Letters to the editor — Thursday (7-24-14)

  • Posted: Thursday, July 24, 2014 2:24 a.m.

Council has more authority than it admits

“State personnel and public records laws prevent City Council members from talking about the situation, Woodson said.”


Are we now to believe that the Rowan County Commissioners violated state laws when they disclosed information about the Tim Russell incident? No, Council lets employees draft their own contracts prohibiting full disclosure.

The reason we were given for City Manager Doug Paris to have “control” of the city was N.C. Statute 160A-148, given to the Post to use in an article. They shortened these statutes and omitted the most important part:

1. In accordance with such personnel rules, regulations, policies or ordinances as the council may adopt.

2. Subject to the general direction of council, except as otherwise provided by the law.

Council did have the power to provide authority, just chose not to.

They tell us John Sofley knows the city “backwards and forwards.” If so, why was Paris, with so little experience, chosen over him?

I do not feel any member of council intended for such poor decision making to take place. However, it seems that the city manager lived the life of the Pied Piper of Salisbury and council just followed as he piped his sour notes. It’s fortunate that someone said stop the music, as most of you know how that story ended!

Council must read documents carefully prior to signing, ask questions about what they do not understand on the financial statements. They are listed above the city manager on the organizational chart and we citizens pay for the knee jerk decisions.

It is not a question of if this information becomes public; it is just a matter of when! Now is the time to come forward and remove the mystery and mend the broken relationship between Council and Taxpayer. We will not move forward until this happens.

And the truth shall set you free!

— Joanne Eichelberger

Salisbury

Front-burner news

I want to thank Elizabeth Cook and Emily Ford for doing what is right and keeping this topic (“Paris: Least experience, but best severance,” July 20) on the front burner.

The news cycle begin what it is will eventually take this story off the front page (City Council will be thrilled) and it will fade away.

However, Salisbury voters, if you do what I just did you will get a reminder next November to vote the Council out. I simply entered on Nov. 4, 2015, on my smart phone two simple words: Council out.

— Neil Nurisso

Salisbury

Justifying folly

Re: “Sides: Loan delay is ‘playing politics,’” July 19.

So to recap, the Tea Party guys bought an old dilapidated mall with untold, ongoing maintenance costs for more than the asking price, taking it off the tax rolls, with no public input. This sounds a bit specious to start with.

And then they attempt to justify this folly by stating the desperate need for county staff space, while at the same time the county possesses two large vacant buildings on Innes Street and Mahaley Avenue that we are already maintaining.

Six of the seven candidates for the new county commission sign a letter requesting a delay in the Local Government Commission application process. (Only Greg Edds would not sign it, as he is a “slicker” version of Sides’ Tea Party.) At the last minute, the lame duck commission pulls the original application because of the public outcry, then they re-package the deal in a sophomoric effort, make it bigger, put some “lipstick on that pig” and try to sell it to the LGC who says, “No, have the newly elected commission come back to us when they are sitting in their chairs.”

Well, now Sides and Pierce are whining! Pierce sends off almost threatening emails to the local legislative delegation soliciting their intervention, and encourages the opposition to stay at home and talk to their wives.

Now Sides supposedly strings together the following sentence: “They’re relegating us to a 3˝ year term…” No, the LGC is just helping you to not make another stupid mistake.

— John T. Blair

Salisbury

Notice about comments:

Salisburypost.com is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Salisburypost.com cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not Salisburypost.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Full terms and conditions can be read here.

Do not post the following:

  • Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
  • Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
  • Personal attacks, insults or threats.
  • The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity.
  • Comments unrelated to the story.