Correction:
The Williamson A.M. has a piece today that inaccurately portrays the events of a meeting. First of all, I am the Ward 2 alderman, not the Ward 3 alderman as has been reported twice this week (once I figured was a typo, twice is an error both times).
Second, I did indicate that I wanted to have a follow-up meeting on the step pay plan quickly, and to accomodate that I indicated that I would make myself available during the day. I did not indicate a preference for a day-time meeting and I did not suggest a day-time meeting rather than an evening meeting.
Third, my "outburst" came after Mr. Johnson said that an alderman had requested that no meetings ever be scheduled during the business day. To that, I inquired if the alderman in question was on the committee that was trying to schedule a meeting. Mr. Johnson said the alderman with the perpetual day-time schedule conflict was NOT on the committee we were trying to schedule. It was then that I said, in so many words, that I was not worried about the schedule conflicts of an alderman who wasn't even on the committee for which we were trying to schedule a meeting.
I feel better now.
Second, I did indicate that I wanted to have a follow-up meeting on the step pay plan quickly, and to accomodate that I indicated that I would make myself available during the day. I did not indicate a preference for a day-time meeting and I did not suggest a day-time meeting rather than an evening meeting.
Third, my "outburst" came after Mr. Johnson said that an alderman had requested that no meetings ever be scheduled during the business day. To that, I inquired if the alderman in question was on the committee that was trying to schedule a meeting. Mr. Johnson said the alderman with the perpetual day-time schedule conflict was NOT on the committee we were trying to schedule. It was then that I said, in so many words, that I was not worried about the schedule conflicts of an alderman who wasn't even on the committee for which we were trying to schedule a meeting.
I feel better now.
posted by Alderman Dana McLendon at 6:25 AM
14 Comments:
Me too!
Maybe now that Robert Kriebel has a new job he will be available to work as an at-large alderman as he was elected by the people to do. Maybe sometime between now and election 2007 he'll start representing the people too.
you can forget Kriebel doing anything. He had two goals. One, to get his overlay. Two, to get Jay Johnson fired. He's 50/50. Even Lillian doesn't have much to say about him any more.
Who's Lillian?
Lillian Stewart is a former mayor of Franklin who has aligned herself with the "no growth" camp. She has twice campaigned door to door against me in my neighborhood.
I thought it was the slow down growth group?
Didn't She campaign for Mayor Miller in his slow, control growth platform?
Lillian Stewart has been the principal organizer of a group called the "Citizens for Good Growth Management." I labeled her a "no growth" advocate because I have never heard her advocate anything except "no growth." Maybe my perspective is in need of calibration. I know she went door to door against me twice in my neighborhood and I hold that against her.
I understand why you would feel that way. What I got from all that was a slow down, not a stop. That is all I know about that. What had me confused was the Mayor's slower, growth campaign when he ran, and her support of him? I guess its all Politics and that should explain it.
Thanks for the reply.
Lillian and anyone else can only pick from among the candidates on the ballot. You would have to ask her, but maybe it reduced simply to Lillian preferred Tom to Jerry and, apparently, anyone to me.
Dana,
As a guy your age with kids, why do you want to play with these bozos?
Enjoy your wife and boys w/out all of the drama....
You have served your community well. Now, go enjoy yourself!
Dana, You were awesome tonight at Boma. May your common sense spill over on the others.
Hey Dana< If we had slowed the growth in this city, don't you think that we wouldn't have most of the problems we now have? BOMA had their chance to slow the growth but voted it down last year and now we are stuck with a mess.
What needs to be passed by the BOMA so that a situation like the McKay's Mill mega-church invasion can be avoided in the future? It seems that local homeowners' associations can rid themselves of things as trivial as nonconforming mailboxes and flagpoles, and yet neighborhoods are powerless to prevent something as disruptive as the development of a huge activity center crammed into a residential space.
(Please note: Bethel World Outreach Center seems by like a wonderful organization and a credit to the planet, but it is a gross mismatch in scale to the proposed neighborhood location.)
To anonymous at 2/15/2006 06:49:59 AM
I have addressed the proposed and defeated moratorium at some length previously. For reasons I have already articulated, the proposed moratorium was not a panacea; rather, it was a placebo. By the way, the BOMA declined to annex property last night.
Post a Comment
<< Home