The original post has been corrected by the editor.
As promised, here is how this shadow (S5) would have voted. Included, to the best of our recollection, is the corresponding vote by Diane McCartin-Benedetti (D5).
A-08-02 to eliminate the $30,00 line item for a superintendent for the Fairview Cemetery.
S5 - Aye; D5 - Aye
A-08-03 to create two deputy mayor positions, an assistant director of operations/IT chief, a public works superintendent, and a concentrated codes enforcement officer.
S5 - Aye; D5 - Nay
R-08-02 to enter into a consent decree to establish a committee of members and plaintiffs to recommend a lawful redrawing of legislative districts and to terminate current litigation.
S5 - Aye; D5 - Aye
R-08-03 to pay from "Riverboat Fund" to digitize city zoning maps.
S5 - Aye; D5 - Aye
R-08-04 to dismiss the council lawsuit against the sewer board and the stormwater board.
S5 - Aye; D5 - Aye
G-08-01 to authorize economic development bonds for Ohio Valley Door.
S5 - Aye; D5 - Aye
G-08-02 to create a 3-member sewer board. a) to suspend the rules and permit all three readings in one meeting; b) to create a 3-member board.
S5 - a) No, b) Aye; D5 - a) no vote, b) Aye
The chart originally and erroneously reported the D5 had voted in favor of the salaries to fund a mayor's office reorganization. Because we differed in our position, a brief explanation is in order. The mayor's office can use all the brain power it can get. These are working positions, not lofty pie-eyed think tank jobs. The last mayor suffered from a too-lean staff. The mayor will be held responsible by the electorate if his staff don't perform, and the necessary money was found without damaging existing services. We believe D5 was making a statement, laying down a marker. We would invite her to clarify just what that statement was and whether she was voting "Nay" on procedural grounds or on the merits. When you're being outvoted 7-2, little harm comes from a "statement" vote intended as a signal to colleagues or constituents. When Steve Price is the only one joining you, though, it might be a little more important to make that signal clear.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
The "salaries" ordinance was A-08-01, not 03.
Mrs. Benedetti reversed tack from last meeting and joined Steve Price in voting 'agin it, ostensibly out of pique because CM Gonder would not detach each position and propose separately.
She, at least, appears to think and that it is an improvement over some.
Thanks for the correction, the new albanian. I used the public hearing designators instead of the agenda notes.
iam, she does seem to have that "on the other hand" gene.
KMA!(smile)
It doesn't sound like she's wishy-washy, just unprepared. That's inexusable, even allowing for the learning curve. She should come to the meeting with a principled and reasoned position, not develop it at the meeting.
I think there is a distinction to be made between "on the other hand" wishy-wash for political popularity and dealing with opponents and opposing viewpoints in a way that promotes civic functionality and reasoned decision making. The latter does not require the former.
Sorry I missed the meeting - I actually planned to attend this time, but my newborn decided otherwise.
BWS: Had you been dropped from the sky into the assembly room, you would have found little to object to about Mrs. Benedetti.
But the playing field is tilted already, so it's fair to try to "divine" what's going on in the D5 chair.
Here are the warning signs that blur an objective viewing of our mutual representative:
1. Family connections - while the McCartin's might deserve credit for their past service, Mrs. Benedetti will need to demonstrate that she is different from the guys in her family. The Gary is a declared enemy of most of what we claim to stand for.
2. Concerns about her known close ties to Mr. Coffey were not alleviated when she joined in his organizational push at the first meeting.
3. Her campaign workers were hostile and aggressive. The candidate bears some responsibility for that.
4. She appears to consider the council meetings as the time to gather information. Maybe that's acceptable to some. At least it beats the alternative - precut deals done outside of the public view. On balance, though, it is disturbing.
That said, if you didn't "know" these things about her, she came off as rational and attentive to detail. As she matures in office, we'll see what kind of council member she'll become. Messer, Gahan, Blevins, Crump, and Price were pretty green in their first year, too. How they turned out was either the problem or the solution.
The OTH reference is just a shorthand way of agreeing with iam.
The New Albanian's take was succinct and on point.
I always knew that Shadow5 loved me!
Post a Comment