A testy flappette erupted Monday night at the City Council meeting, involving the conjoined issues of federal stimulus money and the degree to which any district rep should go against the wishes of a fellow district rep on an issue in his own district.
The issue was whether to award a contract for $639,362 in stimulus bucks. The money will pay for fiber optic cables and cameras and other techno-equipment to let traffic lights on 13 miles of N.C. 51 (Pineville-Matthews Road) and about a mile of Providence Road south of N.C. 51 adjust their timing in response to traffic. I.e., better traffic flow, fewer backups at lights. Want more details? Here’s a link to the agenda, see page 18.
As it happens, the project is almost entirely inside District 7, represented by Republican Warren Cooksey.
And for months, Cooksey has been pulling a Mark Sanford routine, although in his case it’s not trysts with an Argentine soulmate or questionable use of funds, just Sanford’s refusal of federal stimulus money for South Carolina. Cooksey’s been voting against any measure that involves federal stimulus money. He opposes the stimulus spending because it raises the national deficit, because the president and Congress are Democrats (he doesn’t say that, but you get the idea), yada yada. You know the arguments.
Meantime, just about every time you say hello to Republican Mayor Pat McCrory, he goes off about how the Democrats are horribly misspending all that stimulus money and how dumb they’re being, etc. etc. I don’t even talk to him that much and I’ve heard it at least a half-dozen times. He played that riff again Monday night. I imagine some council members might be a wee bit annoyed at the endless Demo-bashing.
In other words, partisan national politics is infesting council operations – no surprise, and not the first time.
This time, though, the partisan stuff got tangled in an existing, informal pattern among district reps that says you generally don’t oppose another district rep’s position on issues in his/her district. It’s not a firm agreement, nor always followed. But you see it a lot in zoning cases, for instance. (For the record, I wish district reps would apply their own judgment to those zoning issues instead of letting the one person who’s more apt to be swayed by shallow NIMBY concerns control the whole shebang. But that’s a posting for another day.)
Monday night, some council members wondered aloud: If the district rep opposes this, why should we be for it? (Purely coincidentally all were Democrats).
Democrat Michael Barnes, District 4, said (I’m paraphrasing here), If a district rep doesn’t believe in projects in his district, why should we support them?
Democratic at-large rep Susan Burgess pointed out for anyone watching on TV that she would support the spending to help traffic on N.C. 51, even though the district rep opposed it.
Then Republican at-large rep John Lassiter, who lives near N.C. 51, got surprisingly testy. It was as though he had been holding inside weeks worth of anger at Democratic council members. Trust me, the guy was angry. He said (again, I’m paraphrasing), I don’t understand how you [i.e. the Democrats] would choose to vindictively punish the people in the district just because their rep is acting on his conscience.
In the end, the measure passed, but four district reps voted no: Barnes, District 3 Warren Turner, District 2 James Mitchell, and – no surprise – Warren Cooksey.