Annapolis Capital Punishment

We heard a lot of testimony Monday night, both for and against creating a city manager, as well as some that was hard to decipher whether it was for or against, and some that supported a referendum--which may be happening anyway. Thanks to Mayor Moyer's apparent inability to keep testimony to the allotted three-minute rule, all testimony that evening went on...and on. CP got to speak about 10:15 with other's finishing up about 10:35. Please, Madame Mayor---three minutes! Please exercise some leadership and facilitation skills. If you let everyone else go over, then so will I. And finally, Madam Mayor, please review my previous post of January 26 where I wrote in advance of Monday's testimony:

"However, if you support the Arnett-Israel bill as I do, don't be surprised if the mayor browbeats you, argues, tries to intimidate or otherwise make you feel like an idiot for actually speaking your mind. She needs to get the last word. That's just Ellen. Put up with it for another year."

True to form, you had to get the last word. You had to argue with many of we the people who came before you to testify. You hassled me and had to get your digs in--didn't you? You said that I was not painting an "honest portrait". The heck with you! I told you not to lecture me about painting an honest portrait about anything. I told you that if you wanted to write comments, I would publish them here--right here. You shot back that I was just looking for free advertising!
Well here it is--free advertising ELLEN O MOYER ELLEN O MOYER ELLEN O MOYER ELLEN O MOYER.... (There now-better? Hey buy some ads from me and I'll shut up and write only nice things about you). There you are sitting in the big chair--in the bully pulpit--and you have the audacity to argue with we the people who come to speak at a public hearing! We who pay your salary and voted you into office!

Here are a few thoughts, with the understanding that I am fully in favor of the CA-04-08, the true city manager amendment.

There was testimony against the bill from residents who were unfamiliar to me, and I don't think I've ever seen them at Council Chambers, most of whom, based on addresses given, are probably residents of public housing--and there was major testimony on a public housing issue that night as well. Why the sudden apparent interest in this issue on the part of these Johnny-come-latelys to the rough and tumble world of politics? One can only speculate. A young woman, mistakenly said that it is mainly the largest cities that have managers (wrong) and then, without any sense of irony, cited neighboring Virginia as having 139 cities, of which all but one have a city manager, noting how that happens to be Richmond, its capital. "I wonder why that is?" she rhetorically asked.

Hmmm.... She was trying to oppose this by showing how nearly every city dweller in Virginia. and probably a majority of all within the state, lives in a city with a professional city manager? She showed one city out of the 139 to make her point, unwittingly making the opposite point. Richmond is the fifth largest city in Virginia, meaning that cities large and small have city managers in VA, but either way, what point was she trying to make--and, I can't help but wonder--why out of the blue, does this young lady suddenly come up with rather esoteric trivia about this issue? It makes no sense. Alderwoman Classie Hoyle then chimed in, noting how the young lady is a new member of the HACA Board (or some such public housing body or association--I did not hear it completely) and how she is very impressed with this young lady. Yes. Very impressed...indeed. Maybe her same research skills could be applied to public housing.

Former Republican Mayor Dean Johnson spoke in favor as did Democratic mayoral hopeful Trudy McFall, as did Ward One Association President Doug Smith as did many others. The Republican Central Committee's Mike Dye spoke on behalf of a city manager--hooray! Despite the sponsorship of three Democrats, and the support of many Democratic activists, I have yet to hear them weigh in officially....Dema are treading cautiously. The Green Party's Karen Jennings came to speak about the Obery Court issue--but her party has not said a word about the city manager issue as far as I can tell.

Josh Cohen's Legislative Aide and Democratic stalwart, Gail Smith, spoke out against a city manager on behalf of Cohen.

And now we come to to the issue of Don Lamb Minor, who again spoke out against the city manager amendment, but the following must be noted:
He is a paid political consultant to Mayor Moyer--paid out of public funds
He also serves as a member of the Supervisor of Elections Board
The business he co-owns with his wife has received contracts from Mayor Moyer

Can you say conflict of interest? Of course he can testify as a private citizen, but a couple of questions arise. For example, is he working on city time on behalf of the mayor's personal agenda? He attends the hearings of the Rules Committee, where so much of the debate about these amendments have taken place.

For example, at the January 5 Rules Committee meeting, CP was surprised to learn it was televised--and then rebroadcast a number of times. As soon as you saw the mayor walk in the room you knew the reason--she wanted to use the airwaves to make a statement! (Talk about advertising!!!) The mayor tried to discredit the Arnett/Israel city manager amendment by claiming a true city manager government has the aldermen elected at large, and if Alderman Israel was going to propose a city manager structure, it should have all have aldermen elected at large.

Alderman Cordle complained it was hard enough for an alderman to run a campaign in a ward, and that a city-wide election would be too expensive and too difficult to try to reach voters in every ward. Hoyle and Israel objected on the basis that we have a diverse city, and people in some wards would not get any representation if aldermen were elected at large. The mayor’s idea was rejected.

CP also wonders why Don Lamb-Minor attends the meetings where city manager is discussed. Has he made it public that he is now working as a paid consultant for the mayor? Might that personal agenda be to oppose the city manager charter amendment? Does he get contracts because of his personal affiliation with the mayor? Is it appropriate that a political consultant should be doing any kind of testifying or lobbying on issues in the city in which he lives--in front of at least one person (if not more) who approve his contracts? In other words, am I and others who support a city manager paying Don Lamb Minor to testify in opposition to us?.....questions.....more questions....but answers?


Please send comments, subscribe, share with your friends, and support our sponsors. Join us at Ahh Coffee! in Eastport almost every Thursday from 8-9 am.