While millions seem to be worried about California permitting same-sex marriage, we should look inward. Barrieland may hold the distinction of having the first drag queen as city council president. While I apologize for not knowing the current politically correct term, there is a strong possibility (nay, probability) that former council president Mike Dunn put on a wig and glasses, and got elected AGAIN.
During Mike's term, no one like to change the council rules more. Now we have Louise (or should I say Mike) back at it. At Monday's Salisbury Council work session, a new resolution to change the council rules was on the agenda. When this matter reaches a legislative sessions citizens will be able to see that these rules have already been amended TEN TIMES!
Are the rule changes necessary? Of course not.
Why the need for ANOTHER change? Louise was given her marching orders that there would be no more introduction of ANONYMOUS letters read into the record. Second, Louise and her cohorts want to limit debate by Councilwomen Debbie Campbell and Terry Cohen to five minutes each.
The citizens of Salisbury are faced with another individual holding the gavel who is so obtuse that they can't read their own rules. If they bothered they would note several things. First of all, the council rules - as presently adopted - only permit the introduction of material or testimony into the record with a vote of the majority of council.
As for limiting debate, there is already one provision in the council's standing order (their "Rules of Order") as well as a variety of tools available to Louise and her dirty little guild through Robert's Rules of Order. Of course this would require a little studying on Louise's part and that ain't gonna happen!
Rules of a parliamentary assembly, like the Salisbury City Council, are supposed to protect several parties: the majority, the minority and those participating through observation. The public needs to be assured that all parties are participating on a level playing field. However, there need be no concern for that in the fascist state of Barrieland.
Do Louise, et al have a right to feel abused by the minority? Yes. My friends Debbie and Terry may never speak to me again, but they do tend to be repetitive. They can be unnecessarily long winded. They also waste far too much time apologizing for, and excessively explaining, their actions.
They should ask their questions, DEMAND answers, and be done with it.
Louise, however, is incapable of running a meeting. Hell, I'd give her lessons if that's what it took. NO ONE at that table has a clue what the rules are, including City Clerk Brenda Colegrove. If they did, there would be NO DEBATE or EXPLANATION of vote on consent items. Ms. Dunn would enforce her own CODE of CONDUCT. Ms. Dunn would then only permit discussion that was truly germane to the legislation at hand. There would be NO points of personal privilege (no such right exists, but a member may ask a "Question of Privilege" - which is different). The list goes on ... and on. In fact, if Ms. Dunn had a clue she would amend the council's standing orders to have one item only - "All meetings of this body will be governed by the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised. There she would find that the majority, the minority AND the public are all protected. She could easily achieve her stated goals without appearing to be some kind of black shirted throw back to the 1930's.
But Ms. Dunn can't do that. Instead, she is under the false assumption that her gavel gives her near dictatorial powers, bordering on those of the Queen of Barrieland herself. She is wrong. If she did her job, a great deal of these problems would simply disappear into the ether.
Therefore, the public can expect an 11th amendment to the most dysfunctional set of rules ever laid out for any parliamentary assembly; even one as irrelevant as the Salisbury City Council.
cross posted at Delmarva Dealings
Technorati Tags: Maryland, politics, Salisbury, Salisbury politics, Louise Smith, Mike Dunn, Debbie Campbell, Terry Cohen
During Mike's term, no one like to change the council rules more. Now we have Louise (or should I say Mike) back at it. At Monday's Salisbury Council work session, a new resolution to change the council rules was on the agenda. When this matter reaches a legislative sessions citizens will be able to see that these rules have already been amended TEN TIMES!
Are the rule changes necessary? Of course not.
Why the need for ANOTHER change? Louise was given her marching orders that there would be no more introduction of ANONYMOUS letters read into the record. Second, Louise and her cohorts want to limit debate by Councilwomen Debbie Campbell and Terry Cohen to five minutes each.
The citizens of Salisbury are faced with another individual holding the gavel who is so obtuse that they can't read their own rules. If they bothered they would note several things. First of all, the council rules - as presently adopted - only permit the introduction of material or testimony into the record with a vote of the majority of council.
As for limiting debate, there is already one provision in the council's standing order (their "Rules of Order") as well as a variety of tools available to Louise and her dirty little guild through Robert's Rules of Order. Of course this would require a little studying on Louise's part and that ain't gonna happen!
Rules of a parliamentary assembly, like the Salisbury City Council, are supposed to protect several parties: the majority, the minority and those participating through observation. The public needs to be assured that all parties are participating on a level playing field. However, there need be no concern for that in the fascist state of Barrieland.
Do Louise, et al have a right to feel abused by the minority? Yes. My friends Debbie and Terry may never speak to me again, but they do tend to be repetitive. They can be unnecessarily long winded. They also waste far too much time apologizing for, and excessively explaining, their actions.
They should ask their questions, DEMAND answers, and be done with it.
Louise, however, is incapable of running a meeting. Hell, I'd give her lessons if that's what it took. NO ONE at that table has a clue what the rules are, including City Clerk Brenda Colegrove. If they did, there would be NO DEBATE or EXPLANATION of vote on consent items. Ms. Dunn would enforce her own CODE of CONDUCT. Ms. Dunn would then only permit discussion that was truly germane to the legislation at hand. There would be NO points of personal privilege (no such right exists, but a member may ask a "Question of Privilege" - which is different). The list goes on ... and on. In fact, if Ms. Dunn had a clue she would amend the council's standing orders to have one item only - "All meetings of this body will be governed by the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised. There she would find that the majority, the minority AND the public are all protected. She could easily achieve her stated goals without appearing to be some kind of black shirted throw back to the 1930's.
But Ms. Dunn can't do that. Instead, she is under the false assumption that her gavel gives her near dictatorial powers, bordering on those of the Queen of Barrieland herself. She is wrong. If she did her job, a great deal of these problems would simply disappear into the ether.
Therefore, the public can expect an 11th amendment to the most dysfunctional set of rules ever laid out for any parliamentary assembly; even one as irrelevant as the Salisbury City Council.
cross posted at Delmarva Dealings
Technorati Tags: Maryland, politics, Salisbury, Salisbury politics, Louise Smith, Mike Dunn, Debbie Campbell, Terry Cohen
16 comments:
I believe the remarks, albeit sometimes repetitive, from the MS. C on council are to CYA. How else to get through to the record since they only record selected portions "for the record"? And how else can be explained why the vote nay when they want to vote yeah?
It's not a bad thing to have recorded individual legislative intent.
I agree with this post, but do have a question. Just how should Terry Cohen and Debbie Campbell DEMAND answers? They have done everything but stand on their heads to get answers and are thwarted constantly. Therefore the public does not get answers. Tell me the answer to this one, please.
Nalagirl
Ms. Smith is also a hypocrit.
At the work session she discussed what she said were complaints she had received about the length of the meetings -- all anonymously, of course.
A well written post. You hit the nail right on the head about Campbell and Cohen being too long winded. That one particular thing has caused much of the problem on the Council.
A well written post. You hit the nail right on the head about Campbell and Cohen being too long winded. That one particular thing has caused much of the problem on the Council.
"They have done everything but stand on their heads to get answers and are thwarted constantly."
If they stood on their heads, they'd look just like sisters.
Limiting their time in council and work sessions limits the number of questions asked. This is what they want...NO QUESTIONS. No questions = no answers and the council majority, Barrie and Picks butts are covered.
I agree they are repetitive. The repetition could be due to the fact they are dealing with mental midgets and the same thing needs to be repeated in various ways for them to eventually grasp what is being said.
My theory on this entire situation is cut to the chase. Don't waste your time explaining anything to the 3 brain cells on the council. If short and sweet is what they want, give it to them. Hit them hard with the facts, no more sugar coating, no more nicey nicey. Don't spare their feelings, just hit them with the facts and hit them hard. When the meeting is over in short order they will be to numb to realize the time has passed.
Words of advise. BE BLUNT! BE VERY BLUNT! You can do this without being rude.
"A well written post. You hit the nail right on the head about Campbell and Cohen being too long winded. That one particular thing has caused much of the problem on the Council."
Bullsh*t. Gary Comegys isn't long-winded and repetitive?
The others don't have to say much...it's all a done deal for those three.
6:26 a.m. got part of it I think...C and C have to say things they ordinarily wouldn't have, but they are with three people who twist everything they say and try to shut them down at every turn.
I imagine the complaints El Presidente received about the meetings being too long were from Comegys, Shields, Tilghman,Wilbur, and Smith, herself; who, by the way, if were turned upside down would probably look like quintuplets. Just stooping as low as 8:38.
Nalagirl
i bet mike dunn dont want no more scotty b!!!ha,ha,ha...
G.A., I've heard you wound up, buddy, and there's a little pot calling the kettle black here about the long-winded and repetitive thing here, LOL!
All joking aside, I have a couple of disappointments with your post. One is, why not whack on Comegys some? If ever there was a blowhard grandstander, he's it.
Second, I wouldn't say no one at the table know Roberts. Maybe Cohen doesn't know some of the finer points as well as you. But I've seen many a PAC14 episode where she was the only one with a Roberts clue.
Finally, I'm rather surprised you'd think either Debbie or Terry would stop being your friend over constructive criticism. I've had an opportunity to do that with both of them and I've disagreed with them. And neither one of them has ever given me a cold shoulder.
Just thought you should be giving them more credit than that.
D.
I take full responsibility for most not getting the point. Debbie and Terry can DEMAND answers. If they don't get them, they should ridicule the hell out of Barrie, Pick, Oland or whoever was asked the question.
If you will think back to the last meeting, Comegys attacked Terry for not submitting some questions until the day of a budget work session. Problem is, Terry had originally submitted her questions over two weeks earlier.
That said, the public (forget about Louise, Gary and Shanie) could be saved about 30 minutes per meeting just by not apologizing and explaining why they are voting the way they do. They have already explained their point of view earlier. Let Comegys whine about it, how many people watching are going to believe him anyway.
The main point of the post is that even with Terry and Debbie using up a lot of mike time, there is no reason to amend the rules for the 11th time.
For every change that Barrie tells Louise to make, I can think up at least a dozen ways around it. So can Debbie and Terry.
The bottom line is that Louise's stunts just re-emphasize that Salisbury has become a truly fascist state.
GA, on some points I agree with you, especially when it comes to apologizing. Debbie and Terry have nothing to apologize for. Everyone knows information is withheld from them until the final hour, if they receive it at all. The mayor and her administration should apologize for their negligence. Barrie Tilghman has done everything this side of illegal to obstruct the flow of information to both of them and the public. Her command to all personnel to answer no questions is despicable. Actually that order was put out by John Pick and we all know it was under Barries direction.
The five minute discussion time wouldn't be so bad if and only if Debbie and Terry were provided the information required to form an educated opinion. Lynn Cathcart is always crying about no one offering solutions to the various situations created by the mayor and her lackeys. How do you devise a solution without information? How do you form an opinion without asking questions? Debbie and Terry are not the kind of people that sit there like lumps, sucking on candies, going with the flow for the sake of expedience.
Barrie Tilghman would love nothing more than to have 5 bobbleheads sitting there voting for everything she wants without question. The meetings would be over in an hour. Budget deliberations would be done in 2 sessions. The city would be burning.
I agree wholeheartedly the need for an 11th amendment to the rules is absolutely not necessary. Provide them with the information they need and be done with it.
As long as Louweasel has the gavel and Mare is the Mayor, and Bubba and Shamie are bob-bob-bobbling along, nothing will get any better. Debbie and Terry can demand all they want, but since the city and the administration care nothing about the FOIA being adhered to properly, or keeping the citizens and 2 good council members informed, it's almost pointless. However, it does not mean these 2 fine ladies will stop trying to make a difference, because they will fight on. I may not agree with them on everything or want to hear every word that gets repeated over and over again (in a vain attempt to get the dummies to understand), but I appreciate their efforts.
I'd like to see the 2 of them be as blunt and RUDE as the others on council. Not counting Shamie, of course, who rarely, if ever, contributes anything.
Call the justice dept.
Post a Comment