The extent to which the Daily Times will stoop to sell more copies has reached another new height (“depth” may be the more fitting term) in reporting on the recent amendment of the Salisbury City Charter regarding the City’s attorney. It does not affect, and certainly does not alter Salisbury’s outmoded “strong mayor” system. Under that system the mayor has the power to direct all City functions, except legislative matters, which are the Council’s domain subject to the mayoral power to veto ordinances passed by the Council. Those powers remain undiminished.
The real story, in contrast to the hype and spin being spooned out by Ireton and his covey of malcontents (including Mitchell and Shields), is that both Ireton and his predecessor, Barrie Tilghman, have on any occasions deliberately and improperly interfered with the interaction of Council members and the City’s attorney. But the Daily Times never reports those episodes.
The City Charter could not be clearer in charging the attorney with the duty to provide information and advice to the legislative branch (Council). Under the Charter it is improper and unreasonable, and it may be unlawful for the mayor to interfere in the Council’s dealings with the City Attorney. The resolution changing the Charter should put and end to that mischief, even if “His Arrogance” once again attempts to interfere with the legislative process in the future.
Another false claim being made by Ireton and his followers is that the City Council’s decision somehow – they have not said how or why – abrogates his authority to direct the City Attorney in regard to matters within the Executive branch. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Salisbury residents should address the situation with both barrels:
- Disregard the drivel in the Daily Times
- Don’t sign the referendum petition
And, of course, keep reading this blog!
6 comments:
If the charter already provides for the attorney to give advice to council, why is any change needed? Follow the existing charter and don't mess with it.
Agreed, 3:24. The old charter should be enforced, not changed.
There's no way to enforce the charter that I've ever heard of. Especially with a dictator running things.
Sounds like if 3:24 and 4:26 had been around in the day, we wouldn't have a Bill of Rights, given women the right to vote, etc. because the Constitution should never be changed.
Now that I've read something other than the biased Daily Times, it sounds like a good change. It makes a lot of sense that the attorney who helps the council write the laws would answer to them first. Ireton and Mitchell are both disappointments and they are nasty about it when they don't get their way.
What's going to happen is Ireton gets his attorney, Shanie gets her attorney, Laura gets her attorney and the Camden triplets only need one attorney cause they think alike. These attorneys can hammer out the differences at tax payers expense but never solve a thing. Lawyers fees will go even higher. Bunch of kids playing at being council persons and and a mayor but never accomplishing a thing.
If the original charter was so bad, why did it work for years? Are we going to change it everytime some new council person doesn't get his way?
Work? It didn't work. Is that you, Jim? Have you watched the city burn over bad legal advice for the past 15 years?
Post a Comment