I’m sure that it makes sense somehow but I’m missing how it connects logically.
Someone help me.
Two (guess it’s like four now-time flies) months ago,
the mayor wants to create a hierarchy where all ideas funnel through the manager
so people don’t ask questions,
so “meetings aren’t too long”,
so “everyone’s on the same page,”
the media and citizens don’t know what questions to ask,
and they all just end up relying on the manager’s decisions for unanimous votes of whatever somebody (she) puts on the agenda.
And the town looks as polished as she wants to pretend she is.
Then after the meeting this Monday, she refers to the one commissioner who does ask consistent questions as a “one man show” as if questions from other elected leaders serving THEIR constituents are a negative.
She doesn’t even want the “one man show.”
She wants “consensus” and “unity”
and she’s too thick headed to realize she’s talking out both sides of her mouth.
And many people will continue to fall in line and not question her “leadership” because they are as ill-equipped to question her as she is to answer them honestly and openly and truthfully.
Her leadership basically consists of appearing wherever she can (often clearly confused when she’s not in control), botching the town up, kicking the responsibility to the town manager (unelected), running headlong by her own bass-ackwards leadership style, and depending on fools to continue believin’.
I just try to sit through the meetings I can stand to sit through. I don’t make it to all of them or even scroll through all of them. Some are just too painful too quick, and I hate to watch two-faced people dance. I might be losing my edge.
But is any of that not true, in anyone else’s notice of recent events?
Someone help me. I can’t tell if the mayor pays attention to herself, so it seems like all of us need to pay more attention to her to help her.