.jpg)
Ladies & Gentlemen, last Monday night I picked up on something no one else caught. If you watch the re run of the Council Meeting, soon after the Fire Department accepting a donation, Louise Smith brings something to a vote.
Now, what's unique about this is that I had to take a double take when I personally heard it. I then leaned over to Greg Latshaw, (a reporter from The Daily Times) and I said, did you just hear what I just heard? He replied, I think so but I'm not sure. I said, Louise Smith just said, "All those in favor say I, I. All those opposed say Nay, Nay."
I believe Louise Smith Voted Twice! Once she heard Gary Comegys say Nay, she said Nay as well, after saying I originally. We have people watching the CD of it right now to confirm I did in fact hear what I heard but I'm very confident I'm right.
I didn't want to say anything till now so there was no chance to edit the original. I cannot receive PAC 14 so I cannot tell. However, listen carefully and see for yourself just what Louise Smith is up to. I was paying attention because I thought I had heard her do so in the past.
That being said, the Council President isn't even supposed to vote, unless necessary. If you watch County Council President John Cannon, he rarely ever votes. Perhaps Louise is so used to a 2-2 vote on 99% of everything they vote on anyway, she throws in her say. However, she would do so after everyone votes and she would say, "the chair votes I, or Nay."
15 comments:
Yes, the Louisel should only vote when necessary and should vote with a statement that says "The chair votes whatever", and surely she should only vote once. Remember the sunshine Louise?
A. Goetz
Louise Smith couldn't run a meeting if her life depended on it.
I can't wait to hear for sure if she pulled this stunt or not.
Like I said in another post, RECALL LOUISE SMITH!
If she did vote twice, what happens with everything voted on Monday night? Will Ruark once again have to send Hugh Hansons boy to come begging for more welfare? Does it nullify all things voted on? Inquiring minds want to know.
Hope someone can answer why the daily Times stated the developer recieving the "gift" was from Timonium but it is really Tom Ruark? WHats up with this?
joe, you are seriously mentally ill...you should seek help soon, please.
The developer of this project is NOT Ruark, The company is Osprey Development and yes, they are from Timonium.
Ruark bought it from the infamous Sassafrass LLC and sold it to another Sassafrass LLC, didn't he?
I'd like to know who the $#)* is behind these LLC's!
Mr. Albero,
It is AYE, not I for voting. From my understanding of Roberts Rules of Order, the spokes person makes the announcement "all those in favor say 'aye'" then says "Aye" to indicate it is time for those voting to voice their Aye vote. The same goes for Nay. The announcement "all those against or opposing say nay" then says "Nay" to indicate it is time for the Nay votes. How did the votes tally, and how many individuals were voting. This tally should indicate by the numbers for and against being added together whether Ms. Smith actually voted or ic she was attempting to follow Roberts Rules of Order.
4:46 anonymous,
No, I think the way it goes is for the president to say, "All those in favor, say AYE," and then he or she shuts up for the response. After that part of the vote, then the presidents says, "All those opposed, say "Nay."
I do not think the rules call for president to say the response twice. At least every meeting I've ever been to does it that way, and quite a few of them are much better at Robert's Rules than this council is.
If she were trying to follow those rules (yeah, right), then she would have been doing it on all the votes. A friend who watched said it just involved a vote or maybe two.
Do Natelson or Dzaman have anything to do with "Osprey"?
Ruark TRANSFERRED the property to Senior Sassafras, LLC. Your guess is as good as mine as to who owns it.
The city council has stated on more than one occasion that they do NOT follow Roberts Rules. Imagine that.
Has anyone checked on the policy allowing for "closed door" sessions yet? I am wondering if they were in violation at the council meeting the other night.
Does anyone know what was discussed MOnday night at the closed meeting? What total BS, WTF is going on NOW???
Does anyone know what was discussed MOnday night at the closed meeting
All the weasel said was they were going to closed session to discuss property acquistion. She didn't say if it was real property or cars or machines or any reference to what type of property. Do you really expect this bunch to "govern in the sunshine"?
It was a discussion about the purchase of something. Not sure what.
I am not privy to the insider purchasing or info, it could be about a piece of fire equipment, maybe the fireboat or new fire engines. Maybe inquiring how did the property that the new firehouse sits on, and why the price skyrocketed when the city decided they wanted to buy it when the entire market was collapsing.
It could also be about purchasing property so the mayor can build another GOB with her name on it, "MUD." I refrained from using another name. Maybe the purchase of the Daily Crime building?
Who knows? What we do know is that the majority of the city council doesn't want the public to know about whatever it is, so that tells me they maybe checking the laws so the majority can once again twist and manipulate the codes or ordinances to fit their intended agenda.
I'm under the impression that they were requesting legal advice, for maybe some property that has already been purchased or to be purchased? The property of the new firehouse maybe.
When they shut the public out they open the door to speculation and then want to bitch that we are gloom and doomers.
Post a Comment