The Politics of Personal Destruction in the Land of Barrie

There are times when I believe that Salisbury Mayor Barrie Tilghman and her council lackeys Louise Smith, Gary Comegys and Shanie Shields all watched too much television news during the Clinton administration. Unable to intelligently debate almost any relevant issue, the stock tactic appears to claim that the opposition is launching "personal attacks".

This bush league debate tactic was brought to its zenith Monday night when simple requests for documentation and a desire for the broad public to enjoy the rights of political participation were deemed "personal attacks" and "slaps in the face" to the Mayor's anointed appointees to various city commissions. Unfortunately Mr. Comegys, who is the only member of Tilghman's "council leadership" with an IQ above 70, was forced to look the fool in order to run the Tilghman railroad down its appointed, albeit crooked, tracks.

To provide some context, this debate really began on December 10th, 2007 when the Mayor proffered her chosen for the Salisbury Board of Zoning Appeals. Few non-elected posts are more powerful in Salisbury City government. At the time, no information was provided to Council as to the background or qualifications of the Mayor's chosen. Questioning by Councilwoman Debbie Campbell and Councilwoman Terry Cohen about the lack of information was pushed aside by Mr. Comegys who claimed (with the concurrence of City Attorney Paul Wilber) that the Council's sole role in this matter was to confirm the Mayor's appointees. When it was pointed out by Mrs. Campbell that the members of this board were to be appointed by Council, not by the Mayor, the Tilghman team fell silent.

At this time, Mrs. Campbell and Ms. Cohen asked that, in the future, background information on all candidates for appointment (or confirmation) be provided in the Council's briefing books. No member of council objected.

Now we come to January 14, 2008. On the agenda there were appointments of fourteen people to six boards or commissions. With a couple of notable exceptions, there was no information given to Council regarding the individuals. Are they city residents? City taxpayers? Do they have any expertise in the areas which are impacted by the commissions that they are being appointed to? Probably most important, were the positions advertised to encourage citizen participation? Nada.

Asking such basic questions in the public square is not appreciated by certain parties. It slows down the Tilghman Railroad and draws unwanted attention to the Tilghman agenda. Consequently, Mr. Comegys was forced to step in.

The Comegys argument goes something like this ...

To advertise a position for which a current member wishes reappointment is akin to "a slap in the face". According to Mr. Comegys, term limits are more acceptable than allowing the public to know that these positions are coming up for reappointment.

As for demanding information on the appointees, this is equivalent to a "personal attack". We must remember the terms of service on these commissions can be quite long. Despite the fact that a person presently serves, council members may not know anything about them. In fact, Comegys admitted this. However, using Comegys' logic this is irrelevant. The Mayor simply would not have re-appointed an individual if they were not competent. Even if he is correct (which he is not), Mr. Comegys simply refused to acknowledge the notion that opening the process up to the public might yield individuals who are more than competent. We might have people serving who actually excel.

After Mr. Comegys poorly thought out, yet sober, argument it was time for a little humor. This is where Councilwoman Shanie Shields shines. Mrs. Shields argues that service on the City Electoral Board, the Planning Commission, the Zoo Commission, the Marina Commission or the Board of Zoning Appeals is equivalent to seeking volunteers to serve on a church committee or a committee at your child's school. A church committee cannot stop you from building on your own property. The Planning Commission can. A committee for the school dance cannot allow the owner of the house next door to rent it out like a boarding house, the Board of Housing Appeals can. A church committee, as a rule, cannot seize your tax dollars yet the Salisbury Marina Commission does just that in the form of a taxpayer subsidy to boat owners. The same also applies to the Zoo Commission.

Always one to go the extra mile, Mrs. Shields exited the debate with this little wonder: She didn't know who any of these people were, but she was sure that they were doing a great job.

Lest you think that I've left Louise Smith out, don't worry. I just stated that she's incapable of engaging in an intelligent debate. She does however have a knack for repeating the same line over, and over, and over ... During the campaign she promised (and promised, and promised ...) that the audit would get done on time under her watch. Guess what? Wielding the gavel Ms. Smith has only a few weapons in her bag: "let's move on", "let's call for the question", "we've already discussed this point".

Unfortunately for the citizens of Salisbury, her constant interruption seems to throw Councilwomen Campbell and Cohen just off of their game. I am particularly disappointed as this applies to Ms. Cohen because she has few peers in a debate (as her campaign for election showed). However, in all fairness, I don't know how well I would perform under those same circumstances (other than to resort to physical violence).

cross posted on Delmarva Dealings

Technorati Tags: Maryland, Salisbury, politics, salisburypolitics, BarrieTilghman, LouiseSmith, GaryComegys, ShanieShields, DebbieCampbell, TerryCohen, debate

Powered by ScribeFire.