Ireton’s Veto Speech – Rhetoric Over Substance

As I discussed in yesterday’s post, Salisbury Mayor Jim Ireton’s veto address was long on rhetoric, long on accusation, and SHORT ON SUBSTANCE. Today, we are examining the substance of Ireton’s remarks.

FURLOUGH EQUITY

One of Ireton’s biggest claims is that his is for FURLOUGH EQUITY, and that the Salisbury City Council is not. I guess that by using such a nebulous term one can also argue that you are for sunshine and lollipops. However, to quote Ireton’s predecessor – “You’re entitled to your own opinon, but not your own facts”.

The facts are relatively simple. By making responsible cuts throughout the mayor’s proposed budget, the council was able to accomplish the following:

• Eliminate all furloughs in the police department for officers with the rank of Sergeant on down.
  
• Eliminate all furloughs for city employees making less than $30,000 per year.
  
• Eliminate TWO days of furloughs for all other city employees.

Perhaps Ireton thinks that it is “FAIRER” to have everyone have the same number of furlough days. However, I feel safe in saying that the majority of Salisbury voters would prefer to see cops on the streets rather than at home on furlough days. I also feel safe in asserting that it is “FAIRER” to have the lowest paid city employees saved from unnecessary furlough days.

NEIGHBORHOOD LIGHTING UPGRADES

It’s ironic that Ireton would attempt to play politics with this one. He asserts that the council majority has turned its back on the Spring Chase and Canal Woods neighborhoods by not funding new street lights. He even intimated that this could be, in part, because these are the homes of former council members perceived to be the political enemies of Council President Terry Cohen and Council Vice President Debbie Campbell. Nothing could be further from the truth.

There were three neighborhoods budgeted for street light replacement – Spring Chase, Canal Woods, and Pemberton Manor. City Administrator John Pick informed the council that “as far as he knew” the lights in Pemberton Woods HAD to be replaced because of wiring problems and that those in Spring Chase and Canal Woods were merely “old and ugly”. While Ireton may want to see the good folks in Canal Woods and Spring Chase have “new and pretty” street lights, that is a far cry from the council “turning their backs” on those neighborhoods.

WATER AND SEWER RATES

Quite possibly the most bold faced claim made by Ireton in his address was regarding his proposed 18% increase in water and sewer rates. Ireton states:

Council turned its back on citizens sewer bills by not dipping into this surplus (the $5.7 million surplus in the Water and Sewer Fund) to reduce the increase.

C’mon Jim! Council worked countless hours in an attempt to mitigate IRETON’s proposed increase. IF he really wanted the surplus dipped into, why didn’t he budget it that way?

I’ll tell you why! The previous council passed a resolution which requires that fees for all enterprise funds have to be set to cover expenses within the fund. Is Ireton suggesting council violate city policy?

THE “COVER OF NIGHT”

Ireton makes this claim:

Council has passed a budget under cover of night with little or no citizen input or scrutiny from the press.

Despite my personal respect and affection for the mayor, this statement is, charitably, FALSE. This council held multiple budget work sessions – ALL advertised on the city’s web site. These meetings were open to the public. To the best of my knowledge all were attended by members of the press EXCEPT when Daily Times reporters were on furlough days themselves. SbyNEWS never attended a session because of scheduling conflicts, usually with county council budget sessions.

There was AMPLE opportunity for citizen input. Citizens availed themselves of the telephone and email. Some attended budget work sessions. There was not one, but TWO public hearings (thanks to the mayor’s office failing to advertise the first one). The budget was passed in open session and TELEVISED on PAC-14.

How is this “the cover of night”?

THE GRAB BAG

Ireton’s address also made numerous accusations that I can’t even come up with ANY rationale for:

• A 15% cut in the Fire Department – WHERE?
  
• “Micromanaging” – we discussed this in yesterday’s post. Suffice it to say – Funding does not equal “micromanaging”

WHAT ARE YOU FOR?

Ireton concludes his remarks with an accusation that I have to admit is subject to opinion:

In order to lead, we must know what we are for. Council Leadership, namely Mrs. Cohen and Mrs. Campbell, are completely sure what they are against - yet can never tell us what they are for. Leadership is having the vision and guts to be FOR something. This budget passed under their leadership shows no leadership - simply put they have chosen to micromanage our community partners to settle old scores and have abandoned our neighborhoods in their greatest time of need.

I think I understand where Ireton is coming from. Jim’s a died-in-the-wool lefty. Ireton believes that you show “what your are for” by spending other people’s money. That’s a philosophical difference. OK.

However, to claim that Cohen and Campbell are not for anything is ridiculous. I would argue that they are for (among other things):

• Fiscal Responsibility
• Good Stewardship of the Taxpayers’ (and Ratepayers’) Dollars
• Strong Neighborhoods
• Attacking Crime

I think that their record on these issues is clear. Ireton may disagree with them. I’m sure he disagrees with me. However, I believe that it is as wrong to claim that Campbell and Cohen are “for nothing” as it would be to make the same claim about the Mayor.

THIS POST IS “STICKY”. NEW POSTS BELOW.