The third stakeholder meeting for the Wicomico County, Town of Mardela Springs, and City of Salisbury Water Resource Elements will be held on Monday, July 28th, starting at 6:00 PM at the Wicomico County Youth and Civic Center, Flanders Rooms 3 and 4.
Go here to read more.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Monday, July 21, 2008
The Connection Between a Deer and Open Government
By Terry E. Cohen, Council Member
Friday, Salisbury Zoo Director Joel Hamilton provided an update on the “perruque-headed” deer about which so many citizens have expressed concern or puzzlement, or both. I’d like to thank Mr. Hamilton for his comprehensive report to the council. The 3-page report appears below this post in images you can click to enlarge and read.
I appreciate Mr. Hamilton’s responsiveness to this situation. It’s unfortunate that my efforts last year to have a simple conversation in order to be responsive to constituent concerns could not have been met with a similar prompt and constructive reaction from the administration and council leadership. (See posts from this past week).
Deer Part 1,
Deer Part 2,
Deer Part 3
When legislators in our three-branch form of government are elected, they are not selected to merely sit in a room and rubber stamp law. They are elected to serve as representatives of the people. Doing so involves oversight and constituent service, not just legislation. I make the effort to do all three.
This situation with the deer became overly complicated by an obstructive approach to government that minimizes the importance of the legislator as a representative of the people. Before Councilwoman Debbie Campbell was even sworn in, an email from then-Council President Mike Dunn to Mayor Barrie Tilghman sought to find ways to keep Councilwoman Campbell from talking freely with department heads. Substitute a tax increase, wastewater treatment spills or any number of issues for the controversy over the deer and perhaps you can better appreciate the significance of this pattern.
If the administration “trusts the staff” as much as proclaimed, then let them operate as the adults I believe them to be, capable of making their own appointments and having conversations with legislators without the micromanagement and monitoring of their every exchange with the people’s duly elected representatives. Direct questions from Councilwoman Campbell and me to department heads for the purpose of oversight have been mislabeled at every opportunity as “demands” and “personal attacks” to undermine accountability and communication.
Communication is the bedrock of cooperation in achieving goals and a government responsive to the people. I know the difference between making inquiries and positive communication toward solutions versus directing staff.
It’s not my job to tell Mr. Hamilton what the best option is for the deer. For example, as he notes in his report, while surgery may be an option, it carries risks as well, from how anesthesia is administered to control of bleeding afterward. Even experts in any field will disagree on the best course of action for a situation.
Mr. Hamilton has made a commitment to look into care options, been prompt and comprehensive in his response, and provided an opportunity for the concerned public to better understand the animal and the situation. At this point in time, I think that effort is to be commended and needs to be allowed to progress.
As for the larger matter about hindering legislators in the performance of their duties, I can hope that, in time, the administration and council leadership will be more open and welcoming in the future. In the meantime, more citizens are taking notice and taking issue with being disenfranchised by such acts.
To read Mr. Hamiltons update click on the photos below to enlarge.
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Friday, Salisbury Zoo Director Joel Hamilton provided an update on the “perruque-headed” deer about which so many citizens have expressed concern or puzzlement, or both. I’d like to thank Mr. Hamilton for his comprehensive report to the council. The 3-page report appears below this post in images you can click to enlarge and read.
I appreciate Mr. Hamilton’s responsiveness to this situation. It’s unfortunate that my efforts last year to have a simple conversation in order to be responsive to constituent concerns could not have been met with a similar prompt and constructive reaction from the administration and council leadership. (See posts from this past week).
Deer Part 1,
Deer Part 2,
Deer Part 3
When legislators in our three-branch form of government are elected, they are not selected to merely sit in a room and rubber stamp law. They are elected to serve as representatives of the people. Doing so involves oversight and constituent service, not just legislation. I make the effort to do all three.
This situation with the deer became overly complicated by an obstructive approach to government that minimizes the importance of the legislator as a representative of the people. Before Councilwoman Debbie Campbell was even sworn in, an email from then-Council President Mike Dunn to Mayor Barrie Tilghman sought to find ways to keep Councilwoman Campbell from talking freely with department heads. Substitute a tax increase, wastewater treatment spills or any number of issues for the controversy over the deer and perhaps you can better appreciate the significance of this pattern.
If the administration “trusts the staff” as much as proclaimed, then let them operate as the adults I believe them to be, capable of making their own appointments and having conversations with legislators without the micromanagement and monitoring of their every exchange with the people’s duly elected representatives. Direct questions from Councilwoman Campbell and me to department heads for the purpose of oversight have been mislabeled at every opportunity as “demands” and “personal attacks” to undermine accountability and communication.
Communication is the bedrock of cooperation in achieving goals and a government responsive to the people. I know the difference between making inquiries and positive communication toward solutions versus directing staff.
It’s not my job to tell Mr. Hamilton what the best option is for the deer. For example, as he notes in his report, while surgery may be an option, it carries risks as well, from how anesthesia is administered to control of bleeding afterward. Even experts in any field will disagree on the best course of action for a situation.
Mr. Hamilton has made a commitment to look into care options, been prompt and comprehensive in his response, and provided an opportunity for the concerned public to better understand the animal and the situation. At this point in time, I think that effort is to be commended and needs to be allowed to progress.
As for the larger matter about hindering legislators in the performance of their duties, I can hope that, in time, the administration and council leadership will be more open and welcoming in the future. In the meantime, more citizens are taking notice and taking issue with being disenfranchised by such acts.
To read Mr. Hamiltons update click on the photos below to enlarge.
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Councilwoman Cohen on WICO Monday Morning, 7:40 a.m.
Monday, Terry Cohen will be Bill Reddish's guest on his show, "A.M. Salisbury," on WICO 1320AM at 7:40 a.m. to discuss issues of interest to local citizens.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Understanding Recent Developments With PAC 14
At last Monday night’s city council meeting, PAC14 Station Manager Mike Goodson came before council with a request for a letter of support to ask Comcast to add 85 cents to the cable subscriber fee. The purpose of the fee would be to generate almost $2 million over the next 8 years to fund a new facility for PAC14, which would include a community media center.
We had questions about a task force that was formed to spearhead this effort. PAC14 already has a duly appointed board with representatives from the city, county, and Salisbury University. (Editor’s Note: Debbie Campbell is the liaison from the Salisbury City Council.)
One question was, why was none of this brought through the duly appointed board? Why hasn’t that board been convened in a year-and-a-half? Another was, why was no one involved willing to disclose the names of the task force members or the task force’s meeting schedule?
We want to note that we are big supporters of PAC14 and its great value to our community. (Editor’s Note: Both Debbie Campbell and Terry Cohen went through training with PAC14 long before their elections. Debbie has encouraged many others to get the training, and Terry Cohen helped film the Jaycees’ celebration of Salisbury 275th Anniversary.)
We also want to emphasize that our questions are not intended to reflect negatively in any way on any member of the task force willing to give their time to support this important community asset. The question about who is on the task force has been answered by the administration. At the end of this post is a list of the members with a brief description (we assume written by the administration) after each name.
For us, the issues of appropriate process and transparency are important when dealing with both a publicly funded public asset such as PAC14 and consideration of any kind of rate increase to citizens. Maryland’s Task Force to Study the Effects of Cult Activities on Public Senior Higher Education Institutions is a good example of a task force formed through an open process and operating with a focus on transparency. That body complies with the Open Meetings Act even if not necessary and provides public input time at its meetings.
Also, the question regarding whether the city has honored its financial obligations in its payments to PAC14 in full accordance with the calculations articulated in the code remains unanswered.
As additional information becomes available, we will share it here. As soon as possible, we will post a download link to the audio of the July 14 council meeting so you can hear the discussion first hand. Per mention above, this is the list of Task Force members:
1. Phil Tilghman, former County Council Pres, long time PAC 14 show host of "One On One"
2. Charles ‘Chip’ Dashiell, Attorney at Law, former County Council member
3. Dr Nevins Todd
4. Bruce Patterson, Penn. Regional Med Cntr., chairman school building commission
5. Ed Kremer, retired Airport Commission President
6. Richard Holloway, local businessman (formerly with Chamber of Commerce)
7. Faye Wilson, Dr., Wico. Board of Ed Coord. of Communications & Parent/Community outreach, long-time local producer of BOE award winning show on PAC 14, "Working Together for Children"
8. Mike Scott, Dr., Prof Geosciences SU / DDHT (PAC 14's Digitizing Delmarva Heritage & Traditions)
9. Michael Pretl, Attorney at Law, associated with numerous health care orgs / and environmental orgs
10. Jim Rapp, former Sal Zoo Director / DELITE NP org
11. Gee Williams, Dir of Marketing Comm. Foundation of Eastern Shore
12. Sue Revelle, "Women Supporting Women", breast cancer org / PAC 14 program of same name
13. Thomas Robinson, Christ United Methodist Church, longest running local Access producers
14. Henrietta Parker, Wico Mentoring
15. Kevin Byrd, P.O. Box 2163, Salisbury, MD 21801
16. Eleanor Mulligan, 229 Canal Park Dr., Salisbury, MD
17. Mary DiBartolo, Department of Nursing, SU
18. Marion Keenan, President, Coastal Hospice.
We had questions about a task force that was formed to spearhead this effort. PAC14 already has a duly appointed board with representatives from the city, county, and Salisbury University. (Editor’s Note: Debbie Campbell is the liaison from the Salisbury City Council.)
One question was, why was none of this brought through the duly appointed board? Why hasn’t that board been convened in a year-and-a-half? Another was, why was no one involved willing to disclose the names of the task force members or the task force’s meeting schedule?
We want to note that we are big supporters of PAC14 and its great value to our community. (Editor’s Note: Both Debbie Campbell and Terry Cohen went through training with PAC14 long before their elections. Debbie has encouraged many others to get the training, and Terry Cohen helped film the Jaycees’ celebration of Salisbury 275th Anniversary.)
We also want to emphasize that our questions are not intended to reflect negatively in any way on any member of the task force willing to give their time to support this important community asset. The question about who is on the task force has been answered by the administration. At the end of this post is a list of the members with a brief description (we assume written by the administration) after each name.
For us, the issues of appropriate process and transparency are important when dealing with both a publicly funded public asset such as PAC14 and consideration of any kind of rate increase to citizens. Maryland’s Task Force to Study the Effects of Cult Activities on Public Senior Higher Education Institutions is a good example of a task force formed through an open process and operating with a focus on transparency. That body complies with the Open Meetings Act even if not necessary and provides public input time at its meetings.
Also, the question regarding whether the city has honored its financial obligations in its payments to PAC14 in full accordance with the calculations articulated in the code remains unanswered.
As additional information becomes available, we will share it here. As soon as possible, we will post a download link to the audio of the July 14 council meeting so you can hear the discussion first hand. Per mention above, this is the list of Task Force members:
1. Phil Tilghman, former County Council Pres, long time PAC 14 show host of "One On One"
2. Charles ‘Chip’ Dashiell, Attorney at Law, former County Council member
3. Dr Nevins Todd
4. Bruce Patterson, Penn. Regional Med Cntr., chairman school building commission
5. Ed Kremer, retired Airport Commission President
6. Richard Holloway, local businessman (formerly with Chamber of Commerce)
7. Faye Wilson, Dr., Wico. Board of Ed Coord. of Communications & Parent/Community outreach, long-time local producer of BOE award winning show on PAC 14, "Working Together for Children"
8. Mike Scott, Dr., Prof Geosciences SU / DDHT (PAC 14's Digitizing Delmarva Heritage & Traditions)
9. Michael Pretl, Attorney at Law, associated with numerous health care orgs / and environmental orgs
10. Jim Rapp, former Sal Zoo Director / DELITE NP org
11. Gee Williams, Dir of Marketing Comm. Foundation of Eastern Shore
12. Sue Revelle, "Women Supporting Women", breast cancer org / PAC 14 program of same name
13. Thomas Robinson, Christ United Methodist Church, longest running local Access producers
14. Henrietta Parker, Wico Mentoring
15. Kevin Byrd, P.O. Box 2163, Salisbury, MD 21801
16. Eleanor Mulligan, 229 Canal Park Dr., Salisbury, MD
17. Mary DiBartolo, Department of Nursing, SU
18. Marion Keenan, President, Coastal Hospice.
SALISBURY CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA
JULY 21, 2008
CONFERENCE ROOM 305
GOVERNMENT OFFICE BUILDING
4:30 p.m. Further discussion – West Road/Rinnier Annexation – Matt Hedger
5:15 p.m. Further discussion – election issues – Brenda Colegrove/Anthony Gutierrez
• Vacancies
• Tie votes
6:00 p.m. Water and Sewer Allocation Management Plan – Jim Caldwell
7:10 p.m. General discussion/upcoming agendas
7:15 p.m. Adjourn
Briefing Book
The Council reserves the right to convene in Closed Session
as permitted under the Annotated Code of Maryland 10-508(a)
CONFERENCE ROOM 305
GOVERNMENT OFFICE BUILDING
4:30 p.m. Further discussion – West Road/Rinnier Annexation – Matt Hedger
5:15 p.m. Further discussion – election issues – Brenda Colegrove/Anthony Gutierrez
• Vacancies
• Tie votes
6:00 p.m. Water and Sewer Allocation Management Plan – Jim Caldwell
7:10 p.m. General discussion/upcoming agendas
7:15 p.m. Adjourn
Briefing Book
The Council reserves the right to convene in Closed Session
as permitted under the Annotated Code of Maryland 10-508(a)
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Follow Up on Salisbury Zoo Deer – Part 3 of 3
By Terry E. Cohen, Council Member
If you would like to learn more about the condition of the Salisbury Zoo deer with the deformed antler mass on its head, you can check into some of the links I did last year and recently. I originally searched on something like “deformed antlers.” I can’t locate the original taxidermy site of mounted heads of deer, but the photos were similar to those found when you scroll down on this site:
Taxidermy Forum
That was where I first learned of the term “perruque.”
I also discovered “The Deer Vet,” Dr. English, in Australia. I read the questions and answers on this link:
Vet FAQs
His email was there, so I took a chance of sending in my own question, and to my pleasant surprise, Dr. English was kind enough to respond within one or two hours. He was essentially saying the condition could be treated surgically if the proper precautions were taken. This was a year ago, as detailed in Parts 1 and 2 below.
After Joe Albero contacted the council, mayor and administration with his deep concern about the expansion of the growths on the deer’s head as documented by a visitor to the zoo this past weekend, I told him of my inquiries last year and shared information about the Deer Vet and this link, which predicts a bad end for a deer with a perruque head:
Does this deer have a perruque head?
After Monday night’s meeting, I got to see the email from Joel Hamilton, the new director of the Salisbury Zoo, who outlined one step taken recently to attempt to deal with part of the growth (see Part 2 below). He shared this link to provide Mr. Albero. Cactus-Bucks
This was interesting because, although the condition description was similar, the antler deformity was different looking than the perruque, and the term matched the one in Mr. Messick’s reply of last year.
Another search today turned up another link. See the portion about “Velvet Bucks” within this article. Bizarre-Bucks
Finally, this link raises one risk that faces this deer: septicaemia (blood poisoning. Under “Antler Development,” the article states: “Septicaemia arising through infection of the perruque is a common cause of death in afflicted bucks.”
Wildlife online
As noted in Part 1 of this series, I understand individual legislators cannot direct staff. But as a representative of my constituents, it is my responsibility to share concerns and information and to request updates and responsiveness from the administration on citizens’ behalf. It’s my duty to protect assets of the city and its taxpayers, which this deer is.
Finally, as a human being and animal lover from birth, it’s simply my nature to care about this animal and want to see the best outcome for it.
If you would like to learn more about the condition of the Salisbury Zoo deer with the deformed antler mass on its head, you can check into some of the links I did last year and recently. I originally searched on something like “deformed antlers.” I can’t locate the original taxidermy site of mounted heads of deer, but the photos were similar to those found when you scroll down on this site:
Taxidermy Forum
That was where I first learned of the term “perruque.”
I also discovered “The Deer Vet,” Dr. English, in Australia. I read the questions and answers on this link:
Vet FAQs
His email was there, so I took a chance of sending in my own question, and to my pleasant surprise, Dr. English was kind enough to respond within one or two hours. He was essentially saying the condition could be treated surgically if the proper precautions were taken. This was a year ago, as detailed in Parts 1 and 2 below.
After Joe Albero contacted the council, mayor and administration with his deep concern about the expansion of the growths on the deer’s head as documented by a visitor to the zoo this past weekend, I told him of my inquiries last year and shared information about the Deer Vet and this link, which predicts a bad end for a deer with a perruque head:
Does this deer have a perruque head?
After Monday night’s meeting, I got to see the email from Joel Hamilton, the new director of the Salisbury Zoo, who outlined one step taken recently to attempt to deal with part of the growth (see Part 2 below). He shared this link to provide Mr. Albero. Cactus-Bucks
This was interesting because, although the condition description was similar, the antler deformity was different looking than the perruque, and the term matched the one in Mr. Messick’s reply of last year.
Another search today turned up another link. See the portion about “Velvet Bucks” within this article. Bizarre-Bucks
Finally, this link raises one risk that faces this deer: septicaemia (blood poisoning. Under “Antler Development,” the article states: “Septicaemia arising through infection of the perruque is a common cause of death in afflicted bucks.”
Wildlife online
As noted in Part 1 of this series, I understand individual legislators cannot direct staff. But as a representative of my constituents, it is my responsibility to share concerns and information and to request updates and responsiveness from the administration on citizens’ behalf. It’s my duty to protect assets of the city and its taxpayers, which this deer is.
Finally, as a human being and animal lover from birth, it’s simply my nature to care about this animal and want to see the best outcome for it.
Follow up on Salisbury Zoo Deer – Part 2 of 3
By Terry E. Cohen, Council Member
In this post, I share the July 18, 2007, letter about the perruque-headed deer at the Salisbury Zoo, which I provided to Ron Alessi, chair of the Salisbury Zoo Commission, and Gary Muir, who was then Interim Zoo Director, with a copy to the mayor.
Click to Enlarge
Following that is the response I received weeks later. Both letters help shed some light on the condition affecting this deer. I should note that the response letter seems to indicate that the decision to castrate was made by the medical team, when I’ve heard such decisions have been a joint decision of zoo personnel, right on up through the director.
Click to Enlarge
The 2007 response letter, which you can click to enlarge and read, refers to the deer as a “cactus buck.” This seems to be a term more common to sportsmen. When I look at pictures of “cactus bucks” and pictures of “perruque heads,” I believe this latter term (from the French for “wig”) suits our deer in the Salisbury Zoo better. In Part 3, I’ll post links that will help you learn more about these terms and deformities.
Click to Enlarge
Whether they are considered the same condition or not, their cause tends to be the same: testicular injury, castration, or otherwise caused hormonal imbalance, with even does being affected and displaying antlers. Other suspected causes, according to literature, include possible endocrine issues or other illness.
Although I’m reasonably well-versed in animals for a layperson, I’m not a vet and I’m not a deer, so I can’t tell you if the animal is suffering substantially or if it’s just a little uncomfortable, perhaps bothered more than is typical by itching and flies. If the deer is eating and drinking well, interacting normally with the other deer appropriately, in all likelihood, its quality of life may not be impacted seriously enough to warrant euthanasia.
My frustration with this situation as expressed last night is, options may be (or may have been) available to improve the deer’s condition, as I explained last year.. Left untreated, I suspect it will reach the euthanasia stage. (Again, this is just my opinion based on research.) The deer’s condition is visibly worse than a year ago, and no updates were forthcoming from the administration until the public was newly shocked by recent zoo visits and/or the release of a picture just taken by a visitor.
The final image below that you can click on and enlarge to read is the email from our new zoo director, Joel Hamilton, referenced by Council Member Shanie Shields last night. The email clarifies a representation Shields made about “tying off” the growth. The entire growth has not been banded, just the long pendulous extension by the deer’s left jaw.
Click to Enlarge
This is not a mole. It is not a tumor, unless one is classifying abnormal growth generally as a tumor. Mr. Hamilton’s email, like the other two images, explains what the condition is. He also provides an update and some reassurances from his vantage point. Please take the time to read these communications because they do provide information and perspective.
As for whether or not this deer should be on public display, especially with an attraction near and dear to small children, is another matter for debate. On one hand, learning about abnormalities in nature (naturally occurring or man-made) can lead to better understanding. On the other hand, one needs to ensure that such education is handled in a way that achieves that goal without unintended consequences, and that the first consideration is the well-being of the animal.
If options exist to improve its condition or comfort, I hope the administration will ensure they are explored. As I said last night, I offered a specialist resource with whom contact would not cost a cent. We spend substantial taxpayer dollars to be members of the American Zoological Association (AZA) and the association for zookeepers. Perhaps these networks can be tapped for ideas and options.
I thank Mr. Hamilton for promptly responding in a way that council members can share with the public, and I leave the public to draw its own conclusions about this information.
In this post, I share the July 18, 2007, letter about the perruque-headed deer at the Salisbury Zoo, which I provided to Ron Alessi, chair of the Salisbury Zoo Commission, and Gary Muir, who was then Interim Zoo Director, with a copy to the mayor.
Click to EnlargeFollowing that is the response I received weeks later. Both letters help shed some light on the condition affecting this deer. I should note that the response letter seems to indicate that the decision to castrate was made by the medical team, when I’ve heard such decisions have been a joint decision of zoo personnel, right on up through the director.
Click to EnlargeThe 2007 response letter, which you can click to enlarge and read, refers to the deer as a “cactus buck.” This seems to be a term more common to sportsmen. When I look at pictures of “cactus bucks” and pictures of “perruque heads,” I believe this latter term (from the French for “wig”) suits our deer in the Salisbury Zoo better. In Part 3, I’ll post links that will help you learn more about these terms and deformities.
Click to EnlargeWhether they are considered the same condition or not, their cause tends to be the same: testicular injury, castration, or otherwise caused hormonal imbalance, with even does being affected and displaying antlers. Other suspected causes, according to literature, include possible endocrine issues or other illness.
Although I’m reasonably well-versed in animals for a layperson, I’m not a vet and I’m not a deer, so I can’t tell you if the animal is suffering substantially or if it’s just a little uncomfortable, perhaps bothered more than is typical by itching and flies. If the deer is eating and drinking well, interacting normally with the other deer appropriately, in all likelihood, its quality of life may not be impacted seriously enough to warrant euthanasia.
My frustration with this situation as expressed last night is, options may be (or may have been) available to improve the deer’s condition, as I explained last year.. Left untreated, I suspect it will reach the euthanasia stage. (Again, this is just my opinion based on research.) The deer’s condition is visibly worse than a year ago, and no updates were forthcoming from the administration until the public was newly shocked by recent zoo visits and/or the release of a picture just taken by a visitor.
The final image below that you can click on and enlarge to read is the email from our new zoo director, Joel Hamilton, referenced by Council Member Shanie Shields last night. The email clarifies a representation Shields made about “tying off” the growth. The entire growth has not been banded, just the long pendulous extension by the deer’s left jaw.
Click to EnlargeThis is not a mole. It is not a tumor, unless one is classifying abnormal growth generally as a tumor. Mr. Hamilton’s email, like the other two images, explains what the condition is. He also provides an update and some reassurances from his vantage point. Please take the time to read these communications because they do provide information and perspective.
As for whether or not this deer should be on public display, especially with an attraction near and dear to small children, is another matter for debate. On one hand, learning about abnormalities in nature (naturally occurring or man-made) can lead to better understanding. On the other hand, one needs to ensure that such education is handled in a way that achieves that goal without unintended consequences, and that the first consideration is the well-being of the animal.
If options exist to improve its condition or comfort, I hope the administration will ensure they are explored. As I said last night, I offered a specialist resource with whom contact would not cost a cent. We spend substantial taxpayer dollars to be members of the American Zoological Association (AZA) and the association for zookeepers. Perhaps these networks can be tapped for ideas and options.
I thank Mr. Hamilton for promptly responding in a way that council members can share with the public, and I leave the public to draw its own conclusions about this information.
Follow Up on Deer at Zoo – Part 1 of 3
By Terry E. Cohen, Council Member
Last night at the city council meeting, I raised the status of the Salisbury Zoo’s perruque-headed deer. I was elected to be responsive to the concerns of citizens, to be a representative, and would like to take this opportunity to share communications from my involvement.
While my political critics may call this airing dirty laundry, I think in light of last night’s 3-to-2 council decision to further block the free flow of information to representatives and to the citizens directly, this is a valuable exchange for the public to view. You can judge for yourself if my communications to staff were disrespectful, as the mayor has often accused me. You can ask yourself why the mayor seemed more concerned about protocol and control than the welfare of the animal.
When the deer was first brought to my attention last year by a number of concerned citizens, I sent an email to then-Interim Zoo Director Gary Muir on July 5, 2007. I come from a long political and legislative background where open communication is used to solve problems, so it was natural for me to send this request. The text of that email was:
Mr. Muir,
First, thank you for consenting to serve as interim zoo director following Mr. Rapp's departure. That willingness to serve is very appreciated, and I'm sure your long experience with the Salisbury Zoo will be beneficial in the position.
I'd like to ask for your help regarding the perruque-headed deer at the zoo. Some residents have expressed concern over its well-being, so this weekend I did some research and actually communicated about the condition with an Australian veterinarian who specializes in deer.
Would you have a few minutes to discuss this with me in the next couple of days? It would be most appreciated as I would like to support efforts to ensure the buck's well-being and comfort, as well as share mutually beneficial information.
You may reach me via this email, or by calling 410-845-0296. Thank you very much.
Terry E. Cohen
Terry E. Cohen, Member
Salisbury City Council
410-845-0296
The first response I received on the matter was July 9, 2007, from Mayor Barrie Tilghman. Among her comments was a false charge that I violated the charter. (Requesting a conversation with someone to share information is hardly “administering staff.” I’ll reserve this discussion for a later time.) The text of her email follows:
Terry: I have done everything I can to communicate the protocol as it relates to direct communication with City staff by Council members. A simple question is one thing but requesting a meeting to discuss specific issues at the Zoo without any communication with the City Administrator, the mayor or even the Department Director of Public Works is in clear violation of the City Charter's provision that the Mayor is the chief elected official and administers the day-to-day operation of the City. Whether I am mayor or not is not at issue. The mayor cannot vote on legislation and the City Council cannot direct and meet with staff on operational issues. This is confusing to staff and cannot continue. I
If you would like a discussion and consideration of your ideas as they relate to the care/condition of the deer, please make your request to either John Pick or me and we will be happy to arrange a meeting with the appropriate staff. I take Citizen and Council concerns very seriously, but John Pick and I administer the staff, not you or any member of the City Council.
Below is my response to the mayor, also dated July 9, 2007. At the time, there was no written policy concerning council members contacting department heads directly. I believe my email response may have triggered the memo from Council President Smith (posted yesterday) that started the most recent effort to shut down the flow of information (the previous one was the email from former Council President Dunn to Mayor Tilghman seeking to establish ways to prevent Council Member Debbie Campbell from talking to department heads.)
Mayor Tilghman,
There is nothing subversive nor personally intended toward you about my request to talk with the interim zoo director to share information concerning the health of an animal brought to my attention by constituents. I only wish to ensure its comfort and to respond soundly to constituents who have expressed concern about it, with communication with the zoo first.
I did not specifically request “a meeting,” but “a few minutes to discuss” the condition of a deer with a perruque head. This can be done by phone. A copy of the respectful email to Mr. Muir follows my signature and photographs of the deer are attached or can be found at the following link: Photos
Since my email to Mr. Muir involved a request for a few minutes of his time at his convenience and his discretion and was not a demand for a meeting on my schedule, my request was obviously not an attempt to “administer the staff.” At his level of responsibility, I would have assumed that Mr. Muir would be empowered to decide such daily routine tasks as taking or making a phone call, whether involving a council member or a citizen.
Therefore, I believe your assessment that my action is a violation of the charter based on the broadest language is not only incorrect, but also curious light of your lack of reaction to the Chief of Police and the former Zoo Director addressing the council on budget matters in conflict with the very distinct charter language prohibiting such actions.
I think it would be valuable for the entire council to receive a copy of the official policy you allude to (I do not have a copy) and to discuss its application to legislators being able to fulfill their legislative duties through ordinary conversations with staff.
This would cover questions such as: Are the agency and department heads not allowed to speak to legislators regarding constituent concerns or city business without express approval from your office? Are agency and department heads not empowered to decide for themselves if their schedules permit meetings or phone calls? Is it only legislators who must clear their communications through your office, or must citizens do so as well? What types of communications and by what method? What is the difference between “a simple question” as noted in your email and “a few minutes to discuss” as noted in mine?
We could also discuss the issue of equity and consistent application. While I have heard other council members say they “talked with Chief Webster” or “worked with Pam Oland,” I have not been copied by Mr. Pick on these exchanges as my inquiries and their responses have been copied to the entire council. I have no problem with my inquiries and the responses being copied as I support open communication. However, the same access to city employees and the same “rules” on dissemination of information should be applied to all council members. That clearly does not seem to be the case. In the public’s interest, at what point do politics leave off and obstructions of the ability to perform legislative duties begin?
We might also address how many hours of city employee time, legislators’ time and taxpayer dollars are spent by current practices vs. a more open avenue of communication.
In the meantime, as a human being who cares for and about animals, let alone a council member, I’m aghast that you would spend time sending an email asserting charter violations toward me for simply endeavoring to help an animal, assist our zoo, and provide accurate information to constituents to address their concerns in a responsible manner, while being mindful of a city agency head’s valuable time by sending a respectful email requesting a few minutes to talk. The original email follows my signature.
In the time spent on this matter, I could have had a productive, brief conversation with the interim zoo director that might benefit an animal that by all accounts, to one degree or another, is suffering from what appears to be a treatable condition.
Terry E. Cohen, Member
Salisbury City Council
410-845-0296
In Part 2, I will share the letter I wrote to the Salisbury Zoo Commission chair and to Mr. Muir regarding the deer, the response received last year, and the response this year received after the council was contacted by Joe Albero. In Part 3, I will share links for those who want to learn more about the condition this deer has.
Last night at the city council meeting, I raised the status of the Salisbury Zoo’s perruque-headed deer. I was elected to be responsive to the concerns of citizens, to be a representative, and would like to take this opportunity to share communications from my involvement.
While my political critics may call this airing dirty laundry, I think in light of last night’s 3-to-2 council decision to further block the free flow of information to representatives and to the citizens directly, this is a valuable exchange for the public to view. You can judge for yourself if my communications to staff were disrespectful, as the mayor has often accused me. You can ask yourself why the mayor seemed more concerned about protocol and control than the welfare of the animal.
When the deer was first brought to my attention last year by a number of concerned citizens, I sent an email to then-Interim Zoo Director Gary Muir on July 5, 2007. I come from a long political and legislative background where open communication is used to solve problems, so it was natural for me to send this request. The text of that email was:
Mr. Muir,
First, thank you for consenting to serve as interim zoo director following Mr. Rapp's departure. That willingness to serve is very appreciated, and I'm sure your long experience with the Salisbury Zoo will be beneficial in the position.
I'd like to ask for your help regarding the perruque-headed deer at the zoo. Some residents have expressed concern over its well-being, so this weekend I did some research and actually communicated about the condition with an Australian veterinarian who specializes in deer.
Would you have a few minutes to discuss this with me in the next couple of days? It would be most appreciated as I would like to support efforts to ensure the buck's well-being and comfort, as well as share mutually beneficial information.
You may reach me via this email, or by calling 410-845-0296. Thank you very much.
Terry E. Cohen
Terry E. Cohen, Member
Salisbury City Council
410-845-0296
The first response I received on the matter was July 9, 2007, from Mayor Barrie Tilghman. Among her comments was a false charge that I violated the charter. (Requesting a conversation with someone to share information is hardly “administering staff.” I’ll reserve this discussion for a later time.) The text of her email follows:
Terry: I have done everything I can to communicate the protocol as it relates to direct communication with City staff by Council members. A simple question is one thing but requesting a meeting to discuss specific issues at the Zoo without any communication with the City Administrator, the mayor or even the Department Director of Public Works is in clear violation of the City Charter's provision that the Mayor is the chief elected official and administers the day-to-day operation of the City. Whether I am mayor or not is not at issue. The mayor cannot vote on legislation and the City Council cannot direct and meet with staff on operational issues. This is confusing to staff and cannot continue. I
If you would like a discussion and consideration of your ideas as they relate to the care/condition of the deer, please make your request to either John Pick or me and we will be happy to arrange a meeting with the appropriate staff. I take Citizen and Council concerns very seriously, but John Pick and I administer the staff, not you or any member of the City Council.
Below is my response to the mayor, also dated July 9, 2007. At the time, there was no written policy concerning council members contacting department heads directly. I believe my email response may have triggered the memo from Council President Smith (posted yesterday) that started the most recent effort to shut down the flow of information (the previous one was the email from former Council President Dunn to Mayor Tilghman seeking to establish ways to prevent Council Member Debbie Campbell from talking to department heads.)
Mayor Tilghman,
There is nothing subversive nor personally intended toward you about my request to talk with the interim zoo director to share information concerning the health of an animal brought to my attention by constituents. I only wish to ensure its comfort and to respond soundly to constituents who have expressed concern about it, with communication with the zoo first.
I did not specifically request “a meeting,” but “a few minutes to discuss” the condition of a deer with a perruque head. This can be done by phone. A copy of the respectful email to Mr. Muir follows my signature and photographs of the deer are attached or can be found at the following link: Photos
Since my email to Mr. Muir involved a request for a few minutes of his time at his convenience and his discretion and was not a demand for a meeting on my schedule, my request was obviously not an attempt to “administer the staff.” At his level of responsibility, I would have assumed that Mr. Muir would be empowered to decide such daily routine tasks as taking or making a phone call, whether involving a council member or a citizen.
Therefore, I believe your assessment that my action is a violation of the charter based on the broadest language is not only incorrect, but also curious light of your lack of reaction to the Chief of Police and the former Zoo Director addressing the council on budget matters in conflict with the very distinct charter language prohibiting such actions.
I think it would be valuable for the entire council to receive a copy of the official policy you allude to (I do not have a copy) and to discuss its application to legislators being able to fulfill their legislative duties through ordinary conversations with staff.
This would cover questions such as: Are the agency and department heads not allowed to speak to legislators regarding constituent concerns or city business without express approval from your office? Are agency and department heads not empowered to decide for themselves if their schedules permit meetings or phone calls? Is it only legislators who must clear their communications through your office, or must citizens do so as well? What types of communications and by what method? What is the difference between “a simple question” as noted in your email and “a few minutes to discuss” as noted in mine?
We could also discuss the issue of equity and consistent application. While I have heard other council members say they “talked with Chief Webster” or “worked with Pam Oland,” I have not been copied by Mr. Pick on these exchanges as my inquiries and their responses have been copied to the entire council. I have no problem with my inquiries and the responses being copied as I support open communication. However, the same access to city employees and the same “rules” on dissemination of information should be applied to all council members. That clearly does not seem to be the case. In the public’s interest, at what point do politics leave off and obstructions of the ability to perform legislative duties begin?
We might also address how many hours of city employee time, legislators’ time and taxpayer dollars are spent by current practices vs. a more open avenue of communication.
In the meantime, as a human being who cares for and about animals, let alone a council member, I’m aghast that you would spend time sending an email asserting charter violations toward me for simply endeavoring to help an animal, assist our zoo, and provide accurate information to constituents to address their concerns in a responsible manner, while being mindful of a city agency head’s valuable time by sending a respectful email requesting a few minutes to talk. The original email follows my signature.
In the time spent on this matter, I could have had a productive, brief conversation with the interim zoo director that might benefit an animal that by all accounts, to one degree or another, is suffering from what appears to be a treatable condition.
Terry E. Cohen, Member
Salisbury City Council
410-845-0296
In Part 2, I will share the letter I wrote to the Salisbury Zoo Commission chair and to Mr. Muir regarding the deer, the response received last year, and the response this year received after the council was contacted by Joe Albero. In Part 3, I will share links for those who want to learn more about the condition this deer has.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Rules Resolution Raises Questions
By Terry E. Cohen, Council Member
Constituents have raised some interesting questions and comments to me about Resolution 1672 which will be considered in tonight’s council meeting, starting at 6 p.m. The resolution is designed to change the Council Rules of Order to further limit debate at council meetings and disallow anonymous letters being introduced to council. The resolution was proposed by Council President Smith and supported by Council Vice President Comegys and Councilwoman Shields.
It’s a little hard to know how extensively to discuss a seemingly minor resolution, until one looks at the context in which it’s set. For starters, it was discussed at a specially scheduled work session held June 16, for which neither Councilwoman Campbell nor I could change our schedules to attend. That hardly seems a good way to create consensus, collaboration or “unity,” but it is what it is.
Recently, I learned that council’s discussion last year on September 17 to consider rule changes to limit council members’ ability to ask questions directly of department heads and city staff apparently was a waste of time. Council President Smith’s July 17th memo about it was already distributed to all department heads by City Administrator John Pick on July 18th – two months before our discussion. The memos appear at the end of this post and in a PDF at right with other memos of interest on this topic.
There are so many points that came up in conversation, I can but touch on them here. One key question was, the council president is given such broad powers already to control debate, why is yet another rule needed in an attempt to further consolidate that power?
As for the disallowance of anonymous letters, I’m used to the open government style of federal agencies that not only accept anonymous letters for their public records, but also post them along with signed letters on their websites. I’m more concerned about constituent claims of experiencing retaliation from their government.
I’m somewhat puzzled that my colleagues don’t want anonymous letters on the record, yet they are willing to create policy based on the log Council President Smith kept (also in the PDF file) of comments anonymous to everyone, except perhaps to Council President Smith. It’s also interesting that such a large number of constituents contacting Council President Smith are concerned with the smooth presentation of meetings. The many constituents who contact me (I confess, I’m not keeping a log) seem far more concerned about double-digit tax and rate increases, crime, deteriorating neighborhoods, pollution in the river, housing, jobs, access to information, and similar issues.
In closing, is this just a simple rule change for “efficiency,” or given the history of memos like the one below and in the PDF file at right, under the heading of Documents of Interest, plus the 10 previous changes to the Council Rules of Order, does it contribute further to constituents’ expressed sense of blocked information flow and disenfranchisement as voters? It’s a question I’ll have to grapple with tonight as the vote comes up.
Click on photos to enlarge.
Constituents have raised some interesting questions and comments to me about Resolution 1672 which will be considered in tonight’s council meeting, starting at 6 p.m. The resolution is designed to change the Council Rules of Order to further limit debate at council meetings and disallow anonymous letters being introduced to council. The resolution was proposed by Council President Smith and supported by Council Vice President Comegys and Councilwoman Shields.
It’s a little hard to know how extensively to discuss a seemingly minor resolution, until one looks at the context in which it’s set. For starters, it was discussed at a specially scheduled work session held June 16, for which neither Councilwoman Campbell nor I could change our schedules to attend. That hardly seems a good way to create consensus, collaboration or “unity,” but it is what it is.
Recently, I learned that council’s discussion last year on September 17 to consider rule changes to limit council members’ ability to ask questions directly of department heads and city staff apparently was a waste of time. Council President Smith’s July 17th memo about it was already distributed to all department heads by City Administrator John Pick on July 18th – two months before our discussion. The memos appear at the end of this post and in a PDF at right with other memos of interest on this topic.
There are so many points that came up in conversation, I can but touch on them here. One key question was, the council president is given such broad powers already to control debate, why is yet another rule needed in an attempt to further consolidate that power?
As for the disallowance of anonymous letters, I’m used to the open government style of federal agencies that not only accept anonymous letters for their public records, but also post them along with signed letters on their websites. I’m more concerned about constituent claims of experiencing retaliation from their government.
I’m somewhat puzzled that my colleagues don’t want anonymous letters on the record, yet they are willing to create policy based on the log Council President Smith kept (also in the PDF file) of comments anonymous to everyone, except perhaps to Council President Smith. It’s also interesting that such a large number of constituents contacting Council President Smith are concerned with the smooth presentation of meetings. The many constituents who contact me (I confess, I’m not keeping a log) seem far more concerned about double-digit tax and rate increases, crime, deteriorating neighborhoods, pollution in the river, housing, jobs, access to information, and similar issues.
In closing, is this just a simple rule change for “efficiency,” or given the history of memos like the one below and in the PDF file at right, under the heading of Documents of Interest, plus the 10 previous changes to the Council Rules of Order, does it contribute further to constituents’ expressed sense of blocked information flow and disenfranchisement as voters? It’s a question I’ll have to grapple with tonight as the vote comes up.
Click on photos to enlarge.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Cohen on WICO, Council Meets Monday Night
Councilwoman Terry Cohen will be Bill Reddish's guest on the "AM Salisbury" show on WICO at 7:40 a.m. tomorrow. Don't forget the council meets Monday night at 6 p.m. on a number of important issues. The agenda appears below, and the briefing packet file is available in the links at right.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
No Fines for WWTP Spills, WBOC Reports
By Terry E. Cohen, Council Member
Tonight, WBOC reported that the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) will not fine the City of Salisbury for the Waste water Treatment Plant (WWTP) spills of June 17 and 19. According to the WBOC report, a fine is not being incurred because the MDE concluded the problem was due to "contractor error."
Click here to see the full WBOC report.
Also aired today by WMDT was a follow up on the fine that was imposed on the city for its higher-than-allowed contaminant levels in "normal discharge" (not spills), as posted on this site on Wednesday (see below). The WMDT story indicated that the MDE just completed an annual inspection of the plant, and a review of that the inspection is just starting.
Click here to see the full WMDT report.
Based on these reports, I am making additional requests to the administration for documents and a more in-depth understanding of such issues as the new valve referenced in the WBOC report.
I am pleased to hear that the city was not deemed at fault for the spills and will not incur a fine for them. I commend both TV stations for their follow up on the WWTP issues.
Both Councilwoman Campbell and I have been asking questions about accountability, costs, and preventive steps. While there is still much yet to know and understand, it is gratifying that constituents are getting some questions answered about an issue of great importance to them.
Tonight, WBOC reported that the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) will not fine the City of Salisbury for the Waste water Treatment Plant (WWTP) spills of June 17 and 19. According to the WBOC report, a fine is not being incurred because the MDE concluded the problem was due to "contractor error."
Click here to see the full WBOC report.
Also aired today by WMDT was a follow up on the fine that was imposed on the city for its higher-than-allowed contaminant levels in "normal discharge" (not spills), as posted on this site on Wednesday (see below). The WMDT story indicated that the MDE just completed an annual inspection of the plant, and a review of that the inspection is just starting.
Click here to see the full WMDT report.
Based on these reports, I am making additional requests to the administration for documents and a more in-depth understanding of such issues as the new valve referenced in the WBOC report.
I am pleased to hear that the city was not deemed at fault for the spills and will not incur a fine for them. I commend both TV stations for their follow up on the WWTP issues.
Both Councilwoman Campbell and I have been asking questions about accountability, costs, and preventive steps. While there is still much yet to know and understand, it is gratifying that constituents are getting some questions answered about an issue of great importance to them.
City Council Agenda for July 14, 2008
A regular meeting of the Salisbury City Council will be held Monday July 14, 2008 at the Government Office Building Room 301 at 6:00 PM.
Closed Session
5:00 p.m. – Conference Room 305
Acquisition of property as permitted under the
Annotated Code of Maryland Section 10-508(a)(3)(7)
6:00 p.m. CONVENE – LORD’S PRAYER – PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
6:04 p.m. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
6:06 p.m. PRESENTATION/RECOGNITION – Fire Chief David See/Mark Cotter
6:15 p.m. CONSENT AGENDA
• June 9, 2008 Minutes 1a
• June 30, 2008 Special Meeting Minutes 1b
• July 7, 2008 Special Meeting Minutes 1c
• Ordinance No. 2055 – 2nd reading – service and lease agreement between the City of Salisbury and Wicomico County Board of Elections 1d
• Resolution No. 1669 - appointment of Arlene T. Ennis to City Board of Elections Supervisors 1e
• Resolution No. 1670 - appointment of Aleta Davis to Friends of Poplar Hill Mansion Board of Directors 1f
• Resolution No. 1671 - appointment of Marshall Zugehar to Central City District Commission 1g
6:18 p.m. RESOLUTION – Council President Louise Smith
• Resolution No. 1672 - amendments to City Council Regulations and Rules of Order 2
6:40 p.m. AWARD OF BIDS – Director of Internal Services-Procurement Karen Reddersen 3
7:00 p.m. ORDINANCES – City Administrator John Pick
• Ordinance No. 2056 – 2nd reading – bond ordinance amendment 4a
• Ordinance No. 2057 – 2nd reading – rental registration amendments 4b
• Ordinance No. 2058 – 2nd reading – amending parking permit and meter rates 4c
• Ordinance No. 2059 - 1st reading – amendment to Chapter 15, Housing Standards, of the Salisbury Municipal Code, to reflect the 2006 International Codes 4d
• Ordinance No. 2060 - 1st reading – amending Chapter 1.08, Election Board, of the Salisbury Municipal Code 4e
• Ordinance No. 2061 - 1st reading – authorizing mayor to sign a Deed of Release of Easement for an unused underground utility easement in a closed street - Plant Street 4f
8:20 p.m. RESOLUTIONS – City Administrator John Pick
• Resolution No. 1673 - authorizing mayor to sign a joint letter with Wicomico County requesting that Comcast provide support to PAC14 for the acquisition of capital facilities and equipment 5a
• Resolution No. 1674 - approving memorandum of understanding for outside police agencies to acquire access to the City’s RMS/CAD for use by its police officers 5b
8:50 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENTS
9:00 p.m. ADJOURN
Copies of the agenda items are available for review in the City Clerk’s Office
Room 305 - City/County Government Office Building
410-548-3140 or on the City’s web site www.ci.salisbury.md.us
The City Council reserves the right to go into closed session as permitted
under the Annotated Code of Maryland 10-508(a)
Proposed agenda items for July 28, 2008 (subject to change)
• Public Hearing – amendment to Chapter 15, Housing Standards, of the Salisbury Municipal Code to reflect 2006 International Codes (Ordinance No. 2059)
• Public Hearing – amending Chapter 1.08, Election Board, of the Salisbury Municipal Code (Ordinance No. 2060)
• Public Hearing – authorizing mayor to sign a Deed of Release of Easement for an unused underground utility easement in a closed street - Plant Street (Ordinance No. 2061)
• Ordinance 1st reading – right-of-way changes by PRMC
Closed Session
5:00 p.m. – Conference Room 305
Acquisition of property as permitted under the
Annotated Code of Maryland Section 10-508(a)(3)(7)
6:00 p.m. CONVENE – LORD’S PRAYER – PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
6:04 p.m. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
6:06 p.m. PRESENTATION/RECOGNITION – Fire Chief David See/Mark Cotter
6:15 p.m. CONSENT AGENDA
• June 9, 2008 Minutes 1a
• June 30, 2008 Special Meeting Minutes 1b
• July 7, 2008 Special Meeting Minutes 1c
• Ordinance No. 2055 – 2nd reading – service and lease agreement between the City of Salisbury and Wicomico County Board of Elections 1d
• Resolution No. 1669 - appointment of Arlene T. Ennis to City Board of Elections Supervisors 1e
• Resolution No. 1670 - appointment of Aleta Davis to Friends of Poplar Hill Mansion Board of Directors 1f
• Resolution No. 1671 - appointment of Marshall Zugehar to Central City District Commission 1g
6:18 p.m. RESOLUTION – Council President Louise Smith
• Resolution No. 1672 - amendments to City Council Regulations and Rules of Order 2
6:40 p.m. AWARD OF BIDS – Director of Internal Services-Procurement Karen Reddersen 3
7:00 p.m. ORDINANCES – City Administrator John Pick
• Ordinance No. 2056 – 2nd reading – bond ordinance amendment 4a
• Ordinance No. 2057 – 2nd reading – rental registration amendments 4b
• Ordinance No. 2058 – 2nd reading – amending parking permit and meter rates 4c
• Ordinance No. 2059 - 1st reading – amendment to Chapter 15, Housing Standards, of the Salisbury Municipal Code, to reflect the 2006 International Codes 4d
• Ordinance No. 2060 - 1st reading – amending Chapter 1.08, Election Board, of the Salisbury Municipal Code 4e
• Ordinance No. 2061 - 1st reading – authorizing mayor to sign a Deed of Release of Easement for an unused underground utility easement in a closed street - Plant Street 4f
8:20 p.m. RESOLUTIONS – City Administrator John Pick
• Resolution No. 1673 - authorizing mayor to sign a joint letter with Wicomico County requesting that Comcast provide support to PAC14 for the acquisition of capital facilities and equipment 5a
• Resolution No. 1674 - approving memorandum of understanding for outside police agencies to acquire access to the City’s RMS/CAD for use by its police officers 5b
8:50 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENTS
9:00 p.m. ADJOURN
Copies of the agenda items are available for review in the City Clerk’s Office
Room 305 - City/County Government Office Building
410-548-3140 or on the City’s web site www.ci.salisbury.md.us
The City Council reserves the right to go into closed session as permitted
under the Annotated Code of Maryland 10-508(a)
Proposed agenda items for July 28, 2008 (subject to change)
• Public Hearing – amendment to Chapter 15, Housing Standards, of the Salisbury Municipal Code to reflect 2006 International Codes (Ordinance No. 2059)
• Public Hearing – amending Chapter 1.08, Election Board, of the Salisbury Municipal Code (Ordinance No. 2060)
• Public Hearing – authorizing mayor to sign a Deed of Release of Easement for an unused underground utility easement in a closed street - Plant Street (Ordinance No. 2061)
• Ordinance 1st reading – right-of-way changes by PRMC
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Reports Concerning the WWTP Spills of June 17 and 19
By Terry E. Cohen, Council Member
The two files you can review with this post relate to the most recent Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) spills in June. On June 24, I followed up my questions posed between the two spills by asking for copies of the City's report to the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). The first file, City Report to MDE is that report, dated June 20, 2008.
The second file, Sewer Spills Report to Council June 25 2008 is a more general response by the administration (particular author not shown, but sent to us by Mr. Pick) addressing accountability questions and next steps for reducing risk of further incidents. Both files were sent to council on June 25 by Mr. Pick, and I appreciate his follow up.
While some of this information is of a technical nature, it may provide concerned members of the public some insight into what is taking place with the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), administrative action and involvement by the MDE. In addition to all of us wanting accountability and prevention for the health of the Wicomico River, the public's trust and confidence in their government is strengthened when we can talk openly and straightforward about problems when they occur. I hope sharing these files will contribute to achieving those goals.
The two files you can review with this post relate to the most recent Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) spills in June. On June 24, I followed up my questions posed between the two spills by asking for copies of the City's report to the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). The first file, City Report to MDE is that report, dated June 20, 2008.
The second file, Sewer Spills Report to Council June 25 2008 is a more general response by the administration (particular author not shown, but sent to us by Mr. Pick) addressing accountability questions and next steps for reducing risk of further incidents. Both files were sent to council on June 25 by Mr. Pick, and I appreciate his follow up.
While some of this information is of a technical nature, it may provide concerned members of the public some insight into what is taking place with the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), administrative action and involvement by the MDE. In addition to all of us wanting accountability and prevention for the health of the Wicomico River, the public's trust and confidence in their government is strengthened when we can talk openly and straightforward about problems when they occur. I hope sharing these files will contribute to achieving those goals.
City Incurs MDE Fines for Consent Order Violations
By Terry E. Cohen, Council Member
Just received by the city council on July 8, 2008, is a memo from the Office of the Mayor concerning a $10,200 in fines by the MDE for violations of the consent order discharge limits. This relates to a period from June 2006 through April 10, 2008. The bulk of the violations (11) and fines ($6,500) relate to the period November 2007through February 2008.
The memo covers a June 13, 2008 correspondence from Department of Public Works Director Jim Caldwell, with which he attached the communications from the MDE received June 4, 2008.
These fines are not related to the two spills in June of this year.
I won’t speculate as to why this information took about a month to make its way to council. Given the great concern expressed by many about the WWTP and the possibility of fines, I wanted to share this information with our citizens as soon as possible.
City Administrator John Pick was kind enough to send me my requested information for any communications from the City to the MDE about the June 2008 spills. I will post that information later today. To the best of my knowledge, we are still awaiting communications back from the MDE.
Click here to see the documents concerning the fine referenced above.
Just received by the city council on July 8, 2008, is a memo from the Office of the Mayor concerning a $10,200 in fines by the MDE for violations of the consent order discharge limits. This relates to a period from June 2006 through April 10, 2008. The bulk of the violations (11) and fines ($6,500) relate to the period November 2007through February 2008.
The memo covers a June 13, 2008 correspondence from Department of Public Works Director Jim Caldwell, with which he attached the communications from the MDE received June 4, 2008.
These fines are not related to the two spills in June of this year.
I won’t speculate as to why this information took about a month to make its way to council. Given the great concern expressed by many about the WWTP and the possibility of fines, I wanted to share this information with our citizens as soon as possible.
City Administrator John Pick was kind enough to send me my requested information for any communications from the City to the MDE about the June 2008 spills. I will post that information later today. To the best of my knowledge, we are still awaiting communications back from the MDE.
Click here to see the documents concerning the fine referenced above.
Monday, July 7, 2008
City Council Agenda for July 7, 2008
CONFERENCE ROOM 305
GOVERNMENT OFFICE BUILDING
SPECIAL MEETING– 4:00 p.m.
• Hearing – claim for a refund on a water bill
WORK SESSION – following conclusion of Special Meeting
• Further discussion – West Road/Westside Manor (Rinnier) Annexation – Matt Hedger
• Introduction of Naylor Mill Road/MBAS Investments Annexation – Matt Hedger
• Recommendation of award for operational review of Internal Services-Finance –
Karen Reddersen
• Westwood Commerce Park PDD – Jack Lenox
• Proposed policy on Substantial Conformance relative to annexations – John Pick
• Discussion – approval/adoption of work session minutes
• General discussion/upcoming agendas
The Council reserves the right to convene in Closed Session
as permitted under the Annotated Code of Maryland 10-508(a)
GOVERNMENT OFFICE BUILDING
SPECIAL MEETING– 4:00 p.m.
• Hearing – claim for a refund on a water bill
WORK SESSION – following conclusion of Special Meeting
• Further discussion – West Road/Westside Manor (Rinnier) Annexation – Matt Hedger
• Introduction of Naylor Mill Road/MBAS Investments Annexation – Matt Hedger
• Recommendation of award for operational review of Internal Services-Finance –
Karen Reddersen
• Westwood Commerce Park PDD – Jack Lenox
• Proposed policy on Substantial Conformance relative to annexations – John Pick
• Discussion – approval/adoption of work session minutes
• General discussion/upcoming agendas
The Council reserves the right to convene in Closed Session
as permitted under the Annotated Code of Maryland 10-508(a)
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Terry Cohen on Reddish Show
Terry Cohen will be on Bill Reddish's show tomorrow morning. Monday June 30th at 7:40AM on WICO 1320 on your AM dial.
Friday, June 27, 2008
City Council Agenda June 30, 2008 Special Meeting
A Special Meeting of the City Council will be held Monday, June 30, 2008 at 6:00PM in room 301 of the Government Office Building.
6:00 p.m. CONVENE – LORD’S PRAYER – PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
6:04 p.m. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
6:06 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING РAssistant City Administrator Lor̩ Chambers 1
• Resolution No. 1668 - increasing water and sewer rates
6:30 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING РAssistant City Administrator Lor̩ Chambers 2
• amending parking permit and meter rates (Ordinance No. 2058)
6:50 p.m. RESOLUTION РAssistant City Administrator Lor̩ Chambers 3
• Resolution No. 1661 – accepting 2009 CSAFE funds
7:00 p.m. ADJOURN
6:00 p.m. CONVENE – LORD’S PRAYER – PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
6:04 p.m. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
6:06 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING РAssistant City Administrator Lor̩ Chambers 1
• Resolution No. 1668 - increasing water and sewer rates
6:30 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING РAssistant City Administrator Lor̩ Chambers 2
• amending parking permit and meter rates (Ordinance No. 2058)
6:50 p.m. RESOLUTION РAssistant City Administrator Lor̩ Chambers 3
• Resolution No. 1661 – accepting 2009 CSAFE funds
7:00 p.m. ADJOURN
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Sharing Constituent Concerns Over Sewage Spills
Whether the incidents are called “Sanitary Sewer Overflows,” “waste water spills” or “sewage accidents,” last week’s double environmental hit to the Wicomico River from the Salisbury Waste water Treatment Plant (WWTP) has all of us concerned. Many constituents have contacted each of us.
To the best of our knowledge, reports from the city to the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) have been filed on time and the MDE is due to issue some position statement on the incidents soon. Just to assist the public in staying informed about the issue, we are publishing the emails we’ve sent to City Administrator John Pick (cc’d to others in the city government) with our questions about these recent spills and safeguards at the WWTP in general.
June 17, 2008 (after the first spill) --
John,
This sounds like a similar problem to the last spillage problem that happened. Is it? When will we know the root cause of the problem?
What are the costs associated with the first response, clean up and any repair for both this one and the last one? By contract, who is accountable for the problem and the associated costs, for this and the last spill? What safeguards are being put into place to lower the risk of this happening again?
Thank you,
Terry
Terry E. Cohen, Member
Salisbury City Council
410.845.0296
June 19, 2008 (after the second spill) --
John -
My constituents are infuriated by yet another spill. They are raising many
questions about how this could happen, who is going to take responsibility,
and what taking responsibility really means. Please provide me with copies
of whatever plans were in place to safeguard against/control spillage during
construction. I would also like to know to what degree those plans were
followed and any additional details that can be provided.
Thank you.
Debbie
June 24, 2008 (follow up) –
John,
I would like copies of the reports on last week's spills that the city provided to MDE, as well as any communications from MDE concerning the spills.
Will this information answer the questions I raised last week after the first spill (besides the one you answered stating that these incidents were "unique" events in terms of root cause)?
Citizens are very anxious for answers, as I know you can appreciate, especially concerning what steps are being taken to prevent additional incidents and about accountability.
What is the water sampling schedule and is it showing levels of improvement to indicate an approximate time period when the water activity bans will be lifted?
Thank you in advance for your follow up.
Terry
Terry E. Cohen, Member
Salisbury City Council
410.845.0296
To the best of our knowledge, reports from the city to the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) have been filed on time and the MDE is due to issue some position statement on the incidents soon. Just to assist the public in staying informed about the issue, we are publishing the emails we’ve sent to City Administrator John Pick (cc’d to others in the city government) with our questions about these recent spills and safeguards at the WWTP in general.
June 17, 2008 (after the first spill) --
John,
This sounds like a similar problem to the last spillage problem that happened. Is it? When will we know the root cause of the problem?
What are the costs associated with the first response, clean up and any repair for both this one and the last one? By contract, who is accountable for the problem and the associated costs, for this and the last spill? What safeguards are being put into place to lower the risk of this happening again?
Thank you,
Terry
Terry E. Cohen, Member
Salisbury City Council
410.845.0296
June 19, 2008 (after the second spill) --
John -
My constituents are infuriated by yet another spill. They are raising many
questions about how this could happen, who is going to take responsibility,
and what taking responsibility really means. Please provide me with copies
of whatever plans were in place to safeguard against/control spillage during
construction. I would also like to know to what degree those plans were
followed and any additional details that can be provided.
Thank you.
Debbie
June 24, 2008 (follow up) –
John,
I would like copies of the reports on last week's spills that the city provided to MDE, as well as any communications from MDE concerning the spills.
Will this information answer the questions I raised last week after the first spill (besides the one you answered stating that these incidents were "unique" events in terms of root cause)?
Citizens are very anxious for answers, as I know you can appreciate, especially concerning what steps are being taken to prevent additional incidents and about accountability.
What is the water sampling schedule and is it showing levels of improvement to indicate an approximate time period when the water activity bans will be lifted?
Thank you in advance for your follow up.
Terry
Terry E. Cohen, Member
Salisbury City Council
410.845.0296
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Helping the Historic District Commission Move Forward
By Councilwoman Debbie Campbell
Recently, a scathing ruling in a court case against Salisbury’s Historic District Commission (SHDC) drew renewed focus on how the city can improve the way that the commission reviews applications and renders decisions, as well as raising other issues. (Click here to see the actual judges’ opinion. Salisbury_v_Leer)
Prior to these latest criticisms, the council has heard concerns regarding the “hoops” that owners of historic buildings are forced to go through, even for small repairs that routinely come before the commission for approval.
I believe that the preservation of historically significant homes, buildings and landmarks is important to maintaining the character and identity of a community. I am supportive of making it as easy as possible for owners to complete repairs and improvements that support historic preservation. The right tools and guidelines will also make the commission members’ work easier and more effective.
Over 18 months ago, I suggested that repairs that are routinely approved should simply require a permit and inspection for compliance. An example of such repairs would be removing plywood or salt-treated porch flooring and replacing it with tongue-and-groove flooring that would be in keeping with what was original to the building. Unfortunately, there has been no further discussion or change to make it easier to achieve preservation and protect historically significant buildings.
Last week I asked several questions about the Salisbury Historic District Commission of the Mayor and Mr. Pick. Mr. Pick, the city administrator, advised me that the Mayor would provide answers. The answers have not been provided. Yesterday I raised the questions again. I am sharing the email exchange so that the public will know the questions and the reasoning behind them.
June 17th –
John –
I am interested in the City making sure that the SHDC has the tools
needed to make decisions that will benefit preservation of historically
significant homes in historic neighborhoods while improving the process for Salisbury's residents of historic districts. To that end, answers to the following questions will be very helpful. What is the current status of the SHDC's new guidelines for decisioning? I remember that they were in draft a while ago. Have they been finalized? It is my understanding the Dept. of the Interior no longer recognizes that alphabetical or numerical ranking system, rather a significant of non-significant (or something similar) ranking.
I also wonder if this determination is given at the time of hearing or if an inventory is conducted and all houses classified accordingly so that owners will know whether or not they need to apply for approval for improvements/repairs.
When is the next meeting of the commission?
Thank you in advance for your response.
Regards.
June 19th --
Debbie - the Mayor has stated that she will respond to your questions.
John
June 23rd -
Mayor/John -
I still haven't received a response and I believe that we may have a
commission meeting soon. If we have not adopted guidelines and addressed
the deficiencies, I think that the meeting should be postponed until we do.
It would be unfair to the applicants, the historic neighborhoods, and the
commission members to conduct meetings without the appropriate written
guidance. Please send a response regarding the current status per my e-mail
of last week.
I would also like to know what measures have been taken to address the
highly objectionable behavior by the Chair, as articulated by the judge.
Regards.
Debbie
Tomorrow (Wednesday) the commission will convene to consider more than a dozen applications. I close with this question: How is it possible that answers to such basic questions haven’t been provided, yet we are moving ahead?
Recently, a scathing ruling in a court case against Salisbury’s Historic District Commission (SHDC) drew renewed focus on how the city can improve the way that the commission reviews applications and renders decisions, as well as raising other issues. (Click here to see the actual judges’ opinion. Salisbury_v_Leer)
Prior to these latest criticisms, the council has heard concerns regarding the “hoops” that owners of historic buildings are forced to go through, even for small repairs that routinely come before the commission for approval.
I believe that the preservation of historically significant homes, buildings and landmarks is important to maintaining the character and identity of a community. I am supportive of making it as easy as possible for owners to complete repairs and improvements that support historic preservation. The right tools and guidelines will also make the commission members’ work easier and more effective.
Over 18 months ago, I suggested that repairs that are routinely approved should simply require a permit and inspection for compliance. An example of such repairs would be removing plywood or salt-treated porch flooring and replacing it with tongue-and-groove flooring that would be in keeping with what was original to the building. Unfortunately, there has been no further discussion or change to make it easier to achieve preservation and protect historically significant buildings.
Last week I asked several questions about the Salisbury Historic District Commission of the Mayor and Mr. Pick. Mr. Pick, the city administrator, advised me that the Mayor would provide answers. The answers have not been provided. Yesterday I raised the questions again. I am sharing the email exchange so that the public will know the questions and the reasoning behind them.
June 17th –
John –
I am interested in the City making sure that the SHDC has the tools
needed to make decisions that will benefit preservation of historically
significant homes in historic neighborhoods while improving the process for Salisbury's residents of historic districts. To that end, answers to the following questions will be very helpful. What is the current status of the SHDC's new guidelines for decisioning? I remember that they were in draft a while ago. Have they been finalized? It is my understanding the Dept. of the Interior no longer recognizes that alphabetical or numerical ranking system, rather a significant of non-significant (or something similar) ranking.
I also wonder if this determination is given at the time of hearing or if an inventory is conducted and all houses classified accordingly so that owners will know whether or not they need to apply for approval for improvements/repairs.
When is the next meeting of the commission?
Thank you in advance for your response.
Regards.
June 19th --
Debbie - the Mayor has stated that she will respond to your questions.
John
June 23rd -
Mayor/John -
I still haven't received a response and I believe that we may have a
commission meeting soon. If we have not adopted guidelines and addressed
the deficiencies, I think that the meeting should be postponed until we do.
It would be unfair to the applicants, the historic neighborhoods, and the
commission members to conduct meetings without the appropriate written
guidance. Please send a response regarding the current status per my e-mail
of last week.
I would also like to know what measures have been taken to address the
highly objectionable behavior by the Chair, as articulated by the judge.
Regards.
Debbie
Tomorrow (Wednesday) the commission will convene to consider more than a dozen applications. I close with this question: How is it possible that answers to such basic questions haven’t been provided, yet we are moving ahead?
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
New Figure on Attorney Funding Obtained
At the June 9 council meeting adopting the FY09 budget, in response to an inquiry by Councilwoman Terry Cohen, a list of "other attorney" payments was provided at the table showing a balance of approximately $1,500 in that account that would be eligible for transfer by the mayor to pay for the city attorney's services.
However, in an email from City Administrator John Pick, dated June 12, the council was given a corrected balance figure of $6,000 from Director of Internal Services Pam Oland. The reason for the revised balance came as the result of Ms. Oland's review of the bond counsel's May bill. Ms. Oland stated, "...fees related to the reallocation of the 1999 bond should actually go to the water and sewer fund...."
This indicates that funds are available to pay for responsibly managed city attorney services through the end of this fiscal year. We hope this information answers questions received from constituents.
However, in an email from City Administrator John Pick, dated June 12, the council was given a corrected balance figure of $6,000 from Director of Internal Services Pam Oland. The reason for the revised balance came as the result of Ms. Oland's review of the bond counsel's May bill. Ms. Oland stated, "...fees related to the reallocation of the 1999 bond should actually go to the water and sewer fund...."
This indicates that funds are available to pay for responsibly managed city attorney services through the end of this fiscal year. We hope this information answers questions received from constituents.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Special Work Session Monday June 16, 2008 GOB Room 305
4:30 p.m. Further discussion – Brewington Glen/Brown Farm Annexation – Chris Jakubiak
5:00 p.m. Introduction of Snow Hill Road/Shore Up annexation – Matt Hedger
5:30 p.m. Presentation – PAC14 proposal to establish a subscriber fee – Mike Goodson
6:00 p.m. Policy on PILOTs for affordable housing complexes – John Pick
6:30 p.m. Amendments to Council’s Regulations and Rules of Order – Council President Smith
6:55 p.m. General discussion/upcoming agendas
7:00 p.m. Adjourn
5:00 p.m. Introduction of Snow Hill Road/Shore Up annexation – Matt Hedger
5:30 p.m. Presentation – PAC14 proposal to establish a subscriber fee – Mike Goodson
6:00 p.m. Policy on PILOTs for affordable housing complexes – John Pick
6:30 p.m. Amendments to Council’s Regulations and Rules of Order – Council President Smith
6:55 p.m. General discussion/upcoming agendas
7:00 p.m. Adjourn
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Debbie Campbell on Reddish
Debbie Campbell will be on Bill Reddish show tomorrow morning, June 16 at 7:40am. Tune in to WICO 1320 on your AM dial.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Councilwoman Cohen on WICO at 7:40 a.m.
Councilwoman Terry Cohen will be Bill Reddish's guest on the "A.M. Salisbury" Show at 7:40 a.m. Monday morning on WICO AM1320. The discussion will preview the meeting Monday night, including the budget, water and sewer increases, and three public hearings, among many items on the agenda.
Monday, June 9 Salisbury City Council Meeting Has Full Agenda
The Council will meet Monday night with a full agenda, including the adoption of the FY09 Budget and the first of two-steps in the resolution establishing the water and sewer rates. In addition, three public hearings are on the schedule.
The public is encouraged to attend and to make comment. The agenda appears below.
AGENDA
Meeting #11
JUNE 9, 2008
6:00 p.m.
City/County Government Office Building
Room 301
6:00 p.m.
CONVENE - LORD'S PRAYER - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
6:04 p.m.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
6:08 p.m
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
· May 27, 2008 Minutes
6:10 p.m.
AWARD OF BIDS – Director of Internal Services Pam Oland
6:30 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
· approving a service and lease agreement between the City of Salisbury
and the Wicomico County Board of Elections (Ordinance No. 2055)
· bond Ordinance amendment (Ordinance No. 2056)
· rental registration amendments (Ordinance No. 2057)
7:00 p.m.
BUDGET – Council President Louise Smith
Ordinance No. 2053 – 2nd reading – adoption of FY09 budget
7:30 p.m
ORDINANCES – City Administrator John Pick
· Ordinance No. 2054B – 2nd reading – FY08 budget amendment
appropriating funds for Municipal Buildings
· Ordinance No. 2054C – 2nd reading – FY08 budget amendment
appropriating funds for Debt Service & Other Uses
· Ordinance No. 2054D – 2nd reading – approving an amendment of the
FY08 General Fund budget to fund the City’s share of a joint project
with the County for preliminary work for a mixed-use development
project in downtown Salisbury with the Library as a key component
8:00 p.m.
RESOLUTIONS – City Administrator John Pick
· Resolution No. 1661 - accepting 2009 CSAFE funds
· Resolution No. 1662 - endorsing request for legislative action by
Maryland Municipal League
· Resolution No. 1663 - modifying Resolution No. 1415 related to the
special sidewalk assessment for the Eireann Mhor subdivision
· Resolution No. 1664 - authorizing mayor to sign a memorandum of
understanding with Wicomico County for the City to perform billing
functions related to County parking tickets
· Resolution No. 1665 - appointment to Recycling Advisory Committee
· Resolution No. 1666 - reappointments to Traffic and Safety Advisory Committee
· Resolution No. 1667 - accepting state grant funds awarded through the
Governor’s Office of Crime Control and Prevention to enhance
community policing efforts in the designated CSAFEII area
· Resolution No. 1668 – increasing water and sewer rates
8:45 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
9:00 p.m.
ADJOURN
The public is encouraged to attend and to make comment. The agenda appears below.
AGENDA
Meeting #11
JUNE 9, 2008
6:00 p.m.
City/County Government Office Building
Room 301
6:00 p.m.
CONVENE - LORD'S PRAYER - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
6:04 p.m.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
6:08 p.m
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
· May 27, 2008 Minutes
6:10 p.m.
AWARD OF BIDS – Director of Internal Services Pam Oland
6:30 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
· approving a service and lease agreement between the City of Salisbury
and the Wicomico County Board of Elections (Ordinance No. 2055)
· bond Ordinance amendment (Ordinance No. 2056)
· rental registration amendments (Ordinance No. 2057)
7:00 p.m.
BUDGET – Council President Louise Smith
Ordinance No. 2053 – 2nd reading – adoption of FY09 budget
7:30 p.m
ORDINANCES – City Administrator John Pick
· Ordinance No. 2054B – 2nd reading – FY08 budget amendment
appropriating funds for Municipal Buildings
· Ordinance No. 2054C – 2nd reading – FY08 budget amendment
appropriating funds for Debt Service & Other Uses
· Ordinance No. 2054D – 2nd reading – approving an amendment of the
FY08 General Fund budget to fund the City’s share of a joint project
with the County for preliminary work for a mixed-use development
project in downtown Salisbury with the Library as a key component
8:00 p.m.
RESOLUTIONS – City Administrator John Pick
· Resolution No. 1661 - accepting 2009 CSAFE funds
· Resolution No. 1662 - endorsing request for legislative action by
Maryland Municipal League
· Resolution No. 1663 - modifying Resolution No. 1415 related to the
special sidewalk assessment for the Eireann Mhor subdivision
· Resolution No. 1664 - authorizing mayor to sign a memorandum of
understanding with Wicomico County for the City to perform billing
functions related to County parking tickets
· Resolution No. 1665 - appointment to Recycling Advisory Committee
· Resolution No. 1666 - reappointments to Traffic and Safety Advisory Committee
· Resolution No. 1667 - accepting state grant funds awarded through the
Governor’s Office of Crime Control and Prevention to enhance
community policing efforts in the designated CSAFEII area
· Resolution No. 1668 – increasing water and sewer rates
8:45 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
9:00 p.m.
ADJOURN
Monday, June 2, 2008
Councilwomen on WICO Monday Morning
Councilwomen Debbie Campbell and Terry Cohen will be guest's on Bill Reddish's "AM Salisbury" show on WICO 1320AM at 7:40 a.m. The focus of the discussion will be the city budget. The city council convenes in Room 305 of the Government Office Building at 4:30 p.m. Monday for a work session, followed by a budget session. Council is scheduled to hear and discuss the second reading and adoption of the FY09 Budget on June 9 at the regular Monday night, 6 p.m., legislative session.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
