 |
Citizens For A Responsible Government "Working today for our children's tomorrow" |
|
|
|
|
Voting Record Midlothian City Council
This page is intended to inform the citizens of Midlothian on important issues before the Midlothian City Council. When the agenda is not extremely newsworthy, this page will not be updated.
03/11/2010
02/09/2010
The council meeting started with various presentations, including a procedural demonstration by the Midlothian FFA, led by Will Ellis, President. They staged a simulated meeting, demonstrating the core values of the group, the meaning of each office, and a precision execution of the meeting strictly following Robert's Rules of Order. These young people performed exceptionally, leaving an audience of about 50 completely astonished.
"Citizens to be heard" included two ladies who spoke on conditions at the dog pound; one of the ladies listed her address as "Red Oak." Duff Hale spoke on citizen's rights.
The majority of the evening was spent on the second round of discussing the Midlothian Governance Policy. Areas of contention centered around the mayor's power, and the opinion by some members that the mayor abuses that power.
One of the issues was the city's use of 3 council members to evaluate board candidates, with the feeling that gives the mayor too much power over who sits on the boards. "I make the selection of all people who serve, and I'll continue to do that, and it's not going to change. It's my right," quoted Mayor Whatley. "I think the system works very well."
Whatley said having applicants appear before all 7 members, plus a video camera, was unfair to the applicants. He referred to a video being made of the council meeting by republican precinct chairman David Lister, saying "It's certainly legal, but I don't think it's right."
At one point, when the mayor appeared to be losing the argument, he called upon a board member in the audience for support.
Currently, board applicants are interviewed by the mayor and two council members, then applicants are escorted to another area while they deliberate (although Whatley admitted they cannot legally have a closed meeting to discuss candidates, they "request" the candidates to leave). The final selection is voted upon in a regular council meeting, but making changes at that point would be awkward for the council members and the candidates.
When questioned by Councilman Miller and Councilperson Wickliffe about going back to the old system of having all council members interview the candidates, Whatley responded, "This is the worst system we've used, and we won't go back to that." (So much for democracy in the Midlothian City Council.)
Councilman Miller questioned Mayor Whatley's voting, saying Robert's Rules of Order says the mayor should vote only in the case of a tie. Whatley replied with, "There's no discussion. I'm going to vote." Councilperson Wickliffe asked if the real problem was not that the mayor voted, but that there was a perception the mayor took advantage of his position as moderator to sway the vote. It was mentioned that some people are quiet, and don't want to buck the mayor after he has stated his opinion. Mayor Whatley stated, "The best employees that have ever worked for me are the ones who sit & listen." (More insights into the mayor's opinion of people who speak.)
Councilperson Wickliffe asked, "Since you are running the meeting, you open the item and immediately give your opinion, expressing a 'supreme authority' position." The mayor, as always, immediately gave his opinion on why Wickliffe was wrong -- clearly demonstrating the validity of Wickliffe's complaint. She repeated her query about Whatley's "attempt to weigh-in first & influence council." Whatley argued with one point, and then stated, "Second of all, it's my will."
After repeated comments from Wickliffe and Miller about Whatley's being perceived to control the outcome of the vote, he denied doing it, but said he would try to not do that in the future. However, true to his style, he continued to evaluate virtually every single comment made by any other council member, clearly trying to identify himself as the ultimate authority.
After about 3 hours of discussion, many of the items appeared to be resolved, at which time Mayor Whatley questioned the members if they could accept the document as they had discussed. He called several members by name, then looked for nods from the others. Since this was not an action item, and a "straw vote" was taken, it is our opinion this action could be illegal.
The only other item of note was activist Charlotte Bailey, who spoke about 20 minutes, compliments of Evelyn Day and Stephanie Frankiewicz who signed up to speak, but yielded their time to Ms. Bailey. (Ms. Frankiewicz referred to Dr. Miller as "not very bright" during his election campaign.)
Ms. Bailey went into a tirade against Councilman Miller and Councilman Chambers, criticizing them for not signing the current governance policy, and accusing them of "hiding behind the technical aspect of the law." (There is no legal requirement for any council member to sign the policy, according to the city attorney.) She also said they were wasting her tax dollars by refusing to sign the document, but failed to explain the statement.
While she criticized them for not agreeing to the policies on how to treat people, she continued to refer to either or both of them as pompous and negligent, and having hatred, non-Christian unethical behavior. She further retorted with a "Shame on you, Mr. Chambers" and accused one or either of having "untruths on their websites." She repeated Mayor Whatley's previous drivel, "You can't legislate morality."
Perhaps she should look into the mirror when she makes those accusations. Perhaps she should ask how "un-Christian" it is to make false accusations and judge someone.
On a personal note, this writer is fed-up with people bringing Jesus into political arguments. It's always, "Jesus would vote my way" or "Jesus would do this" or "You're being un-Christian." My comment to you is this: Leave Jesus out of this. Unless you're an author of the Bible -- and I think they're all dead -- you're doing nothing but slandering the name of our Savior by trying to use His name to make your point in a political argument, and you do nothing but cast bad dispersions upon Christianity. How do you think these comments look to a person who does not know our Lord as Savior?
To judge a person's soul is the responsibility of God, not you, Ms. Bailey. You have done nothing but demonstrate in yourself the hatred of which you charge Councilmen Chambers and Miller. Before you start judging these men -- or anyone else -- perhaps you should judge yourself, and ask what gives you the right to call someone "un-Christian." Judge not, and ye shall not be judged. Luke 6:37.
Ms. Frankiewicz, we're still waiting to hear what tremendous credentials you have that qualify you to call Dr. Miller, a man with multiple degrees (including a doctorate), "not very bright."
The meeting ended with a consensus on the revised governance policy, thanks partially to a pre-meeting of Councilperson Wickliffe, Councilman Miller, and Councilman Chambers, and Ms. Wickliffe's continued efforts to be a peacemaker, even though it required her to argue with Mayor Whatley (something most of the council members won't do). Mayor Whatley is discovering Ms. Wickliffe doesn't jump when he barks.
01/26/2010
In an otherwise dull and boring meeting, the most action came from a non-action item, 2010-30, a discussion about council rules governing themselves. Proponents said the rules are necessary to prevent a councilmember from overstepping their bounds; opponents say the rules are unnecessary because council members' actions are governed by state law, that the rules can be used to provide certain people more power (e.g., mayor, city manager), and that the rules have been used in the past to allow Mayor Whatley to attack Councilman Ken Chambers.
The evening provided a venue for multiple verbal attacks, and Mayor Whatley, true to his course, used the opportunity to once again attack Councilman Chambers. So adamant were Whatley's attacks, that we've established an entire section on his comments. But, he wasn't the only one who became very verbal. Former Councilman Wayne Sibley, who lost to Dr. Hank Miller, was also quite verbose. Councilman Joe Frizzell also made a rather harsh comment about someone in the audience.
He may be embarrassing, but at least he's entertaining
Is Whatley Capable of Telling the Truth?
The discussion was about the ability of council members to place an item on the agenda, and if the requirement for three members to place an item on the agenda was unfair, in light of the fact that Mayor Whatley or city manager Hastings can place an item on the agenda by themselves. This was being perceived as giving extra power to Mayor Whatley and even more to Hastings, a non-elected person.
Councilperson Jamie Wickliffe to Mayor Whatley: "Have you ever restricted any individual council member from putting an item on the agenda?"
"Never," replied Whatley.
"You restricted me," corrected Councilman Ken Chambers.
Whatley: "I told Ken he needed two other council members to put the item on the agenda."
Is Whatley Capable of Following the Rules?
Mayor Whatley: "Ken, if you bring two other council members, we'll talk about it."
Councilperson Wickliffe: "Mayor, if he has two other council members, it will be on the agenda. We won't just talk about it."
Will Whatley ever get over Chambers?
The previous discussion provided Councilman Ken Chambers the opportunity to say he opposed the policy, that it had allowed Mayor Whatley to abuse the provisions and attack him in a "witch hunt." He then pointed out that all "charges" were dropped, further proving the charges were false.
Councilperson Wickliffe added, "My goal is that we not re-hash the past."
In spite of Wickliffe's admonition, Whatley apparently couldn't resist an opportunity to jump at Councilman Chambers, coming back with his old line about how Whatley was just being nice to Chambers, and giving the council a chance to make amends: "You did violate the council agreement; we gave you a way to save face."
CFARG might believe that drivel, except (a) none of the charges were ever substantiated, and (b) Whatley is on record in The Dallas Morning News, literally seconds after calling a truce, verbally lashing at Chambers' character.
Are Whatley and Hastings in a word-count contest?
If you view the council meetings, it's quickly obvious that no matter who offers an opinion, Mayor Whatley seldom fails to provide his opinion. We're not talking on the subject as a whole, but on almost every single comment that anyone makes.
Other than abusing his position as moderator by allowing himself to speak to absolutely everything, one cannot possibly fathom such an abuse of power.
King Whatley?
In the worst slip-of-the-tongue of the evening, Mayor Whatley was referring to a previous mayor's term, saying "during (mayor's) reign." He then corrected it to "term." I think this answers most of the questions we have about Whatley.
Will Whatley ever get over Chambers? (Part 2)
After a failed motion by Councilman Chambers, Whatley stated he would "give somebody else" the opportunity to make a motion. There is nothing in Robert's Rules of Order, nor in the City Charter, that would have prohibited Chambers from making another motion.
Whatley, Grow up. You're embarrassing.
Sour grapes make the best whine
Former Councilman Wayne Sibley, who lost his seat to Dr. Hank Miller in a stunning defeat last year, espoused these sour grapes: [Looking directly at Councilman Miller] "If you're not willing to sign a statement of ethics, in my mind, apparently you don't have any ... or very few."
"I don't think it's appropriate to -- uh -- air executive session issues on the internet as soon as you get through -- get home." "It's not illegal, but it's certainly not ethical." There are only three council members who, to our knowledge, have websites (Chambers, Miller, and Wickliffe). To our knowledge, none of them have placed any material from executive session on their sites.
"When you go to a county meeting where the city staff is presenting an issue that they feel this is the best way to go and you go to that same meeting and present yourself as a council person and asked specifically, 'Are you coming as an individual or a councilman,' and you say 'a councilman,' that's not right." "That's not ethical." We would have to ask Mr. Sibley why it's unethical for a council member to represent themselves as a council member. Isn't that what they are? To represent themselves as a majority of the city council would be inappropriate, but to represent themselves as an elected official is simply letting people know who they are, and respecting the voters who put them into office.
We propose that Mr. Sibley's demonstration of sour grapes was about as impressive as his crying the night Councilman Miller was sworn in (and Sibley was removed).
In one final act of disrespect, Mr. Sibley referred to Councilman Miller as "Hank." Most people addressing the council would refer to him as "Councilman Miller," "Dr. Miller," or "Dr. Hank." How many people walk up to a doctor and call them by their first name, unless they have a personal relationship with them?
The city's investment company made a rather bleak report on the city's finances, including the drop in interest rates. A joke was made about the rates dropping to the point of paying people to keep the money.
Later, Midlothian resident and republican precinct chairman David Lister spoke in open forum, opening with "If the city needs someone to take a couple of million, I'll be glad to do so and enjoy it in Cancun. In fact, you won't see me again for months."
Councilman Joe Frizzell responded, "David, that would be a bargain at any price."
We cannot help but wonder how proper that quip was, especially with the current emphasis on ethics.
01/12/2010
This information is provided as a public service to the citizens of Midlothian.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Citizens For A Responsible Government