Top of the evening (meetings)

Originally I was going to make this a simple comment to Julie’s post but figured I’d rather have the forum to myself – she can feel free to link to my reaction.

I look at it this way, as a logical manner. The County Council meets twice a month and we have five months remaining until the general election – in other words, ten meetings.

Under the rules in place, two of these meetings (July 6 and October 5) would be held at night, with the other eight being morning meetings.

With the compromise measure, five meetings would be night meetings and five would be daytime. Right now, the difference is three meetings. Certainly that would be a better situation for some, but for me it wouldn’t be the ideal hill to die on. Even Prettyman is quoted as saying she has nothing against night meetings despite the fact she voted against the latest effort, which lost in a 3-3 tie because John Cannon was away tending to family matters.

My point is that we have a ready-made issue for the next election, and the dynamics are interesting.

The loudest opponents of going to a totally evening schedule have been Bill McCain and David MacLeod, both Democrats. We already know McCain isn’t running again, so presumably we can pick up a vote there.

Meanwhile, the Republicans on County Council have generally favored the switch. We all know Stevie Prettyman is running again as is Gail Bartkovich and presumably Joe Holloway. It leaves John Cannon and Sheree Sample-Hughes as swing votes; however, Sheree’s affirmative vote on the last proposal may be in some part because she is the first County Council member to draw an opponent in Dave Goslee, Jr.

Former Councilman Ed Taylor and newcomer Ryan Hohman are in the race for at-large County Council positions (one of which will open up with McCain’s departure) and their stance on the night meetings can be made into an issue as well.

So, I suppose my thought is not to sweat the small stuff but make it into an issue of good government where leadership on the concept can be rewarded this November at the ballot box.

Author: Michael

It's me from my laptop computer.

11 thoughts on “Top of the evening (meetings)”

  1. Ryan’s running for council? That’s great news.

    Joe’s running again. I was at the Board of Elections getting some registration cards and he was there, too, registering for re-election.

  2. Just some further thoughts on the subject.

    I’m not really sweating it, I’m just flabbergasted that such a simple request, one that most people support, has encountered such resistance for so long. Just think how hard the tough subjects are to influence. Further; Stevie was a real disappointment, as she voted for night meetings, before she was against them… suddenly on a phony “constancy” concern. She could of at least been honest, instead of insulting everyone. MacCleod also promised to vote for it and turned around and didn’t. I don’t care who’s an R or a D. I judge by their actions and this was a real thumbs down to Stevie for me. While we all try to get involved to help our own community the council is busy playing what appears to be a back room shell game. It’s just maddening to me, but your right there are some options this November.

  3. RC, have you actually talked to Stevie, instead of impugning her motives? I am disappointed in her vote, too, but I think it’s a leap to think she’s being dishonest or that her concerns are “phony.” People can have differing opinions on this issue without one person having bad motives. Questioning the character of someone who disagrees with you on this issue without any evidence of a “back room shell game” is wrong.

    While I disagree with Stevie’s reasoning on this issue, she does express a legitimate concern. Do you have any evidence to think she’s being dishonest or do you just say that because you don’t like the way she voted?.

  4. No Marc, I said that I had not talked to about her recent vote, however I have had this discussion with her and the others for well over a year. I do intend talk to her AGAIN about it after I get over being insulted about her latest comments. I have talked to her until the cows come home however, on this very issue for over a year. I’m not sure that there is anything new to say.She had promised to support this venture and so I guess she changed her mind because it not “consistent”. I call BS because the evidence shows that there are already night meetings that are in fact inconsistent. I do know from council members that they discuss how they are going to vote before the vote. I am drawing a rational conclusion when I see Prettyman and Sample-Hughes flip flop like they did….and quite frankly when you make a promise to your constituency as she did to me and use some minor technicality to break that promise, I’m going to call it as i see it. Something else was at play here.

  5. Jumping to conclusions that “something else was at play here” seems very premature. Prettyman has a different view on this from you (and I’m in agreement with you on the substance of the issue) but it doesn’t mean she’s being dishonest. It’s a simple difference of opinion. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they are acting from base motives or that there is some grand conspiracy at play. If “something else” is at play here, what is it? What possible motive would Prettyman have for opposing this?

    You are making charges of dishonesty, underhanded motives, and a larger conspiracy with no evidence and without even talking to Prettyman. With all respect, that’s not a “rational conclusion.”

  6. I don’t know exactly what her motive is for opposing it, as I know is she was for it before she was against it and I don’t buy her rational. I don’t think that’s a difference of opinion I think I’m saying I don’t buy it. One thing she has continually said is that she believes that turn out is “issue based” not “time based”. Perhaps if she had said that was her reasoning I wouldn’t being saying that her inconstancy about the issue was suspect because she now finds the timing inconsistent. My opinion is that she really doesn’t want to be bothered with changing her schedule. It’s obvious to me if she supported holding the meetings in the evening she would of voted for the move in that direction.As it stands now the turn out is rather dismal during the day for the most part, and fairly robust at the night meetings. If buy underhanded motives, you mean they don’t want to be inconvenienced, then I’ll agree with you that I am saying that. Larger conspiracy? Not so much except that it’s likely much of the council feels the same way given their response to it. I am however saying it is interesting that Sample Hughes would suddenly change her mind about it the same time Prettyman did. I consider that suspect, given that Sample Hughes has long opposed it. I’m not making a huge ordeal out of it, I am simply stating my thoughts on the subject, which is to me it doesn’t add up. I have a right to my opinion too you know.

  7. I’m not saying you don’t have a right to your opinion, RC. I am saying that it’s not a “rational conclusion” to accuse Prettyman of lying when she has presented a perfectly reasonable justification for her vote. Disagree with her reasons all you want (as you have done so in pointing out that it’s a move in the right direction and all that) but there is no reason to think that she’s being dishonest. But when there is no evidence she’s lying and you haven’t even talked to her about it, jumping to a charge of dishonesty is not a rational conclusion.

  8. Marc, I’m not jumping to conclusions, I’ve stated serval times that I’ve talked to her about the issue for over a year. I’ve heard what she has said and that is she doesn’t want night meetings.

  9. Let me add to this. I can not WAIT to speak to her publicly, in the format this deserves.Ii’ll even take off work for it for all the community to see or who ever watches PAC 14. to make my commentary and the least of which will have been said on my blog.

Comments are closed.