Well, another Snellville Council meeting, and more of the same in my opinion. The mayor nominated the same two people who were both rejected at the last meeting. Why were they nominated again? Nothing has changed. Did you read the piece I wrote about the last meeting, 13 July 2015? Same dance, same tune. I have to wonder if this is an “I’m a victim” by the mayor. From what I’ve seen in the past, that’s her standard practice. I mean these nominations are discussed in the work session before the meeting and everyone knows before they go into the meeting how the vote will go. So the Mayor continues to nominate people she knows will not be confirmed. To what end? Does she like embarrassing nominees? In order to make it look as if she (the mayor) is a victim? Awesome. Big win for us. Go Snellville We Win! Or do we?
Only this time I have every reason to believe the Mayor and one of the candidates co-wrote the comments the candidate made after she was denied a seat on a commission. Just my opinion. Why do I think this? Well I’ve been told that this candidate is a ‘teachers pet” in the leadership course currently in session hosted by the mayor. She may well be qualified, if so, why not got through the process put in place?
After the ‘comments’ portion and Mayor Pro Tem Witts pointed out that two specific directives had not been met for the nominees presented, it seemed clear that the council had done the right thing. I can’t see why anyone should be embarrassed because their nomination was not approved because it had nothing to do with them. It had to do with the process that the Council has for approving nominations. Every nominee has to be vetted by the commission they’re nominated for. No vetting, no approval. It’s that simple. So I have to ask again why the mayor nominated these people for a second time knowing that they had not been vetted and knowing that the nominations would be turned down.
Then the mayor tried to make it look like according to state law the council had in fact passed resolutions and amendments to try to override state law.
I’ve spent ½ the night looking up the “law”’ that was referred to, and the resolution and the 2nd ‘policy’ the city council passed in a majority vote. Neither have anything to do with the law the mayor sited. Neither try to override the law that the mayor sited.
Ever heard of smoke and mirrors? Old carnival trick. Google it.
Pay attention. Ask questions.
It’s OUR City. Act like it, defend it, be involved for your kids sake. For your grandkids sake.
One more thing in case you missed it.