But: Why is it that something so plainly telegraphed comes forward for consideration during a special council meeting? Why not before, packaged and positioned to inform and succeed? Why, for something this important, do only five of nine council members bother attending the special meeting?
Fortunately, the New Albanist has been analyzing these latest instances of New Albany's chronic, malingering political dysfunction, and provides welcomed clarity in this essay at his blog: Tail Wags Dog, June 2010 Edition.
Here's a teaser ... but you really must read the whole piece.
... I believe Dan Coffey’s vote was a bad vote. He favors annexation, but used this moment to strike a blow for his and the council’s prerogatives. So nobody wins. Not Coffey. Not England. Not the residents of New Albany.For more on the annexation vote:
In the ongoing game of Red Rover, the players again got roughed up. The barometer of ill will goes up a bit more.
There’s no excuse for bringing this annexation measure forward with so little time for the fiscal plan to be examined. And there’s no excuse for Coffey’s “no” vote or for the boycott by the other members.
ANNEXATION: YES OR NO?, at the Voice of the People blog.
Dan Coffey slays the annexation dragon ... for now. (NAC)
3 comments:
Bravo Mr. Smith
I loved it.
I must add that I don't completely agree with your conclusion on who is the real tail but this is the type of article that needs to dress the Tribune.
There are some finer details that need to be distinguished but in all a great article.
And while I’m at it, Matt Nashe’s recent articles have been much appreciated.
Jameson, my "conclusion," if there was one, read like this:
...you can be sure that dozens of tails are wagging the city dog on dozens of issues – the ones you know and the ones you don’t know.
I think I got a little excited by the end and finished quickly.
no enduendo intended
thanks for the clearification
Post a Comment