Council Bill 2009-083

When I cast my first public vote, I was unaware that it was going to be one that was so "controversial". Not in that my vote was good or bad, but that I was the one opposition vote to Council Bill 2009-083.

I will always try to be open minded, logical, and objective to all viewpoints, proposals, and ideas; at the same time, there are some bills that I analyze and simply can't be supportive of. This was one of them.

The first time the interest in my vote was brought to my attention [and I'm paraphrasing] is when the News-Leader stated that I was the only opposition vote, and with no explanation. There was no explanation because I was pretty sure that I was going to be the only opposition vote, and for the fact that I didn't believe 'grandstanding' was appropriate for my first vote at my first meeting.

When asked about it by JackeHammer, I e-mailed her my statement. It is one that is not long, rather short and to the point. I don't believe that there is too much more to say than what I did.

In the end it came down to me voting in a manner in which I would have a clean conscience when I lay down at night... and the vote cast is the one that allowed me to do so.

My statement:
"As someone who is opposed to the philosophy behind the stimulus package in whole, I do understand that there is money that the City may very well need to secure. Having said that, President Barack Obama has stated that the money from the stimulus package is meant to go towards job growth, job creation, and infrastructure. When presented with a bill that does none of those things, but instead simply pays rent and utilities of one from the pockets of another, I cannot support it. It comes down to responsible spending; if we must be put in a situation where securing stimulus funds is a necessity, I would hope to secure those monies for what they are meant to be for… nothing more.” -April 23, 2009