In her tenth year in office, Salisbury Mayor Barrie Tilghman has accomplished what most megalomaniacs only dream of. Tonight the Salisbury City Council will formally hand over all governing authority to the Queen of Barrieland.
Not a shot will be fired. Not a stone will be thrown. The only protest will come from a few concerned citizens and perhaps Councilwomen Debbie Campbell and Terry Cohen.
As the members of the Salisbury Council become TOTALLY irrelevant to the governance of a once proud city, people may question how Salisbury moved from a democratic government with checks and balances to a truly authoritarian regime. Was it Mike Dunn's fault? Gary Comegys'?
No. History will prove that Mike Dunn was a transitional figure in Salisbury's decade long decent to authoritarianism. While history will remember Comegys as Salisbury's home grown version of Vidkum Quisling, he only bears a small portion of the responsibility.
Of course, we should blame Barrie Tilghman. Right?
WRONG.
Ambition is not necessarily a bad thing. Lust for power can be checked by others. It is when the checks and balances provided for in a nation's constitution, or a city's charter, are ignored and then ceded do we find ourselves in the situation which Salisbury currently faces.
Therefore the responsibility rests squarely on the shoulders of Councilwoman Louise Smith. Her lust for the center chair caused her to turn her back on the very people who put her in office. Her bizarre willingness to lick the boots of those who would destroy her in a heartbeat has allowed Tilghman to seize complete control of Salisbury.
Smith and her cohorts have already refused to provide ANY oversight to the Tilghman administration. There is seldom ANY hesitation to RUBBER STAMP any piece of legislation put before them by their Queen.
Now, their plan is to hand over COMPLETE fiscal authority to Tilghman. They FY 2009 budget allocates money to a couple dozen large pots of money. When Smith, et al claim to cut specific items in the budget (a disgustingly anemic $40,000 out of a $47 million budget or less than 1 tenth of 1 percent!) they attempt to mislead the taxpaying citizenry.
Smith and company have ceded all but the most basic budgetary authority to Tilghman. They can claim that program X is being cut, but Tilghman is not bound to cut money from program X. She need only cut the money from within whatever pot of money that program X lies in.
In other words. Lore Chambers can still get her raise. Tilghman can continue to waste money on T-shirts and specially labeled bottles of water. She is only limited to reduce her spending in the "Mayor's Office / Community Promotions" pot of money.
As the year rolls on we will see that the city still can't balance its checkbook. The audit can't be done on time. Developers will still be subsidized, while some don't even pay city taxes.
Thanks Louise!
cross posted at Delmarva Dealings
Not a shot will be fired. Not a stone will be thrown. The only protest will come from a few concerned citizens and perhaps Councilwomen Debbie Campbell and Terry Cohen.
As the members of the Salisbury Council become TOTALLY irrelevant to the governance of a once proud city, people may question how Salisbury moved from a democratic government with checks and balances to a truly authoritarian regime. Was it Mike Dunn's fault? Gary Comegys'?
No. History will prove that Mike Dunn was a transitional figure in Salisbury's decade long decent to authoritarianism. While history will remember Comegys as Salisbury's home grown version of Vidkum Quisling, he only bears a small portion of the responsibility.
Of course, we should blame Barrie Tilghman. Right?
WRONG.
Ambition is not necessarily a bad thing. Lust for power can be checked by others. It is when the checks and balances provided for in a nation's constitution, or a city's charter, are ignored and then ceded do we find ourselves in the situation which Salisbury currently faces.
Therefore the responsibility rests squarely on the shoulders of Councilwoman Louise Smith. Her lust for the center chair caused her to turn her back on the very people who put her in office. Her bizarre willingness to lick the boots of those who would destroy her in a heartbeat has allowed Tilghman to seize complete control of Salisbury.
Smith and her cohorts have already refused to provide ANY oversight to the Tilghman administration. There is seldom ANY hesitation to RUBBER STAMP any piece of legislation put before them by their Queen.
Now, their plan is to hand over COMPLETE fiscal authority to Tilghman. They FY 2009 budget allocates money to a couple dozen large pots of money. When Smith, et al claim to cut specific items in the budget (a disgustingly anemic $40,000 out of a $47 million budget or less than 1 tenth of 1 percent!) they attempt to mislead the taxpaying citizenry.
Smith and company have ceded all but the most basic budgetary authority to Tilghman. They can claim that program X is being cut, but Tilghman is not bound to cut money from program X. She need only cut the money from within whatever pot of money that program X lies in.
In other words. Lore Chambers can still get her raise. Tilghman can continue to waste money on T-shirts and specially labeled bottles of water. She is only limited to reduce her spending in the "Mayor's Office / Community Promotions" pot of money.
As the year rolls on we will see that the city still can't balance its checkbook. The audit can't be done on time. Developers will still be subsidized, while some don't even pay city taxes.
Thanks Louise!
cross posted at Delmarva Dealings
Powered by ScribeFire.
21 comments:
G.A. Harrison scores another bulls eye!
Just looked on Cohen and Campbell's site. Cohen is on Bill Reddish this morning.
I hope there's a good turnout tonight to give Louise and the other two monkeys what-for. If there isn't, I'll understand. People recognize what G.A. is saying is true and they hate going up like a broken record and saying, "Done deal, done deal."
Isn't the salary of Chambers public information? At the proper time, can't it be checked to see if Barrie in fact gave her the $8,000 raise?
Or does the fault for the "authoritarian regime" lie with the voters who approved a STRONG MAYOR form of government some years ago? Is this one of those "Be careful what you wish for" examples?
Strong mayoral government does NOT mean reckless & wasteful, frivilous spending of taxpayer dollars. It means getting the populous what they need. The city's services. We don't have any, much less duplicated by the county.
What do you get when you hire a House Wife with an open check book to spend wherever and whenever they want? Oh, and if the money runs out, she can just borrow more, right?
NO!
It has nothing to do with a STRONG MAYOR form of government. In fact, the Salisbury City Charter gives the Salisbury Council far more authority than is afforded the Wicomico County Council.
The problem lies with a city council majority that refuses to provide oversight, RUBBER STAMPS almost every piece of legislation provided by the Mayor, and seems to believe that tax dollars are willingly given to the city in order to finance waste and bureaucracy (I know, it's redundant).
GA you got it right, once again. We now have proof there is, in fact a TEAM working against the citizens of this city. If you'll post this evidence, I'll send it to you.
8:05
The strong mayor form in a city of Salisbury's size is an invitation to disaster -- hey, we are now the poster child for that reality. And don't tell us that the former mayors were excellent -- I'm a from here.
Cohens head is on the chopping block for sure. Just listened to her on Reddish. The truth always comes out in the wash.
Keep on washing Campbell and Cohen
Yes, Cohen ROCKED on Bill's show this morning.
DAMN! It's so refreshing to have someone "tell it like it is." About damn time. Sick of being a citizen mushroom.
Please, tell us what the most honorable, Ms. Cohen had to say.
I missed it. Didn't know it was on until it was over.
Donna, Please post the evidence.
thanx,
Ms Cohen said there is money in the other attorney account to pay Paul Wilber to be at tonights meeting, all the mayor has to do is transfer the funds. Question is, WILL the mayor do it?
She also said they're having a meeting June 16, A SPECIAL MEETING to change the rules of order. The change is to prevent Campbell and Cohen from keeping the citizens informed. Coincidentally, this meeting is being held when THEY know Campbell and Cohen can not possibly be in attendance. Would they dare hold this meeting when they could be there to defend their positions? A resounding HELL NO!
THEY need our support. WE all need to show up at that SPECIAL MEETING. Although with or without Campbell and Cohen it will be a predictable 3-2 vote, like everything else.
Cohen said a lot of good things, including quoting Louise Smith from her campaign days when Smith was claiming to be concerned about accountability.
The other thing that got my attention was Gary Comegys telling Pam Oland to go cut $530 for the council to make the budget balance. Big lout couldn't spend 2 minutes more doing HIS JOB?
OUT WITH THE THREE OF THEM!
After the voting, someone with a MP3 player needs to play "taps" in memory of the City Council, whose life was cut down before its time.
That person would get shouted down and forcibly removed while Louise went apoplectic, but it would be accurate, and quite fun.
Someone should also ask the gang if, since they are comfortable ceeding all this power away to the Mayor, and essentially re-writing the Charter, if they would be equally comfortable with a Mayor Campbell or Mayor Ireton having that much control.
Anonymous said...
Donna, Please post the evidence.
thanx,
8:51 AM
I should have chosen my words better. Evidence is strong. I should have stayed with proof. Sorry about that.
I don't have the ability to post on this blog, only comment just like you. All I can do is send the info to those with the ability. Believe me, if I had the ability to post, I'd have more enough audio to create your own full CD and then some.
Donna doesn't "Post" on this Blog. She comments.
OK, Then, Please, Donna, give us more, any way you can. Appreciate it.
Thanx,
p
Mark your calendar to attend the Council's next "worksession" -- it's on June 16 and the scheme team has scheduled it for a day when both Debbie and Terry had prior committments. One of the items is to change the rules to muzzle them at the Council meetings that are covered on PAC 14.
Wouldn't a charter change like that require a majority vote of at least 4 for the motion? If not, it certainly should be that way, to block what they are trying to do to the two ladies! And Donna, you go lady and comment about all of this.
A. Goetz
The files are in the hands of the newest contributor of this blog. I hope they provide insight to just what is running this city.
Post a Comment