comegys’ bacon in the last election), Cathcart was using her specious attack on the Sheriff’s office to pimp for that most revered notion - the TAX DIFFERENTIAL! Cathcart is behind the times. Even her friend Barrie has stopped using that discredited term. What Cathcart and Barrie want is a fat check courtesy of the Wicomico taxpayer, or as Tilghman now calls it - a TAX SET-OFF - in order to waste more money, not on needed services, but on unnecessary bureaucracy.

As for my frail and delicate personage, Cathcart attacked those of us who were audacious enough to make comment but don’t live in the city of Salisbury. Cathcart makes a valid point, except:

1. The rules of the public hearing don’t prohibit non-city residents (or non-city property owners, or non-city business owners) from speaking and …

2. Cathcart is a blatant hypocrite on this matter.

Let’s forget the rules. It might be possible to change them and I wouldn’t lodge any particular complaint. It’s Cathcart’s gross hypocrisy, and her failure to stand by her own words that gets my goat!

First, note that Cathcart attacked those who did not LIVE in the city. Cathcart only objects to non-city residents speaking who oppose her (translation - Tilghman’s) point of view. When non-city residents came out last year to hawk for more zoo funding that’s perfectly OK. When friends like T. J. Maloney or Donnie Williams speak out, that’s OK too! It’s only when people who disagree with her speak out that it seems to be a problem.

After the meeting I spoke with Cathcart and asked her about this. I used the specific example of last year’s budget hearing and those supporting more funding for the zoo and in opposition to charging a modest entrance fee. Her response:

“Well, the city SUPPORTS the zoo!”

Using a bizarre strain of thought, which is to logic what Bubbanomics is to the worldly philosophy, it is somehow proper for a non-city resident to speak IF Cathcart agrees with that person. She then denied that she said that those who don’t live in the city should not be able to speak. She was talking about people like me who don’t live in the city, don’t own property in the city, or don’t own a business in the city. Of course it doesn’t matter that this was not what she said. Of course it also doesn’t matter that these new criteria would immediately cease to apply IF the person speaking supported her POV.

The double dose of hypocrisy comes from her statement in whole. We all need to remember that Cathcart, besides being famous for the now infamous quote, “Schools are the county’s problem!”, loves to attack people like Councilwoman Debbie Campbell by claiming that they are always running the city down and never offering a positive solution (another specious claim by Salisbury’s premier rhetorician).

As shown at the beginning of this piece, citizens did come and offer solutions. They just aren’t the solutions that Cathcart and her like minded, fiscally incompetent friends want. Therefore to attack them, when Cathcart has claimed so many times to abhor this type of rhetoric is hypocrisy yet again.