Monday, January 22, 2018

decisions on the licensing board

In what only can be described as the first challenge for the Mayor and City council, is the appointments of the licensing board. 4 out of  5 candidates were approved, but the fifth, Adam Barosky was not. He is a lawyer who has a practice specializing in alcohol licensing and regulatory compliance. Ms. Grove was the first to question Mr. Barnosky's appointment. And made the point that none of the applicants are from the south side.  Along with CT Stoll who made the point of the lack of transparency in the process.
The nomination sub committee did not see any conflict with Mr. Barnosky's occupation, which to me seems to ignore the obvious.
The Mayor seemed perturbed when asked about the conflict of interest. Saying the candidates were vetted by a group, including a police officer and our own Town Counsel. Was that officer one of the men who raided and killed Mr. Stamps? Is he one of the officers that knew about the spare key to the evidence room? With all due respect to Town Counsel, lawyers are tied with Congress as the least trusted people in the country.
My take is that the Mayor should be aware of the optics of the appointments and should see that anyone who is involved with regulating any industry, should not be in that industry.
Should be a good test of the relationship between the Mayor and the Council, after all, the Council is the checks and balance in our new city government, replacing Town Meeting. And it looks like it's working.


At January 29, 2018 at 10:41 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

I found the comments of Tully-Stolls to be out of line. If she personally has a problem with the way the mayor does something, then she should take it up with the mayor, or up with other city councilors to see if the feeling is shared. To me it sounded like Tully Stolls was on a soap box to criticize the mayor. THey were beating a dead hours. If the city solicitor was on the committee that vetted the candidates, and the city solicitor saw no conflict, then why did the district council hold off on an approval "until we hear from the city solicitor"? Are they saying they don't trust Petronni and expect him to give them a different answer than they gave the mayor? The district council came across as arrogant and power hungry. We have a mayor now, and the former process is no longer the process. Get use to it!

At January 29, 2018 at 6:24 PM , Blogger jim Pillsbury said...

But don't you agree.. the optics, appointing someone who helps liquor licensees might be considered a conflict? I get what you mean.. I just don't want to look back at this and wish they had not approved him? In her defense, CT Stoll did make a good point about transparency. After-all, TM, BOS were if nothing else transparent. Not having the paperwork ahead of time was a Town Meeting problem years ago, it shouldn't carry over to the Council.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home