Mr. Smith - saying that "we are not arrogant or condescending" is similar to saying "I'm classy" or "I'm cool"; it's evidence to the contrary.
It is not clear what the council thought they would gain by having Mr. Smith appear. I assume they wanted something productive, something that would help citizens understand the lawsuit. Instead they got a socially tone-deaf play-by-play of the case. I suspect this will not be well-received by the target audience as a good faith effort at reunification between the city and concerned citizens.
Boo, sir. Boo.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Too true! Thanks Bloggermouse for a good take on tonight's meeting.
No, it will not be well received by the critics because the truth runs contrary to their public rhetoric. The truth is that there is no imminent final ruling in this case that favors Mr Gordon. The truth is that the so-called arrogant statement by Mr Smith was simply a legal phrase that had specific meaning of law to the court and likely had the same meaning to some of the critics who chose to twist it into something else. My take on the meeting is that the Council was satisfied with the status of this case and Mr Smith's work on it.
Anon@12:50 -
"The truth is that there is no imminent final ruling in this case that favors Mr Gordon."
See, that took all of 10 seconds. Easy peasey and without rhetorical jabs at the opponent. I believe that kind of presentation would have been better received.
"My take on the meeting is that the Council was satisfied with the status of this case and Mr Smith's work on it."
I agree that is likely the council's position.
It is still not clear to me what Mr. Smith's presentation was intended (by the council) to achieve. I suspect they wanted something along the lines of your summary above. What they got was altogether different.
If the council wanted:
1. a brief, layman's explanation for the public
or
2. to convince/appease/quieten the crititcs
then I don't think they got their money's worth Monday night.
ANon@12:50
I was at the hearing. I heard Mr. Smith's argument. I saw him wave his hand back towards the completely filled courtroom (not just a few visitors as Mr. Smith claimed Monday night) and say "the only reason they're here is to say "I told you so." (Not a specific legal phrase) I heard his answer to a question one of the judges asked: (Shouldn't citizens know what went on in these[closed] meetings?) His answer was, "They don't deserve to know." (Not a specific legal phrase)
So what I heard did not have a "specific meaning of law to the court, as Mr. Smith insisted Monday night." His tone was arrogant, and his words were demeaning at that hearing.
If the Council wanted to know how it went, then they should have appeared in court.
Mr. Smith's recitation of the lawsuit from beginning to where it is today (awaiting a decision) was typical of the City: Over an hour of telling a story that puts the city in the best light. Just like the two hour August fiction of how great Sherrill Park Golf Course is doing (not).
You sir, probably did not attend the hearing;
if you had you would have rejected out of hand the spin you passed along in this space.
I have attended all the court proceedings. To add one more point to this, let's regress back to the hearing in the district court where Mr Smith said to Judge Hoffmann, "The city council can have as many illegal meetings as they want, as long as they ratify their decisions in public". And the judge replied, "I don't read the TOMA that way".
That is rather difficult to dispute as legal rhetoric, don't you think? Way to go Mr. Gordon, for standing stong on community.
To go a step further, Bob Macy's position of "I don't see how we can have a government without secret meetings" is downright disturbing. As a RC-endorsed candidate, now council member, his comments run the EXACT opposite of the RC's recent email touting "transparency."
The mayor, council, city manager, and others involved in this sham government routinely abuse the people they are sworn to represent. What is it going to take for the voters to WAKE UP?
Post a Comment