Re “In Parking Dispute, Conflict of Interest Is Charged”
With moderately sincere appreciation, we can declare our gratitude to Farragut Drive resident/attorney/critic Les Greenberg.
Stepping where others have declined to tread, Mr. Greenberg noted here yesterday that a City Councilman with whom he disagreed at Monday night’s meeting should have recused himself from the whole mess. Why? Because said Councilman was endorsed during his last campaign by a gentleman who spoke out at the meeting in favor of Mr. Greenberg’s opponent in the current church/parking dispute.
I may be shocked.
I may be appalled.
Praytell, why can’t a lay member of the community endorse the view of a Councilman he supported for re-election without forcing the Councilman to run for the bushes because the Councilman disagrees with a little band of activists? In fact, all five Council members were endorsed by people who spoke on the issue Monday night. Did they all have to recuse themselves? Who would be left to vote?
Gosh almighty. Land ‘o Goshen.
In 13 years, six months and 20 minutes in Culver City, I never have heard such hogwash as the recusal complaint.
Perhaps Mr. Greenberg was running low on critiquing gas.
Just asking out of sheer, decidedly innocent, curiosity:
Turning over the coin, why did Mr. Greenberg not see any reason to criticize the positions or the presence of three of his pro-Farragut Drive colleagues? They stoutly spoke their pieces Monday night after – (ibid, Land o’ Goshen) – despite having endorsed Mayor Meghan Sahli-Wells, the lone Councilperson who stood up for Farragut Drive in her election campaigns.
Was that illustration of non-recusal worthy of exception because you all were on the same side?
Just curious.
Is this an oxian inquiry?
Depends on whose is?
