Three recent news items spark a few thoughts. Each is related. Each are perfect diagnostic indicators of government entities that refuse to consider new ways of thinking.
John Gonder, New Albany council member at-large, is the kind of person who, when presented with a problem, seeks solutions. And Gonder doesn't limit himself to rigid prescriptions. Nor will he accept "we've always done it that way" as an excuse.
So when Gonder learned that the water fountains on the third floor of the City-County Building (owned and managed by the Building Authority, who rents space to the city) had been declared unsafe for human consumption, he spoke up. I, for one, feel betrayed by those public officials who allowed me and others to drink from the fountains without once giving us warning.
Now this won't be the signature act of Gonder's tenure on the council, but it does indicate a new way of thinking. And the problem is not yet solved. But you can be certain that the freshman council member won't let the matter drop.
The Building Authority has been negligent in not remedying this atrocious situation. Failure to act after a formal resolution for redress has been submitted by the city would convert that negligence into malice and reckless disregard for the welfare of tenants and visitors.
Wednesday's issue of The Tribune, on its front page, illustrated the hidebound methods of local government and inadvertently revealed how the local media have been lulled into adopting government newspeak instead of challenging public officials.
The story was about the county's occupancy of the M.L. Reisz Building (East Spring Elementary School), and its reportage of the need for a "trained smeller" won't be toyed with right now. What struck me was the ease with which a working journalist fell easily into saying the following about the North Annex (County Work Farm) building:
"...after [it] had fallen into disrepair."
The officially doomed annex, where juveniles in need of care and supervision are housed out on Grant Line Road at Community Park, did NOT fall into disrepair. This historic structure, the last remaining piece of period architecture in that area, was allowed to deteriorate by a county government that has no concept of the word "conservation." There is nothing conservative about letting a public building die, and that is what they did. Put the blame on any generation of leaders you wish to, but understand that by failing to maintain this building, commissioners and council members were expressing a latent desire that the building would die.
At some point in the past ten years or so, certain individuals decided that utter and complete neglect would allow for new contracts to be let, perhaps a few pieces of public land might be converted to private speculative ownership, and that no one would be the wiser.
It's quite easy to compare the annex to an elderly aunt who becomes neglected. As she ages, her nieces and nephews visit less often. While her body loses muscle tone and her eyesight withers, her basic worth, her intrinsic assets, and her accumulated wisdom do not wane. The greedy relatives, not recognizing her worth, decide to ignore her. As the elder neglect grows more obvious, the relations conspire to arrange for a professional to declare her not only DNR (do not resuscitate), but they order the cessation of food and water. Sooner or later, she will die.
By refusing to rehabilite the annex, government officials create a situation where the condition they desire ultimately comes to pass. No money for repairs soon allows them to say it's not feasible to save it. All the energy needed to build this structure (which is in fact sound and capable of restoration) will be wasted. The aesthetics and the heritage aren't even considered worthy of discussion.
It hasn't died. You've tried to kill it!
Which brings us to the third item where neglect of a public building leads to an outcome desired by fools. The Tribune hasn't covered this one, but observant residents remain on guard against it.
Please read this post at NA Confidential along with its linked exhibits. It isn't the first time and it won't be the last that you'll hear about this abomination. I won't go into everything here, except to say this: How is it possible to avoid the conclusion that this school board wants to kill Silver Street Elementary School? Once that premise is accepted, every action they take can be seen as subterfuge and deceit designed to make their desired outcome a reality. Will New Albanians permit this tragedy to occur?
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Friday, May 16, 2008
Apologies to The Bard (a guest column)
Doing a daily blog, or even a semi-regular posting, is not for everyone. But original thinking is inherent in most of us. This blog is pleased to present another view of the most recent city council meeting, offered this afternoon by netizen iamhoosier. Thanks, Mark.
Praise, burial, comedy, masquerading. All happened last night at the Common Council meeting.
First, there was a “comedy” as I read the agenda. An old cover letter was inadvertently used and was “signed” by Larry Kochert. The comedy, it turns out, foreshadowed a masquerade by Council President Gahan. Mr. Naville, attorney for the pawn shop, rose to speak during the Council’s discussion and question phase, after failing to be present at the earlier “agenda items” slot, for which he had signed up. It was suggested (I believe by Mr. Gahan) that Naville be allowed to speak. Mr. Bob Caesar (ain’t this great?) said, “If he speaks, they all speak.” Gahan froze for a moment and almost seemed ready to agree. Steve Price suggested that Mr. Naville could be questioned (which would be the proper way). Naville said that he was told at a previous meeting that it was better that he spoke when the ordinance came up (which, I do believe he was told). Gahan, again momentarily froze and then allowed the attorney to speak. And speak. And speak. Eerily reminiscent of some of the disorganized Council meetings under a past President.
I also come to praise Councilmember Steve Price. He made an excellent point about how “some” people seem to get approval (or not) with little justification. He said, “It sometimes make you wonder, just a little, if something “else” is going on”. I could not agree more. Of course, when it came time to vote, he voted to overrule the recommendation. (that was the burial)
Enough of the cuteness. The above is probably not near as “cute” as I thought when I wrote it.
Mr. Gahan is an intelligent man. I am willing to write off last night as a fluke or a just a plain mistake. I believe fairness dictates that anyone speaking for or against a proposal should be allowed to speak in the same portion of the meeting. The discussion period, before a vote, should only be for discussion among the Council and any questions they may have of the parties involved. Set it up correctly and it will help eliminate the errors of last night and make it more fair for everyone involved.
Mr. Price, just what “else” was going on with you? Really, I don’t think he is dishonest. He does seem like a nice guy but I am sure he doesn’t even see how ironic his statement and his vote is.
The pawn shop variance or rezoning (even debate about that last night) failed on a 5-3 vote. Messer, McLaughlin, and Price voting to allow the pawn shop. Mr. Naville may have lost it for the pawn shop. His final statement basically accused the Council of not doing their jobs and just being a “rubberstamp” if they didn’t vote in his client’s favor. He was very strong about it. In reality, I doubt that his ”accusation” lost it, anymore than my earlier statements against the variance won it. The votes did not change from the previous vote on this issue. Why in the world we would eliminate land from the industrial base just baffles me. I am just waiting for any of the 3 to mention the lack of industrial space in future meetings.
Praise, burial, comedy, masquerading. All happened last night at the Common Council meeting.
First, there was a “comedy” as I read the agenda. An old cover letter was inadvertently used and was “signed” by Larry Kochert. The comedy, it turns out, foreshadowed a masquerade by Council President Gahan. Mr. Naville, attorney for the pawn shop, rose to speak during the Council’s discussion and question phase, after failing to be present at the earlier “agenda items” slot, for which he had signed up. It was suggested (I believe by Mr. Gahan) that Naville be allowed to speak. Mr. Bob Caesar (ain’t this great?) said, “If he speaks, they all speak.” Gahan froze for a moment and almost seemed ready to agree. Steve Price suggested that Mr. Naville could be questioned (which would be the proper way). Naville said that he was told at a previous meeting that it was better that he spoke when the ordinance came up (which, I do believe he was told). Gahan, again momentarily froze and then allowed the attorney to speak. And speak. And speak. Eerily reminiscent of some of the disorganized Council meetings under a past President.
I also come to praise Councilmember Steve Price. He made an excellent point about how “some” people seem to get approval (or not) with little justification. He said, “It sometimes make you wonder, just a little, if something “else” is going on”. I could not agree more. Of course, when it came time to vote, he voted to overrule the recommendation. (that was the burial)
Enough of the cuteness. The above is probably not near as “cute” as I thought when I wrote it.
Mr. Gahan is an intelligent man. I am willing to write off last night as a fluke or a just a plain mistake. I believe fairness dictates that anyone speaking for or against a proposal should be allowed to speak in the same portion of the meeting. The discussion period, before a vote, should only be for discussion among the Council and any questions they may have of the parties involved. Set it up correctly and it will help eliminate the errors of last night and make it more fair for everyone involved.
Mr. Price, just what “else” was going on with you? Really, I don’t think he is dishonest. He does seem like a nice guy but I am sure he doesn’t even see how ironic his statement and his vote is.
The pawn shop variance or rezoning (even debate about that last night) failed on a 5-3 vote. Messer, McLaughlin, and Price voting to allow the pawn shop. Mr. Naville may have lost it for the pawn shop. His final statement basically accused the Council of not doing their jobs and just being a “rubberstamp” if they didn’t vote in his client’s favor. He was very strong about it. In reality, I doubt that his ”accusation” lost it, anymore than my earlier statements against the variance won it. The votes did not change from the previous vote on this issue. Why in the world we would eliminate land from the industrial base just baffles me. I am just waiting for any of the 3 to mention the lack of industrial space in future meetings.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Mayor 54 Where Aaaaare You?
Our spouse contends it's inappropriate to call him "Mayor 54," especially when you have no idea what number he is (do you?), but then the boomer pop-cultural reference doesn't play as well when you title your blog post "Mayor 36 where are you?"
Regardless, the point is made. It is time for the Hon. Douglas B. England to shed his imperial mayoralty once and for all.
During his current term, England has been conspicuously absent from the meetings of New Albany's legislative body. In and of itself, that's not completely inappropriate. The mayor's job is unique. So is the council's. In ordinary circumstances, there's no particular reason for the mayor to intrude himself or his personality into the nine-member mix of council business.
But these are not ordinary circumstances.
One could make the case that shadow5 shouldn't even be making comments in the bloody aftermath of Thursday's city council meeting. After all, corporeal5, Diane McCartin Benedetti (memorably called Mrs. McCartin at last evening's convocation) was not in attendance. Her shadow, then, should just shut up, right?
Sorry, the shadow don't swing that way. We kept our traps shut after last week's signal meeting. We can't skip a whole month - not with all the drama afoot on the third floor.
So...tonight's dilemma is whether to report on what happened or to analyze what it means.
(30 minutes elapse)
Can't separate them. There's an inclination to say to our readers "Come to the meetings if you want to know what's going on," but we weren't raised that way. So, what the hey (an expression our friends used, and one our dear mother abhorred as "trashy).
At the end of May's first council meeting, we told one attendee that they had just sat through the most important meeting ever. It wasn't so much the actions of the council that Monday night, but the portents, the mood, and what could be inferred from it.
Last night's meeting proved, irrevocably, that the honeymoon is over. The always polite but ever passive aggressive Mr. Gahan presided over what could only be called an attempted coup, led, of course, by Sir Dan, but concurred in by all eight of the knights of the squared tables.
Those reading the tea leaves saw confirmation that the mayor-council honeymoon had ended when deputy mayor Carl Malysz was instructed to address any remarks to the council during the period designated as communication from city officials.
Heretofore, Mr. Malysz had been accorded last innings, during the period designated as communications from the mayor. Meticulously, Malysz always prefaced his remarks as being on behalf of the mayor, often including a diplomatic reason why the mayor could not be bothered to attend the meeting.
Assertiveness is often a trait to be praised, but when that assertiveness is so bare-faced, and yet put forward disingenuously and as if we were to believe it were organic, and not calculated, it can be judged as either ludicrous or nauseating. We chose chuckles and muted gasps. Others might reasonably have retched. Nonetheless, the entertainment is back at Hauss Square.
"Mayor 54" needs to know the jig is up. He can no longer send functionaries to do his bidding. He can no longer keep his lapels clean unless he's willing to see an independent council running amok. These few months of amity have come to an end and the illusion of a well-oiled (too well, for our tastes) machine has gone "poof."
Good for corporeal5. She picked a great night to absent herself. Not to paint the whole council with the same brush, but with what took place Thursday, it might be convenient for C5 to say "I wasn't there."
The admirable Mr. Caesar, representative of the old 2nd District, launched the first fireworks of the evening obliquely, making one of this week's notable events his cause celebre.
Observant readers of Tuesday's Tribune will have noted that New Albany's Board of Public Works and Safety experienced a change of rider in midrace. Deputy director of operations Matt Dennison was deposed as chairman of the board. In the two days following, speculation was rampant about the reasons. The deposed Dennison was not in attendance Thursday, but the council was in high dudgeon about his dismissal from the post.
Mr. Caesar praised Dennison for the way he had been conducting himself in the post and for his accessibility and helpfulness, and urged the council toward an informal resolution of commendation for young Matt. Other members concurred.
Who replaced Dennison? Why, Mr. Malysz, of course, the same Mr. Malysz who was next up in the line of speakers. Speaking, of course, on behalf of the mayor, but without his previously preferred place on the agenda, the deputy mayor acknowledged the sentiment of the council and promised to pass that on to His Honor. He assured the council that the change was perfectly innocuous, that the mayor had asked him to assume the responsibility, that he and Matt had discussed it, and that the changeover had been accomplished amicably. He told the assembly that it was in no way a "purge." To which the courtly Sir Dan replied, "We never said it was (a purge). Maybe it was in your mind, but we didn't say that."
Now, we know we are supposed to believe that Mr. Malysz took no offense. The man is nothing if not diplomatic, and his ability to press on in the face of insult and hostility is remarkable. Of course, we are also supposed to believe that Mr. Dennison's replacement was routine and without any hint of controversy. The hubbub around town over the last 48 hours was supposed to be ignored.
Mr. Malysz knew nothing (we are meant to believe) of what was coming next.
As the mayor was (again) absent, in the tradition of laissez faire, the next item on the agenda was the purely ministerial council function of confirming that New Albany desires to participate in the nation's revenue-sharing program known as CDBG, or CBGB, or whatever, whereby federal taxes are returned to cities for targeted improvements. This no-brainer resolution, which requires only the council's assent and confirmation that New Albany wants its piece of the pie, was tabled by Sir Dan.
(Note: Mr. Malysz's legend and reputation in Indiana is as the master of garnering grants and other federal monies.)
(Note 2: 3D Steve Price is the only council member on recent record as having voted "no" on accepting CDBG block grants for community development. After the most recent elections, Mr. Price is no longer the "Dopey" of the council's dwarfs, but he firmly held that title in his previous term.)
Mr. Coffey, who with corporeal5 serves on the Redevelopment Commission and is and was fully conversant with every particular of the participation letter and its accompanying wish list, decided that this would be the night he threw a wrench into the works.
After months of commission meetings and two public hearings, and after the council had a full weekend and four weekdays to review the wish list and participation letter, Coffey decided that May 15 would be the day he made his "stand" against the mayor, his deputy, and the administration. Not to mention "common sense."
Understand, please, that the "wish list" that accompanies the letter to federal officials contains no priorities and no commitments. If we were to go to the public hearing and advocate for, say, community gardens, that would go on the list of projects that might be funded by CDBG money. It's not particularly complicated. Actual expenditures are prospective. The RC must vote to expend the money. The letter (and council affirmation resolution) merely define the parameters of what the money might be spent on in the coming fiscal year 2009.
Sir Dan, the knight currently representing the old 1st District, decided this would be his "slapdown" moment, his moment to wield his sword in defense of...something.
By tabling the resolution (and be assured, Mr. Gahan made it clear he joined heartily in the slapdown, and be further assured that no other council member was motivated to exercise parliamentary prerogatives to move the measure), Mr. Coffey forces the administration to write a Friday letter explaining precisely why New Albany will not be complying with federal requirements to affirm its participation in the Community Development Block Grant Program.
Now, Malysz concedes that New Albany will not be given the death penalty for failing to meet the deadline (Friday, May 16) for submitting its "letter of intent." But who is to say, given the lamentable state of the U.S. dollar and the gargantuan budget deficit, that New Albany will now be last in line for disbursements. After all, all that was needed was a routine confession that New Albany, through its legislative body, wished to partake of the federal revenue sharing.
Why would Sir Dan do this? To make a point, to take a stand, to, in his own words, "draw the line." Hey, Dougie Boy, quit playing us for suckahs! We (and remember, this wasn't just Sir Dan, but the whole council being passive aggressive) won't stand for being presented with continuous "must-pass" legislation.
To be sure, this blogger has cogitated furiously over the remarkably rushed agenda of the 2008 council. 2008 has seen about a dozen furiously rushed votes that simply had to be passed in one meeting, with little discussion. The administration has discouraged deliberation and the council has been, for the most part, acquiescent in rushing forward legislation that the administration insisted must be passed "tonight."
(Note: Mr. Price's extortionate "giveback" fee for tax abatements was rushed through last night, without discussion, public notice, or any particulars [and illegally, in this observer's opinion], accompanied by Mr. Gahan's plaudits for the "quick" turnaround. Can anyone tell us what the giveback is? Not once in public has the council delineated what the fee might be.)
But last night's showdown was the worst possible occasion to assert the council's power. It was a frivolous gesture that may well be noted as this council's lowest moment. In a puerile attempt to embarrass Mr. Malysz, and by extension, Mr. England, Sir Dan may have forfeited hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal largesse.
Mr. Coffey, sensing an opportunity to grab the spotlight, purported to be solicitous of the council's prerogatives to deliberate over the multitude of possible projects that might be funded by CDBG money. In spite of the fact that the council had multitudinous opportunities to study and participate in this annual venture, in spite of the fact that this council had six days to review a long process and final document, Coffey successfully squelched approval. In fact, the requested formal assent to the letter had zero substantive effect on which projects might be funded with this federal money. Coffey decided that May 15 was the appropriate time to punch Doug England in the snout. Mr. Mayor: Lay down with dogs, wake up with fleas!
Mr. Mayor: If you wish to accomplish your stated goals and if you are sincere, you must abandon your imperial mayoralty. You need to break a sweat, attend the council meetings, and advocate personally for your initiatives. As a respected, but unelected functionary, Mr. Malysz can no longer wield your scepter. The council has spoken, as they are entitled to. Whether their actions are wise or frivolous, your disconnection from council cannot continue if you hope to be an effective mayor.
Shadow5 has little idea what personal and private advocacy you are engaged in. But in the sunshine of public meetings, your strategy has run its course. This council, for better or worse, has cast down the gauntlet and is calling you out. The England administration can no longer treat the council as a rubber stamp. The honeymoon is over. Weeks before we predicted it, Sir Dan has reverted to demagogic form, and King Jeffrey is backing his play.
Oh. And the Mount Tabor Road pawnshop rezoning was rejected. Next!
Regardless, the point is made. It is time for the Hon. Douglas B. England to shed his imperial mayoralty once and for all.
During his current term, England has been conspicuously absent from the meetings of New Albany's legislative body. In and of itself, that's not completely inappropriate. The mayor's job is unique. So is the council's. In ordinary circumstances, there's no particular reason for the mayor to intrude himself or his personality into the nine-member mix of council business.
But these are not ordinary circumstances.
One could make the case that shadow5 shouldn't even be making comments in the bloody aftermath of Thursday's city council meeting. After all, corporeal5, Diane McCartin Benedetti (memorably called Mrs. McCartin at last evening's convocation) was not in attendance. Her shadow, then, should just shut up, right?
Sorry, the shadow don't swing that way. We kept our traps shut after last week's signal meeting. We can't skip a whole month - not with all the drama afoot on the third floor.
So...tonight's dilemma is whether to report on what happened or to analyze what it means.
(30 minutes elapse)
Can't separate them. There's an inclination to say to our readers "Come to the meetings if you want to know what's going on," but we weren't raised that way. So, what the hey (an expression our friends used, and one our dear mother abhorred as "trashy).
At the end of May's first council meeting, we told one attendee that they had just sat through the most important meeting ever. It wasn't so much the actions of the council that Monday night, but the portents, the mood, and what could be inferred from it.
Last night's meeting proved, irrevocably, that the honeymoon is over. The always polite but ever passive aggressive Mr. Gahan presided over what could only be called an attempted coup, led, of course, by Sir Dan, but concurred in by all eight of the knights of the squared tables.
Those reading the tea leaves saw confirmation that the mayor-council honeymoon had ended when deputy mayor Carl Malysz was instructed to address any remarks to the council during the period designated as communication from city officials.
Heretofore, Mr. Malysz had been accorded last innings, during the period designated as communications from the mayor. Meticulously, Malysz always prefaced his remarks as being on behalf of the mayor, often including a diplomatic reason why the mayor could not be bothered to attend the meeting.
Assertiveness is often a trait to be praised, but when that assertiveness is so bare-faced, and yet put forward disingenuously and as if we were to believe it were organic, and not calculated, it can be judged as either ludicrous or nauseating. We chose chuckles and muted gasps. Others might reasonably have retched. Nonetheless, the entertainment is back at Hauss Square.
"Mayor 54" needs to know the jig is up. He can no longer send functionaries to do his bidding. He can no longer keep his lapels clean unless he's willing to see an independent council running amok. These few months of amity have come to an end and the illusion of a well-oiled (too well, for our tastes) machine has gone "poof."
Good for corporeal5. She picked a great night to absent herself. Not to paint the whole council with the same brush, but with what took place Thursday, it might be convenient for C5 to say "I wasn't there."
The admirable Mr. Caesar, representative of the old 2nd District, launched the first fireworks of the evening obliquely, making one of this week's notable events his cause celebre.
Observant readers of Tuesday's Tribune will have noted that New Albany's Board of Public Works and Safety experienced a change of rider in midrace. Deputy director of operations Matt Dennison was deposed as chairman of the board. In the two days following, speculation was rampant about the reasons. The deposed Dennison was not in attendance Thursday, but the council was in high dudgeon about his dismissal from the post.
Mr. Caesar praised Dennison for the way he had been conducting himself in the post and for his accessibility and helpfulness, and urged the council toward an informal resolution of commendation for young Matt. Other members concurred.
Who replaced Dennison? Why, Mr. Malysz, of course, the same Mr. Malysz who was next up in the line of speakers. Speaking, of course, on behalf of the mayor, but without his previously preferred place on the agenda, the deputy mayor acknowledged the sentiment of the council and promised to pass that on to His Honor. He assured the council that the change was perfectly innocuous, that the mayor had asked him to assume the responsibility, that he and Matt had discussed it, and that the changeover had been accomplished amicably. He told the assembly that it was in no way a "purge." To which the courtly Sir Dan replied, "We never said it was (a purge). Maybe it was in your mind, but we didn't say that."
Now, we know we are supposed to believe that Mr. Malysz took no offense. The man is nothing if not diplomatic, and his ability to press on in the face of insult and hostility is remarkable. Of course, we are also supposed to believe that Mr. Dennison's replacement was routine and without any hint of controversy. The hubbub around town over the last 48 hours was supposed to be ignored.
Mr. Malysz knew nothing (we are meant to believe) of what was coming next.
As the mayor was (again) absent, in the tradition of laissez faire, the next item on the agenda was the purely ministerial council function of confirming that New Albany desires to participate in the nation's revenue-sharing program known as CDBG, or CBGB, or whatever, whereby federal taxes are returned to cities for targeted improvements. This no-brainer resolution, which requires only the council's assent and confirmation that New Albany wants its piece of the pie, was tabled by Sir Dan.
(Note: Mr. Malysz's legend and reputation in Indiana is as the master of garnering grants and other federal monies.)
(Note 2: 3D Steve Price is the only council member on recent record as having voted "no" on accepting CDBG block grants for community development. After the most recent elections, Mr. Price is no longer the "Dopey" of the council's dwarfs, but he firmly held that title in his previous term.)
Mr. Coffey, who with corporeal5 serves on the Redevelopment Commission and is and was fully conversant with every particular of the participation letter and its accompanying wish list, decided that this would be the night he threw a wrench into the works.
After months of commission meetings and two public hearings, and after the council had a full weekend and four weekdays to review the wish list and participation letter, Coffey decided that May 15 would be the day he made his "stand" against the mayor, his deputy, and the administration. Not to mention "common sense."
Understand, please, that the "wish list" that accompanies the letter to federal officials contains no priorities and no commitments. If we were to go to the public hearing and advocate for, say, community gardens, that would go on the list of projects that might be funded by CDBG money. It's not particularly complicated. Actual expenditures are prospective. The RC must vote to expend the money. The letter (and council affirmation resolution) merely define the parameters of what the money might be spent on in the coming fiscal year 2009.
Sir Dan, the knight currently representing the old 1st District, decided this would be his "slapdown" moment, his moment to wield his sword in defense of...something.
By tabling the resolution (and be assured, Mr. Gahan made it clear he joined heartily in the slapdown, and be further assured that no other council member was motivated to exercise parliamentary prerogatives to move the measure), Mr. Coffey forces the administration to write a Friday letter explaining precisely why New Albany will not be complying with federal requirements to affirm its participation in the Community Development Block Grant Program.
Now, Malysz concedes that New Albany will not be given the death penalty for failing to meet the deadline (Friday, May 16) for submitting its "letter of intent." But who is to say, given the lamentable state of the U.S. dollar and the gargantuan budget deficit, that New Albany will now be last in line for disbursements. After all, all that was needed was a routine confession that New Albany, through its legislative body, wished to partake of the federal revenue sharing.
Why would Sir Dan do this? To make a point, to take a stand, to, in his own words, "draw the line." Hey, Dougie Boy, quit playing us for suckahs! We (and remember, this wasn't just Sir Dan, but the whole council being passive aggressive) won't stand for being presented with continuous "must-pass" legislation.
To be sure, this blogger has cogitated furiously over the remarkably rushed agenda of the 2008 council. 2008 has seen about a dozen furiously rushed votes that simply had to be passed in one meeting, with little discussion. The administration has discouraged deliberation and the council has been, for the most part, acquiescent in rushing forward legislation that the administration insisted must be passed "tonight."
(Note: Mr. Price's extortionate "giveback" fee for tax abatements was rushed through last night, without discussion, public notice, or any particulars [and illegally, in this observer's opinion], accompanied by Mr. Gahan's plaudits for the "quick" turnaround. Can anyone tell us what the giveback is? Not once in public has the council delineated what the fee might be.)
But last night's showdown was the worst possible occasion to assert the council's power. It was a frivolous gesture that may well be noted as this council's lowest moment. In a puerile attempt to embarrass Mr. Malysz, and by extension, Mr. England, Sir Dan may have forfeited hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal largesse.
Mr. Coffey, sensing an opportunity to grab the spotlight, purported to be solicitous of the council's prerogatives to deliberate over the multitude of possible projects that might be funded by CDBG money. In spite of the fact that the council had multitudinous opportunities to study and participate in this annual venture, in spite of the fact that this council had six days to review a long process and final document, Coffey successfully squelched approval. In fact, the requested formal assent to the letter had zero substantive effect on which projects might be funded with this federal money. Coffey decided that May 15 was the appropriate time to punch Doug England in the snout. Mr. Mayor: Lay down with dogs, wake up with fleas!
Mr. Mayor: If you wish to accomplish your stated goals and if you are sincere, you must abandon your imperial mayoralty. You need to break a sweat, attend the council meetings, and advocate personally for your initiatives. As a respected, but unelected functionary, Mr. Malysz can no longer wield your scepter. The council has spoken, as they are entitled to. Whether their actions are wise or frivolous, your disconnection from council cannot continue if you hope to be an effective mayor.
Shadow5 has little idea what personal and private advocacy you are engaged in. But in the sunshine of public meetings, your strategy has run its course. This council, for better or worse, has cast down the gauntlet and is calling you out. The England administration can no longer treat the council as a rubber stamp. The honeymoon is over. Weeks before we predicted it, Sir Dan has reverted to demagogic form, and King Jeffrey is backing his play.
Oh. And the Mount Tabor Road pawnshop rezoning was rejected. Next!
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Hammered for Hil
The better half, somewhat sleep-deprived, rose from the conjugal bed to ask whether I was hammered. I was not.
She wondered if I might be intentionally killing a few brain cells on behalf of a dear friend who is undoubtedly licking undeserved wounds tonight. Nope.
If I were to be utilizing Lynchburg, Tennessee's finest export to effect this evening, it would be for a stranger, the senator from Chappaqua, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
I've often said "I had one mother, I have one sister, one wife, and one daughter. I AM a feminist."
The people whose respect I seek most earnestly voted for Mrs. Clinton, as did I. Alas, barring an unprecedented event, Mrs. Clinton will not have the opportunity to carry my hopes forward to lead this country.
Much to my chagrin, many others whose opinions I respect had rejected Mrs. Clinton as an appropriate standard-bearer. It has been painful to watch and to experience many of my friends ally themselves with Mr. Obama, the senator from Illinois.
I've told more than a few of my closest friends of my pain. In no other experience of my life have I felt so constricted in expressing my opinions. Political discussions can, so often, devolve into interpersonal conflict, and that is something that I deeply wished to avoid. Frankly, the implicit argument (and you'll have to admit it occurred to you) is that the supporter of the "other" is less perceptive, nay, even unrealistic and naive.
Such thoughts, which I honestly do not harbor, are not ones that anyone might express without considering it as an act that is the opposite of respect and friendship. I have refrained from discussing my preferences, for the most part, out of respect for my friends, most of whom bought wholeheartedly into the Obama mystique.
On a policy basis, Hillary was approximately my fifth choice for the Democratic nomination. But Mr. Obama was about my tenth choice.
With all respect, I never saw in Barack Obama the things my friends saw. I do not believe that he is, in any way, "different." On explicit policy matters, I see nothing that differentiates him. On personality, or in his much-touted eloquence and style, I just never got it.
Admittedly, I applaud myself as being more astute. I have never bought into a politician as being something special. Rather, any admiration I might have had for politicians stemmed from my own inability to adopt the techniques necessary to win election.
My friends, Mr. Obama is not special. He is not different. I applaud the fact that he "calls" for a new kind of politics, but I will likewise ask you to confess that he has not conducted his campaign, except for the occasional rhetoric, in any way that can be called "new."
I told several people in the past ten days how Mr. Obama could have earned my support and my vote. To be brief, it would have been for him to ACTUALLY offer a transcendant vision and to say "This I Believe, and if you don't like it, don't vote for me."
He did not. That is not a disqualifying event. It simply was my own personal standard for converting my loyalty from Mrs. Clinton to Mr. Obama.
I was personally ridiculed for claiming from my earliest incarnations in these environs my support (which prevails) for Al Gore. When the roll is called up yonder, I'll still be proud to have asserted that support. After all, he was elected as our 43rd Commander in Chief.
Today is the day for Gore men and women to declare "never again." On to November. Avenge the travesty of 2000.
And as for that "dear friend" on whose behalf my bride believed I might damage myself, I will not forget what was done to you. Nor will I forgive the parties that wrought it. That's all I can do right now. But the vision you offered and the integrity with which you offered it will not be forgotten in this household, and I will remember May 6, 2008, as a singular moment that defined them as unworthy of my support.
Where that leaves me, I can't say. But suffice it to be said that at long last, I understand what it means to be an "Independent."
P.S. If I were "doing my job," this posting would have addressed the remarkable events of Monday night. While Mrs. Clinton, and Hizzoner, were regaling a crowd at the fire hall on Spring Street, I witnessed what was perhaps the most important city council meeting since I arrived in this city. If any event ever said to me that "working within the system" was futile, that was it. Of course, I believe my insight to be unique and unrecognized. But for New Albany, May 5, 2008 may turn out to be a far more momentous evening than was the 2008 primary.
She wondered if I might be intentionally killing a few brain cells on behalf of a dear friend who is undoubtedly licking undeserved wounds tonight. Nope.
If I were to be utilizing Lynchburg, Tennessee's finest export to effect this evening, it would be for a stranger, the senator from Chappaqua, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
I've often said "I had one mother, I have one sister, one wife, and one daughter. I AM a feminist."
The people whose respect I seek most earnestly voted for Mrs. Clinton, as did I. Alas, barring an unprecedented event, Mrs. Clinton will not have the opportunity to carry my hopes forward to lead this country.
Much to my chagrin, many others whose opinions I respect had rejected Mrs. Clinton as an appropriate standard-bearer. It has been painful to watch and to experience many of my friends ally themselves with Mr. Obama, the senator from Illinois.
I've told more than a few of my closest friends of my pain. In no other experience of my life have I felt so constricted in expressing my opinions. Political discussions can, so often, devolve into interpersonal conflict, and that is something that I deeply wished to avoid. Frankly, the implicit argument (and you'll have to admit it occurred to you) is that the supporter of the "other" is less perceptive, nay, even unrealistic and naive.
Such thoughts, which I honestly do not harbor, are not ones that anyone might express without considering it as an act that is the opposite of respect and friendship. I have refrained from discussing my preferences, for the most part, out of respect for my friends, most of whom bought wholeheartedly into the Obama mystique.
On a policy basis, Hillary was approximately my fifth choice for the Democratic nomination. But Mr. Obama was about my tenth choice.
With all respect, I never saw in Barack Obama the things my friends saw. I do not believe that he is, in any way, "different." On explicit policy matters, I see nothing that differentiates him. On personality, or in his much-touted eloquence and style, I just never got it.
Admittedly, I applaud myself as being more astute. I have never bought into a politician as being something special. Rather, any admiration I might have had for politicians stemmed from my own inability to adopt the techniques necessary to win election.
My friends, Mr. Obama is not special. He is not different. I applaud the fact that he "calls" for a new kind of politics, but I will likewise ask you to confess that he has not conducted his campaign, except for the occasional rhetoric, in any way that can be called "new."
I told several people in the past ten days how Mr. Obama could have earned my support and my vote. To be brief, it would have been for him to ACTUALLY offer a transcendant vision and to say "This I Believe, and if you don't like it, don't vote for me."
He did not. That is not a disqualifying event. It simply was my own personal standard for converting my loyalty from Mrs. Clinton to Mr. Obama.
I was personally ridiculed for claiming from my earliest incarnations in these environs my support (which prevails) for Al Gore. When the roll is called up yonder, I'll still be proud to have asserted that support. After all, he was elected as our 43rd Commander in Chief.
Today is the day for Gore men and women to declare "never again." On to November. Avenge the travesty of 2000.
And as for that "dear friend" on whose behalf my bride believed I might damage myself, I will not forget what was done to you. Nor will I forgive the parties that wrought it. That's all I can do right now. But the vision you offered and the integrity with which you offered it will not be forgotten in this household, and I will remember May 6, 2008, as a singular moment that defined them as unworthy of my support.
Where that leaves me, I can't say. But suffice it to be said that at long last, I understand what it means to be an "Independent."
P.S. If I were "doing my job," this posting would have addressed the remarkable events of Monday night. While Mrs. Clinton, and Hizzoner, were regaling a crowd at the fire hall on Spring Street, I witnessed what was perhaps the most important city council meeting since I arrived in this city. If any event ever said to me that "working within the system" was futile, that was it. Of course, I believe my insight to be unique and unrecognized. But for New Albany, May 5, 2008 may turn out to be a far more momentous evening than was the 2008 primary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)