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.