It’s the easiest way to post quoted text to your blog, no matter where you find it on the Web. Just select text to quote, add your comments, then publish it instantly to your blog. It’s that simple!
All stories have a background and a foreground but few have the background come after the foreground. But the request made by 6 New Castle County council members might be such a story.The Foreground
New Castle County Council President Paul Clark is crying foul over a formal request by six council members who want him to stop handling land-use legislation until questions are settled about his ability to be impartial on development issues.The request, led by Councilwoman Stephanie McClellan, will appear in the form of a resolution at next Tuesday's meeting.
Before anyone gets excited, the resolution is toothless and as such is largely symbolic:
Clark is not obligated to abide by the measure if it passes -- and said Tuesday that he would not."If somebody asked me before they put a resolution out, I would have had no problem with that," he said. "But this is simply a way for them to try to bring politics into this, try to look good and try to get someone to run against me."
Readers are forgiven if they indulge a healthy skepticism about the claim of one of the most pro development county councilpersons in recent memory that he would have stepped aside from handling land use legislation if only asked. He is, after all, married to a land use attorney whose income depends on her ability to get favorable outcomes from the county for her clients--often developers. Nothing prohibits Mr. Clark from considering the resolution a request and stepping aside anyhow. Instead, he wants to brush it all aside as political:
"What this gets back to is there's been a recurring and historic conflict over the president's office," Clark said. "Councilman Hollins has an inability to get over the fact that he lost for council president in 2004. And I think it's a shame. This is petty politics."Hollins, a Democrat and the longest-serving member of council, dismissed the contention."The other people on this resolution did not run in '04, so it seems to me he's the person who needs to get over it," he said.
Councilperson Hollins wins the point in my view. The cosponsors are Councilpersons John Cartier, Penrose Hollins, Jea P. Street, David Tackett and William Tansey. It's plenty of Democrats trying to inhibit the Democrat Clark. Besides, I recently asked Councilperson Hollins if he were interested in running for County Council President and he said he wasn't. "I run on my strengths," he said, I thought rather honorably "and not on someone else's weaknesses." Of course the overearching question is why has this resolution been proffered now? The putative background is:
The request is the latest in a controversy over an e-mail Clark wrote last month that has riled some residents and prompted calls for the elected leader's censure or resignation.In the e-mail dated June 11, Clark criticized the county's land-use process as "slow, inconsistent and repressive." He sent it to 24 recipients within the development industry and asked for their comments on changes to the laws regulating land use. The message was not sent to fellow council members or the county administration.Clark sent the e-mail from his home computer and says he accidentally included an electronic tag from the law firm of his wife, Pamela Scott, a prominent development attorney with the Wilmington office of the law firm Saul Ewing.Several civic activists have said the letter shows he has a conflict of interest because of his wife.
I believe Councilperson Clark when he says the inclusion of the electronic tag was an accident since he had nothing to gain from including it in his e-mail. At the most, the e-mail and tag only symbolize the inherent conflict of interest Paul Clark has a councilperson through his wife, and one did not need an e-mail with an electronic tag to either make that connection or sponsor the resolution. One only needed to know the facts known since Paul Clark ran for County President. Besides, timing is everything. The story about the e-mail with the electronic tag is weeks old. Why didn't the resolution come up before now if it was the real issue? That is where we get to what, I believe, is the real background behind the story.
"During my employment with New County Council, which began on January 18, 2005," Danielle Catarelli writes to the members of New County Council,
President Clark has directed me, on numerous occassions, to work on items inside the County office which I believe to be unethical and possibly illegal.
The letter concludes by Ms. Catarelli stating that she will provide to NCC's attorney, Greg Wilson, documenation supporting her complaint. Beyond the initial leak of the letter (that was liberally dispersed thoughout the county government I'm told), NCC government has sealed off additional leaks about the matter, particularly the "possibly illegal" activities alleged in the letter. In spite of my efforts to talk to councilpersons, Ms. Catarelli, Mr. Wilson, etc., everyone is towing the no comment line. So I don't know what any of the alleged illegalities are, but I do know the following:
The information is thin, as the New Journal story about it discovered as well. It is nevertheless significant that the resolution comes on the heels of Ms. Catarelli's letter. It could be a coincidence but my best guess is it's not.
________________________Here is a video of my attempt to talk to Paul Clark about the allegations. Unfortunately my video cut off before he told me that he wouldn't answer any questions about "personnel matters."source
Delaware Watch, Delaware Watch, Jul 2008Note: The final appearance of your post may be different, depending upon your blog’s style sheets.