City Council Meeting Audio 1/09/08

This was a relatively short, but very telling meeting. We were shown who was really in control. And we were shown our places.

The first bit of tension to be to be touched upon was the legal question surrounding Mrs Panto's appointment/reappointment to the Charter-made Council seat. We were taken all the way to the end of the table for the ruling. Now keep in mind that the appearance of familiarity; the appearance of a conflict; or the appearance of collusion are not against the rules or the law-- so they may not (of course) be key considerations as we make decisions. And they weren't... Furthermore, any talk of such nonsense will be duly ignored. Mrs Panto's appointment was cleared by the Assistant Solicitor (you see for this ruling the "Solicitor" was too close to the Mayor).

I feel so stupid.

Later in the meeting Roger Ruggles was appointed to Councilman Dan Corpora's vacated seat. There was angst and controversy surrounding the procedure used there to. Mind you, all of the protest, angst, and controversy was sponsored by the same group of advocates/trouble makers (depends on your vantage point).

Now, we could have appointed both Mrs Panto and Mr Ruggles with the very minimum discomfort with just the tiniest bit of thought.

First; the procedures and steps to fill the vacancies should have been posted and made available for everyone's review shortly after the elections.

Second; the charter transition committee should have been convened to go over the FIFTY ONE PAGES of the charter, and address the transition issues like 2.05 (c).

Third; Roger Ruggles should have been voted into the Charter-made position.

Fourth; Pam Panto should have been voted through the vacancy Dan Corpora created.

Yes, there would have still been grumbling over Mr and Mrs Panto serving together, but there would be far fewer elephants in the room.

City Grade for the period of 01/02/08 through 01/09/08

Audio (1 hour 27 minutes 10Mb)

Agenda

Minutes

City Council Farewell and Reorganization Meetings

Out with the old, in with the old and new...

Last night City council held two meetings. The beginning of the session was the farewell meeting of the City's Third Class City Code Council. The ending was the reorganization meeting for the City's first Home Rule Charter Council.

The evening was mostly ceremonial. The only uncomfortable moments swirled around the appointment of Pam Panto to the newly-made (Home Rule Charter) Council seat.

Now, let me just interject some for-the-record editorial...

For me, the issue has never been Pam Panto serving on Council. The issue is Pam Panto being APPOINTED to City Council WHILE her husband is in-charge of it. As I said to Mrs Panto on election night, it would be different and less controversial if she ran in two years.

Appointments to political positions are arguably the most abused of all political processes. We see it time and time again. Just this last cycle we saw it in D.C. (remember the fine job Brownie did in Louisiana?) and we got a good slaterin' of it at County Council with the appointments of McClure and Branco (the party politics choke hold).

It would have been a hugely symbolic gesture if we could have avoided the appointment of Pam Panto as an issue. It would have made it obvious to any doubters that power was not an issue. As I said to WFMZ, "I know and trust the Pantos and so do hundreds of others, BUT there are a lot more people that have no idea what they are like personally." So for the Pantos to say things like "we're individuals and we think for ourselves" works fine for me, but what about everyone else?

If someone like John Stoffa (whom I do not know personally) told me to trust him enough to appoint his wife (whom I also do not know) to County Council, should I just turn off my scrutinizer and say OK because of his words?

Bottom line. Liking someone is not enough for me to allow them to do something that I would not allow someone I did not know, like, or trust to do.

I accepted the fact that Pam Panto was going to get appointed. And I am fine with it, because I like her and respect her a lot. Is that enough?

What I did not like was the way that Council handled the voting. Nominating one candidate from a field of five (when you have to favor two anyway) injures the democratic notion of one-man one-vote. It creates one-candidate no-vote. The Charter Commission had the foresight to protect Council members' votes from losing significance by instituting the rolling roll-call (the voting order rotates through the members). And, one more thing, when a vote is of that magnitude it would serve us all a lot better if everyone made a statement with their vote. Last night's voting was very discouraging. It was uncomfortable when only one person was nominated the first time, but it was insulting when Jeff Warren nominated Ken Brown. Hmm, the new guy appoints the Vice Mayor. That was a demonstration of power that I hope to never witness in city Hall again.

OK, I wish only the best to our new Council and the Mayor. Mayor Panto's vision for the city is shared by us here at EU.

One more, one more thing... I am officially never giving anymore TV interviews. two minutes of talking about the Charter gets me 10 seconds of somewhat out of context airtime. And as most of you know I can hardly afford the 10lbs that TV adds.

Farewell Session Audio(30 minutes 30 seconds 2.49Mb)

Reorganization session Audio(52 minutes 12 seconds 5.97Mb)

You Want Something From Me, I Expect Some Things From You

Some very important issues have been, and are being, hashed out at various city public meetings this summer.

The City’s work is NEVER done, nor is the people’s.

Question #1: If an Eastonian is running for City Councilperson is it reasonable to expect them to (at a minimum) show up at City Council meetings?

I believe “yes”.

Question #2: Is it necessary for a candidate to engage in dialogue on City issues and to advocate for potential constituents?

I think “certainly”.

Question #3: Should we expect the Mayor and Council members to be at very important public meetings?

I say “absolutely”.

Actually, I am of the mind that candidates should be at EVERY important public meeting, and they should be participants. I am not saying that I think a single candidate should be at every public forum. I am saying that there should be candidates at all of the meetings, and each individual candidate should strive to be at as many important public meetings as possible. And the one’s that do attend should participate.

Let’s analyze this in parts. As a candidate for the City Council of the City of Easton you would like me to cast a ballot for you in the November general election. When I cast a ballot for you I expect that you will represent me, and meet the minimum requirement of attending City Council meetings. How can I, in good faith, trust you to fulfill your basic duties if you do not make a satisfactory effort to do so during your campaign?

If you are not around to gain firsthand accounts of the issues and their disposition why should I wait for you to catch up in January?

If you are not dedicated enough or capable of (for whatever reasons) being at important City meetings then, to me, you are unelectable. And if you are banking on voters not knowing that you are not engaged; you are a fraud, and we all need to question your motives for seeking public office.

OK, I am done with the no shows—on to the silent representation.

I intend to vote for advocates. Meaning I expect my candidates to be actively engaged on my behalf. I will cast my votes based on the way you deal with the City’s issues. It angers me to see smart, articulate citizens withhold their offerings in the name of campaigning. I say start building your record now. Aren’t your neighbors worth it?

In the case of those to whom our trust has been placed, we have a reasonable right to expect you to be where the action is. It is your burden to work for us. And I understand it is not an easy one; but it is, in fact, the one you asked us to bestow upon you.

I was very disappointed to see only one City Council member, and not one member of the administration, present at the two most important Home Rule Charter Commission meetings on July 12th and 14th. These were the meetings where citizens could impact the final disposition of the charter proposal. It was equally disheartening that the four City Council candidates not on the commission failed to participate even by written correspondence in a City issue of such a great magnitude. (Mayoral candidate Gary Bertsch did attend and participate)

The Mayor and City Council members need to be at Charter Commission meetings. After all, the Mayor and Council unanimously endorsed, presented, and voted to place the commission on the ballot in May of 2006.

The final 3 Home Rule Charter Commission meetings are on July 23rd, 24th, and 26th. Written comments are also currently being accepted.

Your Neighbor

Home Rule Charter Commission Public Comment Meetings 07/12/07 & 07/14/07

The City of Easton Home Rule Charter Commission held two public meetings solely for the purpose of receiving citizen input on the draft charter proposal. The meetings were sparsely attended, but those who did attend and comment gave productive feedback to the commission.

Councilwoman Vulcano was the only elected official in attendance, and the Gary Bertsch was the only city candidate in attendance that was not on the commission (El Warner, Roger Ruggles, and Sal Panto Jr. are Commissioners). Commission Chair, State Representative Robert (Bob) Freeman was in session in Harrisburg (I watched the Saturday session on PCN-- all talk; no action).

Please, read through the draft Charter(http://eastonundressed.org/hr_charter/HRCdraftcharter.pdf) and send the commission your input before July 23, 2007. The draft will be final on July 26, 2007. Email the commission at charterstudy@easton-pa.gov

Audio:
Tuesday, July 12, 2007 (2 hours 13 minutes 15.2Mb)

Saturday, July 14, 2007 (1 hour 08 minutes 7.01Mb)

Your Neighbors