As reported in a previous blogpost, on April 12, 2010 the Tampa Bay Regional Planning passed a resolution opposing Amendment 4 after having heard presentations by representatives of the "Yes on 4" and the "No on 4" campaigns.
Unfortunately, the proponents of Amendment 4 are extremely dissatisfied with how they feel they were treated by the TBRPC. According to a Creative Loafing blogpost by George Niemann, titled "The Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight Tries to Ambush Amendment 4." the Hometown Democracy speaker (Robert Weintraub) felt "ambushed" by the format of the presentations:
"...Manny Pumariega, Executive Director....calls Robert Weintraub, an Amendment 4 campaign coordinator/speaker with an impressive bio. He asks him, as a favor, to please present the pro side to the undecided council. Undecided??? What a joke. He tells him that the other side already presented so he will be the sole presenter and will have 10 minutes. Not realizing the trap these desperate characters were setting for him, Weintraub graciously accepted the invitation. The agenda confirms what Weintraub was told – a single presenter on Amendment 4. Weintraub travels all the way from the east coast of Florida to accommodate the TBRPC request.
What wasn’t clear until after the meeting was that TBRPC staff had arranged an ambush against the Amendment 4 speaker.
Even though developer lobbyist Weaver had already presented last month they sat him in the audience close to the podium. Normally the public is not permitted to speak at regular council meetings.
Weaver’s speech brought me back to clips I had seen of the old Oral Roberts TV show where he used to heal the lame that hobbled their way up to the microphone. His rambling gave the impression that Satan had reemerged in the form of a ballot amendment. The most ironic thing is that while Weaver is acting like a preacher claiming that Amendment 4 is satanic, most of what spewed from his mouth were lies (including misstatements about supreme count rulings regarding the amendment).
In a flash, the motion for the anti-4 resolution was quickly brought forward and it was passed. It was all secretly choreographed by Duncan and Pumariega and ran like a precision German cuckoo clock.
So this is what the TBRPC thinks is a fair study of the ballot amendment:
Have lobbyists for the opposition speak for 20 minutes
Then invite the pro side to speak under false pretenses for only 10 minutes
When you introduce the pro speaker, don’t show him any respect…just give his name with no other introduction, as is customary when you introduce a speaker (in most civilized countries around the world)
Then have a surprise rebuttal speaker pop out of the audience and speak for 6 minutes so hopefully they’ll not remember what the previous speaker said.
Unlike Mr. Niemann, I was present at BOTH of the TBRPC meetings, and, having observed all of the presentations and the TBRPC's extensive discussions on the issue, I'd say that Mssrs. Weintraub and Nieman "doth protest too much." Way too much.
Mr. Weintraub was not ambushed. He was not mistreated.
He was given an opportunity to speak on behalf of the Pro-Amendment 4 Campaign/Hometown Democracy after the A4/HTD campaign failed to attend the earlier March 8th meeting. Mssrs. Weintraub and Niemann's indignation that Mr. Weaver (the No on 4 speaker) was given a brief opportunity to comment is disingenuous since, if Niemann had attended on March 8th and made his presentation on behalf of HTD/A4, Mr. Weaver would have had an opportunity to follow and present a rebuttal: Nieman's failure to attend and present at the earlier meeting deprived Weaver of his rebuttal opportunity. Someone as cynical as Niemann might question why Weintraub is so offended that Weaver was afforded a fair and reasonable rebuttal opportunity that Weaver would have had anyway if Niemann had attended and presented, but I'm not, so I don't.
Weintraub (and Niemann's) real problem is that Weintraub's presentation was unpersuasive, confrontational and contained factual inaccuracies, and, when his presentation was concluded, Weintraub was unable to answer the fair, reasonable and insightful questions that were asked of him by the Council. Rather than being so concerned about what Weaver ahd to say, Weintraub should have been more concerned about preparing and presenting logical, persuasive and factually acurate arguments. He failed to do so, and the Council's action was the result.
It was Mr. Niemann who was on the agenda to speak at the March 8th meeting on behalf of Amendment 4/Hometown Democracy, and Niemann did not attend. Contrary to Niemann's cynical suggestion, there was no "standing ovation" when the No on 4 speakers made their presentations. If Niemann had attended the March 8th meeting he writes so acrimoniously about, he would have seen the concern that was expressed by the Council that a pro-Amendment 4 speaker was not present and the Council's deliberate decision not to decide upon a formal resolution until A4/Hometown Democracy had had an opportunity to speak. If the Council were in such a hurry to oppose Amendment 4, as Nieman suggests, wouldn't they have just passed a resolution to that effect on March 8th? They didn't do that.
If Niemann had attended the March 8th meeting, he would have witnessed the extensive debate and discussion that ensued between the members of the Council about the Amendment 4 issue and its potential impact on Floridians, and he would have seen Tampa Bay's elected officials doing precisely what they were all elected to do: having careful discussions and making reasoned decisions in the best interest of the people. Unfortunately, Niemann wasn't there, and it does a serious disservice to Creative Loafing readers to suggest that these discussions did not occur. Furthermore, Niemann's assertions that the Council engaged in "secret choreography" to ram through a vote against Amendment 4 is clearly belied by the Council's actions during the earlier meeting that Niemann did not attend.
Niemann's blogpost also cites a letter Weintraub wrote to the Council in which, among other things, Weintraub complains that:
"[A]ny visiting speaker before any organization is accorded the courtesy of a proper introduction. I had responded to your request for personal biographical information, but no more than my name was mentioned in introduction, as if I was some creature pulled in off the street."If this is part of the reason why Weintraub feels so mistreated, his grievance is way off base. He clearly did not see the Council's agenda, which was posted on the internet and available before the April 12th meeting, which stated:
"Mr. Robert Weintraub, Chair of the Florida Sierra Chapter's Growth Management Committee and an officer of the Nassau County Group of Sierra Club will present as a proponent for Amendment 4. A former journalist with the NY Times and Atlanta Constitution, he has had a 42 year career in public relations. He is a former president of the New York Public Relations Society. Mr. Weintraub has been involved in environmental projects for most of his life."
With all due respect to Mr. Weintraub, there is no rational basis for him to feel that the Council failed to recognize his professional and biographical accomplishments and bona fides or that he was treated "as some creature pulled in off the street," and it is unfortunate that Niemann, who apparently was present at the April 12th meeting and presumably saw the agenda, still seeks to create an impression in his blogpost that Weintraub's bona fides were not fairly disclosed. Quite simply, its not the truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment