L’Observateur / November 18, 2000

DEAR EDITOR: In reference to the confirmation of St. Charles Parish’s Director of Planningand Zoning, my position on Mr. Lambert’s appointment is irrelevant. Likeeveryone else following the process, I was certain he would ultimately beconfirmed, no matter how long it took, and the procedure was by the book.

However, I simply cannot understand someone voting against a measure,then making it possible for it to pass, without changing his own vote. Mr.Minnich snatched defeat from the jaws of victory; the question is why.

The explanation that he wanted to give a member who was absent during thevote his opportunity to vote is strange, indeed. Two other members wereabsent from the meeting. How about their opportunity to go on record in thismatter?

The vote to reconsider could have been made at the next meeting, orpostponed initially until the full council was there. After 10 months’ delay,another two weeks would not have mattered. It is not uncommon for acouncil member to arrive late. Should every vote that they missed then bereconsidered?

Here is a suggestion: Due to concern when absent members miss voting, let’sjust make nine the quorum for the council to do business.

Meanwhile, givethem all a chance to weigh in on Mr. Lambert’s appointment by introducing ameasure to rescind the appointment which, of course, will not pass. Butevery council member will be on record with their votes.

Thelma C. SchexnayderDestrehan

Copyright © #Thisyear# Wick Communications, Inc.Best viewed with 4.0 or higher