Wednesday, August 22, 2007

City Council Meeting

I only made it in there for about half an hour, catching the tail end of the public comments and the first speeches by Jack, Haynes and McDaniel. To paraphrase Bob Dylan, I didn't need a weatherman to see which way the wind was blowing so left during Haynes' speech.

I did notice the parking lot was packed when I passed by about 9:15 but there were a lot fewer people inside than I would have guessed from the cars. The Southern says around 150 present. The Chamber of Commerce/athletics block occupied a full row and a half of chairs in the back and broke into applause during both Haynes and and Mcdaniels' speeches.

Anything else go on I missed? One commenter says President Poshard appeared downright angry during his presentation.

Labels:


Comments:
Poshard was visibly angry. His face was bright red and he was raising his voice. He spent his time lecturing the City Council and the audience on how gracious the University has been to the city throughout it's history. Unfortunately, no one had cast aspersions on the University, so his tirade came off as pretty childish.

This says nothing of the fact that he offered nothing in the way of concrete specifics about progress on fund-raising on Saluki Way, contingency plans if the rest of the funding from private donors doesn't come through, or how they will deal with cost overruns (you'll notice in today's DE that Moccia has already floated the premise that Saluki Way will end up costing significantly north of $80 million).

He essentially demanded the money from the city, and Cole and a majority of the City Council rolled over like good lap dogs.
 
Goodness anonymous! I attended the entire meeting. Regardless of viewpoint, there is a GREAT difference between passionate speaking, and anger. It may be a sensible idea to be somewhat more objective when it comes to characterizing a person.
 
So you don't think the fact that he was red faced and raising his voice was an indication that he was a little, oh...perturbed?

Goodness, when he went on his long-winded diatribe about what the University has done for the region (which he said was not part of his prepared comments), you interpreted that as 'passion,' not 'anger,' 'frustration,' 'annoyance,' or 'irritation?' That was just 'passion' to you? Please.

I've seen Poshard speak when he is 'passionate' about something. Last night was about a lot more than 'passion.'

I think you're the one who needs a little objectivity.
 
Anonymous,

First, since you mentioned it. Blushing, or flushing of the face is a normal physical response some people experience under particular circumstances such as excitement. In extreme manifestations, some consider it a medical condition worthy of treatment (i.e. this matter shouldn't even be part of the argument)

Second, the man was in a public forum delivering a speech, isn't he supposed to use volume? Like that of other speakers at the meeting, the pathos he exhibited was in character, and appropriate for the situation and overall occasion.

Third, I know for a fact his "diatribe," as you refer to it, wasn't part of what he prepared since I just happened to sit next to him the entire meeting (mere coincidence, I do not know him personally). I observed him listen to people speak, then respond in writing adding to his already prepared comments. He appeared to be very engaged in what people were bringing up.

Fourth, my comment to you about being sensible was not meant as an insult, please forgive me if it came off that way. Rather, I was calling for a bit of caution since words matter and the kinds of things that are at stake in public forums such as blogs are reputations of REAL people. Does that make sense?

I've said my peace.
 
anon,

Gotta disagree. After listening to the council comments on MP3, I think that quite a few were casting aspersions. Maybe they didn't mean to do it, but what happened was they said "students don't want to be here." That's casting aspersions if you ask me.

It would be nice if we had private donations to make any plan work. That being said, I'd rather see us pass this than cut football. I honestly don't like this, but look on the bright side.
 
Children...children....
 
I'd cast an aspersion on the University, specifically the Athletic Department, if the stories about the condition of McAndrew Stadium are accurate. Letting it get into that shape without spending money on basic repairs is just sad. Not blaming Chancellor Poshard for it since the conditions date back beyond him but the Athletic Department should certainly have a lot to answer for. At least, I assume it's under their purvue. If it's someone else's responsibility, then the Athletic Department should have been raising a stink about maintenance for a lot longer time than it has.
 
Gotta disagree. After listening to the council comments on MP3, I think that quite a few were casting aspersions. Maybe they didn't mean to do it, but what happened was they said "students don't want to be here." That's casting aspersions if you ask me.

Who said 'students don't want to be here?' I was there, and I don't recall anyone saying that.
 
I agree with you 100% Sthorne!!!!! Not only has the University "ignored" any needed repairs on the existing McAndrew Stadium, there are several other buildings on campus that are desperate for repairs...many of them quite miniscule, but needed....

Why should we pay for something that's just going to end up in neglect?
 
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]



Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]