The excuse first offered by D5 Diane McCartin-Benedetti of "I was confused" may well be growing epidemic.
D4 Pat McLaughlin tabled or deferred consideration Monday night on a tax abatement measure intended to give incentives to L&D Mail Masters for investment in a new property.
Deputy Mayor Carl Malysz, clearly in favor of the incentive, but not situated to insist on its consideration, offered to "school" Mr. McLaughlin (and other council members) on the broad outlines of the tax abatement process, its purposes, and its intended benefits. Realizing that the council had no intention of taking up the matter, he politely offered to meet with Mr. McLaughlin to answer any of his questions. President Gahan expanded that offer in later discussion by proposing a full-council work session on the subject.
My own concerns are two.
One: Isn't it a little late in the game to be "educating" yourself on the broad subject of tax abatements? Wouldn't a reasonable person have obtained that knowledge beforehand. As we understood it, Mr. Mac's confusion was unrelated to the specific request. It seemed clear that Mr. McLaughlin was coming to the whole concept of tax abatements as a new subject.
Two: We made the inference (wrongly, it turns out) that Mr. Malysz was offering a backroom skull session for one or more council members outside the view of the public. Yet, it is an important point to raise. Who says that a wide-ranging discussion of tax abatements should take place somewhere other than a public meeting? Why shouldn't the council as a whole debate and discuss the philosophical and practical underpinnings of tax abatements to aid in recruitment of new investment?
The council had previously determined that it would, as a rule, grant no more ten-year abatements - only five-year grants. This "decision" took place completely outside of public view. We're not saying any sunshine laws were broken. But such an important "decision" shouldn't be made in private, should it?
Mr. Malysz and the England administration should think carefully about what types of communications they make to (and with) council outside of the official council schedule. And council members shouldn't be permitted to plead "confusion" when a matter comes up before the council in public meetings. Hash it out. Ask your questions in public and get your answers in public.
With 8 Democrats seated, there sure seem to be some troubling anti-democratic tendencies.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
A related thought to this post and the one below.
I find it maddening that Council members show up for a meeting and the first thing out of their mouths before voting is, "Now, what is this ordinance/resolution that we are voting on?"
It happened again last night. Mr. Price on the very first vote. I knew what it was about and I am not elected to know, nor do I get a packet with all the information in it. I did not even download the agenda and related documents, yet I still knew. Why didn't he?
Now, one could possibly excuse the new members(for a short time)for asking this question. It is just ridiculous for this to keep happening over and over at regularly scheduled meetings. Mr. Price is not the only offender although he seems to be the worst.
Post a Comment