A Few Facts Could Go a Long Way at the Daily Times

Every one has a right to an opinion. They should also attempt to gather some facts before they express it. This was (again) the case in two op-ed’s in today’s Daily Times which criticize the Salisbury city council over their recent budget vote. Both the DT and my friend Muir Boda should do a little fact checking before expressing opinions based on politics rather than fact.

The Daily Time’s editorial (I presume by Susan Parker) argues in favor of Mayor Jim Ireton’s spending priorities. That’s fine. However, the criticism of council used as “evidence” for this argument is based on multiple false assumptions.

The DT argues that Ireton’s plan to furlough police officers is “fair”. I would argue that the citizens who are victims of crime don’t care much about fair. Furloughing officers actually costs the city more money because of increased overtime. There is also a problem with Ireton’s (and apparently the DT’s) populist misconception that all public employees are created equal. Any city with Salisbury’s crime rate needs MORE, not fewer, officers on the streets.

The DT also argues:

In addition, the propensity of this council to spend its time revisiting decisions made by previous councils is alarmingly reminiscent of the situation a decade ago, when Lavonzella Siggers was council president and a massive backlog of work resulted from an apparent inability of that council to make decisions and move forward.

A prime example: The Bateman Street / Onley Road intersection needs to be upgraded. The city agreed to upgrade it. The high school is the least of the reasons why that project should already be under way. Delaying it now amounts to kicking the can down the road for someone else to deal with. Putting it off is a dereliction of duty on the part of the council.

First of all, this council is working diligently to eradicate the logjam of old business left by the Barrie Comegys council. Second, it was the PREVIOUS council which rejected the Ireton / BOE plan for Bateman Street / Onley Road. This council agreed to re-visit the matter at the request of the mayor. Unless the DT is arguing that the city council should be a “rubber stamp” for the Ireton administration, there is zero merit in their complaint.

In a related Letter to the Editor, two time council candidate Muir Boda is playing fast and loose with his facts.

Boda agrees with abolishing police furloughs. He attacks the “process” and “lack of communication” with the mayor’s office. Muir should do a little research.

There were TWO public hearings on the budget. He seems to ignore the first. Technically, this is fair because the mayor’s office (NOT the council) failed to meet the advertising requirement. This is why a second hearing was needed. Any “lack of communication” come from the mayor’s office, not the council. If Ireton cannot get what he wants, he simply refuses to answer questions. Worse, he forbids city employees from doing so as well. This is evidenced by the recent cancellation of a scheduled meeting between the city attorney and the council. This was strictly for the purpose of keeping council up to date. However, Ireton would rather play the role of a spoiled child than the office to which he was elected.

Boda decries the “rush” to override the veto:

I am also concerned that the council was so quick to schedule an emergency session to override the mayor's veto. This was not an emergency; June 30 would have been considered an emergency, not June 8. There still would have been plenty of time to for the council to reach out to the mayor to work on getting the budget to a point where all could have agreed.

Check your facts. The budget had to be passed by June 15 (NOT June 30). Any override vote would have been scheduled for the regular council meeting to be held on June 13. However, because Councilwoman Shanie Shields had already gone against her own word and voted against the budget, a meeting had to be scheduled to assure the presence of all four council members who did vote for it.

Because councilwoman Debbie Campbell had to leave town on business, waiting until Monday would have been disastrous – unless you only care about upholding the mayor’s veto. That’s politics, not process.

Boda also argues that the council should not have voted on the budget immediately after a public hearing. I would agree. However, that is a political decision. It is not a public policy decision. The few amendments which came forward that night were of a technical nature to keep the budget in balance. They had nothing to do with spending priorities.

Both the Daily Times and Boda should be honest in their criticism of the Salisbury council. Their arguments are political ones that they attempt to wrap up in the paper and bows of “public policy”, “spending priorities”, and “transparency”. While I may not agree with all of council’s polices, or priorities, there is no question that they are attempting to do what is right for the taxpayers of Salisbury. As for transparency, any criticism of that is so ridiculous as to make even the least informed citizen laugh. These criticisms smack of political opportunism and nothing more.

G. A. Harrison is the Managing Editor of “Salisbury News”. “Delmarva Dealings” appears each Wednesday and Sunday at Noon on SbyNEWS.com.

19600903