Things are back to usual at the Wicomico County Council.  Nominal Republican John Cannon returned to where he appears most comfortable – on the left leaning side of the council.  By a 4 – 3 vote, Cannon and his Democrat allies approved County Executive Rick Pollitt’s nominee for the Planning Commission – Jacob Day of the Eastern Shore Land Conservancy.

With outgoing councilman Bill McCain carrying water for Pollitt, Cannon spoon fed Day a series of leading questions designed to make Day appear to have no bias against development in Wicomico County.  Cannon even went so far to admit:

“I want to dispel any view of bias”.

That’s dandy John.  There’s just one problem.  While any reasonable person will concede that Mr. Day could offer certain expertise to the commission, any reasonable person also realizes that Day’s employer is a strong proponent of stripping county farmers of their property rights through down zoning.  Are we to believe that the ESLC would employ Mr. Day if he does not share those same views?

This is from ESLC’s own website:

ESLC has developed the Regional Landscape Initiative, a program that focuses on one of the greatest landscape protection tools available: strong, proactive planning and zoning.

Translation – down zoning of agricultural lands.  Farmers don’t want to develop their land.  However, to deny them that option reduces the value of their land and in some cases has forced farmers off of their land.

Sadly, we have come to expect this type of behavior from Mr. Cannon.  In a recent interview on SbyNEWS, Cannon attempted to argue that he wasn’t in favor of stripping farmers of their property rights.  Yet, his record contradicts this.  It was Cannon, along with Pollitt and McCain, that orchestrated a “compromise” that would have still deprived farmers of their current property rights without compensation.  The only reason the measure didn’t pass was because councilwoman Sheree Sample-Hughes refused to budge from the more radical proposal endorsed by groups such as the CBF and WET.

Sample-Hughes TRIES to Steal the Show

Sample-Hughes has been on a role lately.  From attacking the Sheriff’s office at the recent NAACP forum to attempting rhetoric beyond her depth, Sample-Hughes has been consistently rolling off the rails ever since she cut a deal with the council’s conservative bloc and became council VP.  Now in full campaign mode, Ms. Sample-Hughes doesn’t even worry about the facts in her zeal to garner center stage.

At this morning’s meeting she attacked council members Gail Bartkovich, Joe Holloway, and Stevie Prettyman for their refusal to role over and rubber stamp Pollitt’s blatantly political appointment of Day:

We do this too often to those who volunteer?

Really Sheree?  Who?

A few weeks ago Pollitt put forward two names for appointment to the Planning Commission.  After some questions were privately raised about these individuals the confirmations were pulled from the agenda and moved to a work session.  No one on council publicly (or privately, to the best of my knowledge) attacked either of these individuals.

Only with the grandstanding of McCain and Sample-Hughes did this matter become potentially “embarrassing”.  By then, one of Pollitt’s nominees had withdrawn his name.  However, this was in no way the fault of any council member.  Even at today’s meeting, no one attacked Mr. Day.

To the best of my recollection, EVERY appointment put forward by Pollitt has been confirmed.  So Sheree, WHO?

It’s real simple.  If you support an appointee like Jacob Day then STAND UP!  EMBRACE the agenda of those who want to steal from our farmers.  Don’t try to con us by pulling the old “bait and switch”.  I believe that Mr. Day has no anti-development bias just as much as I believed Sonia Sotomajor and Eleana Kagen when they said that the right to keep and bear arms is “settled law”.

Wednesday evening we laid out a chronology of events which lead to Thursday’s Daily Times article about 38-B House candidate Mike McDermott receiving an “emergency suspension” from his boss – Worcester County Sheriff, and big Norm Conway supporter, Chuck Martin.  Thursday morning Daily Times reporter Jenny Hopkinson provided her take on the brewing Scandal in 38-B.  This morning, DT Opinion Editor Susan Parker weighs in.  We sincerely hope that Sheriff Martin takes the advice of both Parker and Delmarva Dealings – wrap this affair up promptly and fairly.  While we never hesitate to criticize the DT if we find fault, neither should we hold back applause for a job well done.  In this case, both Hopkinson and Parker deserve such applause.

More Questions?

Hopkinson’s piece was fair and well written.  I can’t imagine either McDermott or Martin having any serious concerns.  Our only criticism isn’t really a criticism. We understand that Hopkinson spoke with Martin prior to contacting McDermott and his attorney, Michael Davey.  We only wish that Hopkinson had gone back to Martin with a few additional questions:

• Is it true that Martin suspended McDermott over a secondary service weapon that Martin himself had removed from McDermott’s locked office?
• Is it true that a review board had determined that McDermott should have been returned to full duty?
• Why was McDermott suspended with a formal charge or “Notification of Complain”?

If Martin refused to answer “because it is a personnel matter”, that begs the question as to why Martin saw fit to comment in the first place.  Claiming that this is privileged is like taking the 5th; you don’t get to tell your side of the story and then duck behind the privilege when things become uncomfortable.

If Hopkinson chooses to do a follow-up, perhaps she can ask the above questions along with this:

• In his four terms as Sheriff, how many instances have been logged of a deputy misplacing a weapon assigned to him or her?  What was the punishment meted out?

A Prompt Conclusion

As Parker noted in her op-ed:

… the bottom line is this: McDermott’s reputation before the electorate might be damaged by a sheriff whose twin interests — running a smooth police department and helping his political allies get elected — are in conflict.

As we noted Wednesday:

If McDermott is returned to duty (per the review board), the matter dropped or a formal complaint filed, and promptly investigated (if a formal complaint is filed), then the entire affair could simply be chocked up to a misunderstanding.  Each day that this affair continues without an objective conclusion in sight makes the matter appear more and more sordid.  This does not bode well for either Conway’s candidacy or the last few months of Sheriff Martin’s distinguished career.

No bringing this matter to a speedy end serves no one well.  The longer this drags on, the more it resembles a political vendetta than an HR matter.  While McDermott’s candidacy may be harmed in the short term, the reputations of both Martin and Conway face long term damage.  Whether I’ve supported these men (Martin) or not (Conway), it serves neither them nor the public by allowing this matter to fester any longer than absolutely necessary.

After nearly losing his seat in 2006, is Del. Norm Conway (D-38B) so afraid of facing two strong GOP opponents in November that he and his allies will stoop to circa 1972 Nixonian dirty tricks to win an election?  I don’t know, but connect the dots and see where it leads you….

Tomorrow morning the Daily Times will run a piece (probably front page) by Worcester reporter Jenny Hopkinson that discusses the “emergency” suspension of Worcester County Sheriff’s Deputy Lt. Mike McDermott.  COINCIDENTLY, McDermott has been the strongest GOP candidate running in District 38-B, which covers all of Worcester County and about 1/3 of Wicomico County.  Here is the expected lead for tomorrow’s story:

Worcester County Sheriff’s Lt. Michael McDermott was temporarily stripped of his police powers while the department investigates a Sept. 2009 incident involving a service weapon, according to his lawyer. McDermott is the mayor of Pocomoke City and a Republican candidate for the Maryland House of Delegates in District 38B.

Worcester County Sheriff Charles T. Martin confirmed that McDermott’s power to arrest was taken away on July 22, and said McDermott is now on administrative office duties. An incident involving McDermott is being investigated, Martin said, but he declined to comment on the specifics of the case because it is a personnel matter.

“Those powers remain suspended until they are reinstated by me or the case is adjudicated,” Martin said. “It’s something that is going to be adjudicated within the system, and he knows the system as well as I do."

Sounds terrible on the surface.  Let’s start at the beginning and see where the story leads.

How Do You Lose A Weapon When Your Boss Has It In His Possession?

According to sources in the Worcester County Sheriff’s office, Lt. Mike McDermott was called into the office of Sheriff Chuck Martin on July 22 and asked the whereabouts of second handgun which had been issued to McDermott.  McDermott claimed that the piece was packed away and locked in his pick-up truck as he had recently been moved out of his office.  Sheriff Martin is reported to have asked him to produce the weapon.  When McDermott could not, the Sheriff stated that he had the weapon.  He reportedly admitted to accessing McDermott’s locked office last fall and took the weapon (which had been packed away in a box) into his possession.

Sheriff Martin then stated that he was placing McDermott on “emergency suspension”.  Martin was reminded that he could not do so without doing it in writing.  At that point he dismissed McDermott.

On Saturday, July 24, McDermott was formally served written notice of an “emergency suspension”.  It is our understanding that this type of action is reserved for the most severe type of complaint.  However, it is our understanding that as of 5PM today, no “Notification of Complaint” has been served on McDermott.  Such notification is supposed to be the first step in any formal disciplinary procedure.

The Shoe Is Gonna Drop!

For some months, non-specific rumors have been spreading around political circles in both Worcester and Wicomico counties that something was going to happen to discredit McDermott.  One Wicomico source has been dropping hints for the last three months that “the shoe is gonna drop” on McDermott.  Two Democrat sources separately intimated that McDermott would be “run out of town on a rail” by the September 14th primary.

While attending an event for 38-A candidate John Phoebus July 23rd, I was told by two credible sources that “McDermott had been placed on ‘administrative leave’”.  Oddly, our sources in the Sheriff’s office state that McDermott was not served with his official suspension until the next day.

The Suspension Is Reversed, Sort Of …

As would be expected, McDermott appealed his suspension.  On Tuesday, July 27, a review board consisting of three senior deputies in the Worcester County Sheriff’s office met to hear McDermott’s appeal.  The board found that the suspension of McDermott was unwarranted and that he should be returned to active duty.  Unfortunately, such a finding must be upheld by Sheriff Martin.  The finding continues to gather dust on his desk while no notification of complaint has been filed and no investigation has begun.

It’s A Personnel Matter

When reached for comment, McDermott would only state that I should speak to his counsel.  However, as the Daily Times has already reported, Sheriff Martin doesn’t seem to have any problem discussing the matter EXCEPT when it comes to the parts that could exonerate McDermott:

Worcester County Sheriff Charles T. Martin confirmed that McDermott’s power to arrest was taken away on July 22, and said McDermott is now on administrative office duties. An incident involving McDermott is being investigated, Martin said, but he declined to comment on the specifics of the case because it is a personnel matter.

“Those powers remain suspended until they are reinstated by me or the case is adjudicated,” Martin said. “It’s something that is going to be adjudicated within the system, and he knows the system as well as I do."

The problem is that our sources state that the problem ISN’T being investigated.  No formal complaint has been filed TO BE INVESTIGATED.  YET, Martin is discussing a personnel matter – which violates the policy of his own department.

WHY?

Start by looking at this video:

Our sources in the Worcester County Sheriff’s office inform us that it is a violation of department policy to appear in uniform supporting a political candidate.  Yet, who do we see going the extra yard for Norm Conway?  Sheriff Martin and several uniformed deputies performing in a campaign video.

Given that McDermott poses the greatest threat to Conway keeping his seat, is it mere coincidence that a man willing to use his own department to promote Conway wouldn’t take the extra step and attempt to destroy McDermott’s candidacy?  I honestly don’t know.

My family and I have always had the greatest respect for Sheriff Martin.  I hope that this whole affair turns out to be a gross overreaction to a minor problem rather than a political hatchet job.  That said, only time will tell.

If McDermott is returned to duty (per the review board), the matter dropped or a formal complaint filed, and promptly investigated (if a formal complaint is filed), then the entire affair could simply be chocked up to a misunderstanding.  Each day that this affair continues without an objective conclusion in sight makes the matter appear more and more sordid.  This does not bode well for either Conway’s candidacy or the last few months of Sheriff Martin’s distinguished career.

Questionable land deals, millions of taxpayer dollars thrown at “FOB” developers, persecution of citizens who dared disagree with the mayor; these are just a few of the exploits citizens were forced to endure under former mayor Barrie Tilghman.  Yet, none of these were deemed worthy of a multi-part series in the Daily Times.  Current mayor Jim Ireton attempts to keep a campaign promise, bringing Salisbury’s slumlords under some sort of control, and the DT staff seems to be bucking for a Pulitzer.

Yesterday, we noted that our biggest concern about Ireton’s plan was that it was at least as much political ploy as it was substantive policy.  Today, the DT’s “ace” reporter Laura D’Alessandro gives us part two in a five part series “about Salisbury’s RENTAL CRACKDOWN”.  The imagery makes us believe that D’Alessandro really aspires to pen gothic romances – “hulking historic homes” (I thought I loved alliteration) and “boarded-up homes”,  Daphne du Maurier she isn’t.

This particular part of Ireton’s package – phasing out a non-conforming boarding house over a decade – is a necessary component if Ireton’s plan is to succeed.  Perhaps some compromise is necessary, allowing the phase-out period to be extended 15 years.  This is one reason that Ireton needs to sit down with SAPOA – IN PUBLIC.

There may be some other flaws in Ireton’s phase-out plan.  The belief that conversion to “Bed and Breakfasts” is a viable solution is almost laughable.  Many of these boarding houses are in neighborhoods that simply will not attract the tourist trade.  However, to be fair, a few may be in suitable locations.  Another option may to be allow commercial office space along “Bed and Breakfasts”.  Another may be mixed use for entrepreneurs.  Several areas have experimented with properties that are approximately 1/3 office space and 2/3 residential for the business owners (usually on an ownership, rather than rental basis though).

One element that seems to be missing from Ireton’s approach to taming the slumlords is almost wholly political, but in a positive way.  There are, reportedly, quite a few first rate landlords.  Why aren’t these people being singled out as examples for what the city is looking for in landlords?

Ireton’s plan deserves a public airing,  There may be need for amendment.  The timing may be as much political as an attempt to enact sound public policy.  That doesn’t mean that the public deserves a “five part series” that reads like a SAPOA ad.

NEXT STOP – CITY ELECTIONS

Elections for three Salisbury City Council District 2 seats are less than a year away.  Salisbury mayor Jim Ireton seems to believe that his sledgehammer approach to slumlord regulation is his ticket to a more pliable city council.  Buckle up Salisbury, it’s going to be a bumpy ride.

Vacuous Salisbury councilwoman Louise Smith is already whining that she wasn’t part of the process that drafted the legislation.  It doesn’t matter that former mayor Barrie Tilghman threw legislation on the council without consultation, or even time for review; Smith supported it anyway.  Now that Tilghman is gone, I guess the rules changed with her too late exit.

Regardless of councilman Gary Comegys’s health status, he’ll be present to oppose any attempts to regulate SAPOA.  Shanie Shields knows where her bread is buttered.  That’s three votes against (if the legislation ever gets a public hearing) and then we’re heading for next spring’s elections.

Expect them to be NASTY!  SAPOA will be throwing 1,000% of their muscle behind a pro-slumlord slate led by Smith.  SAPOA president Kris Adams (photo on right) distinguished herself during the last election round by spreading untruths throughout the city, and even pimping her own kid in an attempt to wrangle votes out of SU.  Expect the money to flow against councilwoman Terry Cohen and whoever else chooses to run (that isn’t anointed by the Slumlord Guild).

IS IT ALL NECESSARY?

Ireton thinks that he has this in the bag.  If the legislation passes, GREAT!  If it doesn’t, Ireton thinks he has a great issue for next spring.  He may, but it’s doubtful.  His refusal to even meet with SAPOA will hurt him in his move to carry out his number one campaign promise.  While there are many of us who support THOUGHTFUL slumlord regulation, Ireton’s moves to date have smacked more of politics than good policy.  His “slumlord of the month” has only succeeded in raising the hackles of the slumlord class.  To single out a property by citing violations and calls for service during a PREVIOUS owner’s tenure but naming the current owner looks more like a political vendetta than a real attempt to bring about positive change.  We expected that would end when Barrie Tilghman cleared out of the mayor’s office.

SAPOA managed to beat him to the punch with a new lease.  It doesn’t matter that the proposal wouldn’t be mandatory.  It doesn’t matter that it wouldn’t have the force of law.  SAPOA could well wind up leading in the game of public opinion just when Ireton needs it most.  Expect Smith, Comegys, and Shields to use SAPOA’s PR stunts as an excuse to slap down Ireton’s proposal.

When election time comes around, expect the Daily Times to be 100% in the slumlord corner and Ireton could be left out in the cold.  Pray for a nasty winter Jim!  The faithful will be out  there when the slumlord elite chooses to sit around the fire.  Otherwise, abandon your Obama-worshipping ideology and bring all parties to the table – IN PUBLIC.  Make them justify their position.  You need to justify yours.  Too many people in Salisbury may agree with meaningful slumlord regulation, but they want it to be just that – meaningful.  To date, the Ireton administration has just come off as arrogant and anti-business.  That won’t do!

May God Bless New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.  A virtual unknown a year ago, Christie has set an example for states across the country by standing up to public employee unions – including the sacrosanct teachers’ union!  Now the head of New Jersey Education Association – NJ’s teachers’ union – whines that teachers could do better in the private sector.

"If there’s an invasion of Israel by the Netherlands, he will find a way to blame the NJEA for that," responds the union’s executive director, Vincent Giordano.

In a Fox News interview in the union’s building down the street from the statehouse, Giordano rejected Christie’s attacks, saying they "aren’t warranted."

He says teachers make an average of about $65,000 a year, and "when you put it all together, teacher salaries in New Jersey are still well below the average salary of the private sector. When you include all of the ingredients…I don’t think they are too high or too rich."

GIVE IT A TRY!  See how life is when you CAN be fired for not doing your job.  See how it is when you are compensated for PERFORMANCE rather than just showing up for work more years that someone who actually does a better job.  Enjoy a job where you are grateful if your employer picks up HALF the cost of your healthcare benefits and where you get NO health benefits in retirement.

Christie is right on target!  Americans are finally learning that public employees are actually earning more than their private sector counterparts.  When you throw in benefits and job security, the gap is HUGE!

Outgoing Wicomico County councilman John Cannon (R-AL) is seeking the Republican nomination for the District 38-A Maryland House seat.  Cannon is a pretty sharp guy, as the video above will show.  Regardless, Cannon won’t get my vote in the primary; and probably not the votes of my fellow conservatives.

Life, Liberty, and Property

We all grew up hearing those famous words from the Declaration of Independence – “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”.  How many know that the original draft of the Declaration read, “Life, Liberty, and Property”?  (The term was changed to appease northern delegates who were afraid that such a term might imply their endorsement of slavery.)

Regardless, property rights are at the core of conservative values.  While some of us may be willing to overlook Cannon’s lack of conservatism, it is in this area that he abjectly failed as a member of the Wicomico County Council.  Cannon’s support of a “compromise” to steal the property rights of Wicomico County farmers was (at least) one step too far.

Flip-Flop to the Max

Cannon’s support of the great (and fortunately unsuccessful) land grab would be bad enough.  What saddens me the most is his hedging (some would say fibbing) when asked about this issue by Joe Albero.  Starting at around 4:50 in the video, Cannon ducks and dodges.  He claims that landowners need to be compensated.  Why, then, did Cannon support down zoning of county ag lands without ANY (forget about FAIR) compensation to the property owners?

The bottom line is that John Cannon is a great guy.  He’d fit right in with the Annapolis crowd.  That’s the problem.

H/T – Joe Albero @ SbyNEWS

NEA – the National Education Association – is the nation’s largest union.  Maryland teachers are almost universally members through their local “associations” (union locals).  The NEA claims to be putting our children first.  Why, then, does the NEA sanction an “NEA Drag Queen Caucus”?

I try to be fair.  I don’t believe in discriminating against folk because of their sexual orientation.  But, a DRAG QUEEN CAUCUS?  Does that have any place in our schools?

"They already have had the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, [and] Transgender Caucus and apparently felt that the drag queens needed their own caucus," explains Finn Laursen, executive director of Christian Educators Association International (CEAI).
"America, I think, needs to respond and to realize what the National Education Association stands for; they’re not hiding it.  It’s appalling to many of our conservative Christian educators who, in their own lives, could not support this kind of thing but find that their dues are being used to support just those kinds of thing," he adds.
Laursen also tells OneNewsNow there was a movement this year to see the NEA’s pro-abortion stance changed to a more neutral position, but that effort failed. "The organization and its delegates were just unwilling to step back and take no position on abortion," he laments. "They’re going to continue their pro-abortion stance."

We can’t have prayer in school, but the NEA thinks that we should have abortions and distribute condoms?

H/T – Anglican Mainstream

A notorious slumlord lies on his application for a building permit of a boarding house.  A shady “counselor” acts as his front man and claims “it’s for the veterans”.  After the fact, the city government learns that city solicitor Paul Wilber has a lawyer / client relationship with the same ‘counselor”.  The shady “counselor” is now represented by a neighbor and political ally of councilwoman Louise Smith.  The slumlord also happens to be councilwoman Shanie Shields’s landlord (and gives her a “really nice break on the rent” according to Shields).  Ace Daily Times reporter Laura D’Alessandro leaves the council meeting before this issue even comes up on the agenda.  So … What’s the headline in Sunday’s Daily Times?

COUNCIL TIE THWARTS VETS CENTER  Discrimination complaint filed with HUD over block by Salisbury

What can I say?  It’s classic “journalism” from the good folks over at the DT.  The problem is, this piece wasn’t written by D’Alessandro.  At least Laura can always fall back on the fact that she’s incompetent.  No, this future Pulitzer winner was penned by Greg Latshaw.  He’s neither stupid nor incompetent.  He’s just biased.  Therefore, we are forced to ask why Latshaw would put his name to a piece that is not only grossly biased, but shot full of half truths and factual holes.

When entrepreneur / developer / slumlord Hebreux St. Fleur decided to build a five bedroom house at 505 Collins Street, he claimed that he was building a “single family home”.  According to Shields, the city should have known that no one would build a 5 bedroom single family home in that neighborhood.  Can you imagine the screams from the folks on the west side if a permit was denied because the city claimed that folks over there couldn’t afford a five bedroom house?  Yet, this is precisely what Shields claimed the city should have done .  Yet, what does Latshaw write?

Hebreux St. Fleur, a Haitian immigrant, sees his five-bedroom house on the city’s West Side as the ultimate thank you to U.S. troops. But the finished house has sat unoccupied since August 2008, even as the number of homeless veterans has grown on the Eastern Shore.

Talk about putting lipstick on a pig!  St. Fleur and company (along with the Daily Times) did just that and then rolled the not so little porker up in the American flag.

Latshaw then proceeds to tell us how many homeless veterans there are in the area and finishes up with a quote from the shady “counselor” (and Paul Wilber client) Jerry Black:

"My hope is that a conversation is created. The city’s residents can help decide this issue. So far it’s been a one-sided conversation," Black said.

I guess Latshaw wasn’t aware of the fact that Black and some cohorts have spent quite a bit of time attacking councilwomen Debbie Campbell and Terry Cohen in the press, on the internet and even going so far as to pass out flyers at the “Pork in the Park” festival.  That’s definitely how you start a conversation Mr. Black.

Black’s attorney, Smith pal Matt Mills, has argued that it isn’t relevant that St. Fleur lied on his building permit application.  I think the public might differ, particularly if the “Vets Center” were going up in their neighborhood.  If Mills feels so strongly about this, perhaps he and Louise could persuade Black and St. Fleur to take over a few units down at Canal Woods.  I’m confident that his neighbors would love him for it.

The facts are simple.  St. Fleur built a home that was always intended to be used as a de facto boarding house.  He built it on a piece of property which is zoned for single family residential use only.  While I sympathize with the needs of many of our veterans, that isn’t an excuse to violate the city’s zoning laws any more than it is when someone illegally rents out an apartment over their garage.  If the city allows this use, what will happen when another “kind hearted” SAPOA member wants to convert an existing home into a boarding house (or build one from scratch)?

There is actually property available in Salisbury that is properly zoned for this use.  I wonder if Lathshaw bothered to ask about that while St. Fleur and Black were saluting the flag.

We can have zoning laws or not.  What we cannot do is simply ignore our laws because “it’s for the children” or “it’s for the veterans”.  Without the rule of law, and laws which protect private property, we will simply become another third world county.  While I don’t expect that Latshaw (or anyone else at the Daily Times) has ever read any of the works of Hernando de Soto (the 20th century economist, not the 16th century explorer), I still hope for the day that they might at least attempt to tell the whole story rather than just the parts that keep their advertisers and political allies happy.

Unfortunately for the readers of the Daily Times, they only get PART of the story … AS USUAL.

Paul Wilber is Salisbury’s city attorney.  He is also an attorney in private practice.  Therefore, it is logical that a conflict may arise from time to time between one client (the city of Salisbury) and another client.  I wouldn’t think that this would be a particular problem – provided that Wilber discloses such a conflict to all parties (and the public) as soon as that conflict comes to Wilber’s attention.

Next Monday the Salisbury City Council is expected to consider a request for a special zoning exception for a property at 505 Collins Avenue.  This property, which was permitted as a single family residence, now claims (or I should say, the owner claims) to be a “Veterans’ Home”.  Translation – the owner wishes to put a boarding house in a district zoned for single family residential properties.  OK, this kind of stuff happens all of the time.  What’s the problem?

Well, it seems that at least one of the parties involved, a Mr. Jerry Black, happens to be a client of none other than Paul Wilber.  That’s right!  The same Paul Wilber who currently serves as the Salisbury City Attorney.  Mr. Wilber serves as the registered agent for the corporation operated by Mr. Black.

So far, Mr. Black has appeared before the city planning commission.  The matter has been discussed in council work session.  The matter is due to be considered in a council legislative session in four days.  YET, Mr. Wilber has not bothered to inform the planning commission, the city council, or the public that he has an attorney / client relationship with Mr. Black.  I have no idea whether he has informed Mr. Black about both relationships, although I’m confident he is aware of the situation (he is using another law firm in this matter).

This isn’t the first time that there have been apparent conflicts between Wilber’s duties as city attorney and his private law practice.  About 2 1/2 years ago, Wilber’s firm represented a party in a dispute with the developers of the Old Mall project.  Given the city’s TIF financing of the project, one would argue that this may cause a problem.

To be fair to Wilber, I have neither heard of any actions by Wilber that were not in the city’s best interest in this matter, nor do I have any evidence of double dealing by Wilber.  However, that isn’t really the point.  The Salisbury City Council needs to demand that Wilber answer some questions IN PUBLIC:

1. What is your relationship with Mr. Black?  Is it ongoing?
2. Is Mr. Black aware of your relationship with the city and has he waived any potential conflict?
3. Why didn’t Wilber disclose his relationship with Mr. Black prior to any involvement on his part on behalf of the city of Salisbury?
4. When, exactly, was Mr. Wilber planning on disclosing his relationship with Mr. Black?

I’m quite sure that councilwomen Debbie Campbell and Terry Cohen have a few other questions.  Needless to say, the Barrie Comegys bloc doesn’t have much concern with little matters like this.  Shanie and Louise still want to give everyone raises and spend money on “worthy projects” like “The Bricks” and that brown field known as “Linens of the Week”.