Council elects new deputy mayor; leaves citizen statements as is
At its reorganizational meeting earlier today, Burk Tower was nominated (along with Meredith Scheuermann) as Deputy Mayor. The vote went to Burk Tower and congratulations go to him on being selected as Deputy Mayor for the next year. While I was not too surprised by most of the votes going to him, Mayor Bill Castle's voting in favor of him was a surprise. After all, he had nominated Mrs. Scheuermann. He mentioned at the council meeting one week earlier that he intended to nominate her, then did, in fact, make that nomination when the time came. But when push came to shove, he voted for Tower.
Whether Scheuermann would have been a better choice, or Tower, or even someone else, this move by Castle strikes me as being quite hypocritical. Even though he saw there was overwhelming support for Burk Tower, why not at least have the courage of his convictions (and, in this case, his nomination) and at least vote for the person whom he said on two different occasions he supported? His "final answer" leaves me scratching my head.
The other thing that continues to amaze me is this silliness that council members cannot make council member statements about things not noticed on the agenda ahead of time by the city clerk. There was quite a bit of discussion held on this matter during today's meeting and in the end the message was "Well, the Attorney General's office says..." Then came a real interesting comment from Castle, in which he told new council member Dennis McHugh and others in the audience that they would be surprised just how much Madison controls what they're able to do.
More hypocrisy from Mr. Castle, especially considering the AG's opinion is "just another attorney's opinion" when it comes to things like the illegal bid-waiving on bathroom construction at the Leach Amphitheater and the closed session meeting in February to discuss what most of us strongly believe were a developer's finances, etc. (despite the fact that the days of negotiating on the Five Rivers project have been over for some time, according to at least one of your own council members, Paul Esslinger)
Certainly we don't want our council - or any elected body - making decisions on things the public hasn't had an opportunity to comment on. But it is funny, how the council wasn't worried about that when it came to the donated fishing pier or some of the other things they've rushed through. It's also interesting how the council, the mayor, the city attorney's office and the city manager's office all pick and choose which AG opinions they're going to follow and which ones they're not. Even more curious is the fact that any time the opinions seem to lean in favor of the citizens, the city chooses to ignore that opinion and go the other way.
Fortunately the council today had the good sense to leave citizen statements and council member statements alone, despite Castle wanting to restrict citizen statements to one time per quarter per citizen and council member statements to things related to city business. Kudos to them for leaving things as they are.
- Cheryl Hentz
Whether Scheuermann would have been a better choice, or Tower, or even someone else, this move by Castle strikes me as being quite hypocritical. Even though he saw there was overwhelming support for Burk Tower, why not at least have the courage of his convictions (and, in this case, his nomination) and at least vote for the person whom he said on two different occasions he supported? His "final answer" leaves me scratching my head.
The other thing that continues to amaze me is this silliness that council members cannot make council member statements about things not noticed on the agenda ahead of time by the city clerk. There was quite a bit of discussion held on this matter during today's meeting and in the end the message was "Well, the Attorney General's office says..." Then came a real interesting comment from Castle, in which he told new council member Dennis McHugh and others in the audience that they would be surprised just how much Madison controls what they're able to do.
More hypocrisy from Mr. Castle, especially considering the AG's opinion is "just another attorney's opinion" when it comes to things like the illegal bid-waiving on bathroom construction at the Leach Amphitheater and the closed session meeting in February to discuss what most of us strongly believe were a developer's finances, etc. (despite the fact that the days of negotiating on the Five Rivers project have been over for some time, according to at least one of your own council members, Paul Esslinger)
Certainly we don't want our council - or any elected body - making decisions on things the public hasn't had an opportunity to comment on. But it is funny, how the council wasn't worried about that when it came to the donated fishing pier or some of the other things they've rushed through. It's also interesting how the council, the mayor, the city attorney's office and the city manager's office all pick and choose which AG opinions they're going to follow and which ones they're not. Even more curious is the fact that any time the opinions seem to lean in favor of the citizens, the city chooses to ignore that opinion and go the other way.
Fortunately the council today had the good sense to leave citizen statements and council member statements alone, despite Castle wanting to restrict citizen statements to one time per quarter per citizen and council member statements to things related to city business. Kudos to them for leaving things as they are.
- Cheryl Hentz
posted by Cheryl Hentz at 1:06 PM
<< Home