This is incredible and inexcusable -- Wilber is now spouting legal opinions to the Daily Times -- see the text, below, from today's issue:
"If Ireton chooses to veto the resolution, as implied in his e-mail conveying his opposition to the donation, it may not be as simple as not signing the agreement. Wilber said only resolutions which relate to significant action may be overridden. Recognition as significant city business is an opinion by the city attorney made on a case by case basis due to vague language in the city charter, Wilber said."
* * * * *
In the past his opinions were always "privileged and confidential."
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
6 comments:
IF this property were worth anything they would not be gifting it to the city. That property would haave been sold for top dollar. Hey it is waterfront property. I feel if the city purchases it we will be cleaning the property for a long time and the tax payers will foot that expensive bill. It is given away because no one else would be stupid enough to purchase it or take it without having the property looked at by a professional.
I guess bubba knows all about contaminated soil too. Mrs smith knows twice as much. These people are like the blind leading the blind. They dont take the time to think. If someone wanted to give them a nice dog they would take it not seeing the foam around his mouth. Wake up and conduct business like business people do not like crazed politions spend all the free tax money you have at your disposal. I really thing if chohen and campbell suggest to the three stoges not to take the foaming dog they would vote to get it not giing any thought it was sick. Just because they have opposition to it... Wake up and repressent the people stop playing games. You three make yourselves look stupid!
If the charter is written in vague language who wrote it Wilber?
I would have demanded it cost $1.00 or he would of been hauled into court to fix it.
The scary part to me is, since when does the city attorney get to decide what are significant matters in the city and which vetoes get to stick.
Something is very wrong there. Either the Times f**ked it up or Wilber is up to no good.
More lawyer speak. What sense can be gleaned from those words?
A veto is a veto. It can't not be.
It should stick. Otherwise what's the point?
Post a Comment