Dear Members of County Council,
After reading Tara’s email, I have to say that if the intention was to reset the tone and establish a more constructive working relationship, I believe it accomplished exactly the opposite.
Quite frankly, Tara might as well saved her diatribe and sent an email containing two words: Pound sand! Because that is how the message reads.
She speaks at length about mutual respect, empathy, accountability, and rebuilding trust, yet the substance of her email is largely a defense of the administration, a criticism of Council's oversight, and an explanation of why Council's questions and requests are frustrating to her. There is very little acknowledgment that Council has a responsibility to ask those questions, demand answers, and ensure that taxpayer dollars are being spent appropriately.
Furthermore, let's also address something I find particularly inappropriate: the reference to my Facebook post and the Charlie Kirk situation.
How dare Tara bring my personal Facebook post into this discussion as some sort of comparison to Mark's email? My Facebook post was my personal expression. It was not a snarky email about Council that was inadvertently sent to the very people it was criticizing. Those are two entirely different circumstances.
Mark's email was about Council, contained comments directed at Council, and ultimately landed in Council members' inboxes. That is not the same as someone expressing a personal opinion on Facebook and subsequently facing public criticism. To suggest that I should therefore have some special obligation to extend compassion in this situation is misplaced and, frankly, insulting!
If Tara wants to talk about accountability, then let's have an honest conversation about accountability for everyone, not just when it is convenient for the administration.
Council's responsibility does not end with approving a budget. The power of the purse is a fundamental part of our role, and asking detailed questions about expenditures, cell phone usage, copier contracts, employee costs, overtime, and collective bargaining impacts is not an attempt to run county government. It is oversight. It is our job.
The fact that these questions may be inconvenient, time-consuming, or frustrating does not make them unreasonable. Nor should Council be made to feel as though asking questions somehow demonstrates a lack of respect for the administration's work.
Regarding budget amendments, Council should certainly be expected to make responsible and financially sound decisions. But the administration should not approach the budget process as though its submitted budget is beyond meaningful examination or that Council's role is simply to accept it and identify a few cuts. We are elected to represent the residents, not to rubber-stamp the administration's recommendations.
What concerns me most about Tara's email is the contradiction between its opening and its message. She asks for empathy, but offers little toward Council. She asks for trust, but seems unwilling to accept the scrutiny that is necessary to build it. She asks for a better working relationship, yet repeatedly characterizes legitimate questions as burdensome and frustrating.
And then there is the reference to someone supposedly saying they would not want her job because of the relationship with Council. That is unfortunate, but it is not Council's responsibility to shield the administration from the realities of public accountability. Disagreement is not hostility. Questions are not disrespect. Oversight is not interference.
If we are truly going to have a reset, it cannot be one-sided. Council cannot be expected to extend understanding, soften its questions, limit its oversight, and accept explanations without meaningful discussion while the administration simply asks to be trusted.
Trust is earned through transparency, accountability, responsiveness, and mutual respect. It is not something that can be demanded in a lengthy email while simultaneously criticizing the very people from whom it is being requested.
I would have welcomed an email that genuinely acknowledged the frustration caused by Mark's comments, recognized Council's legitimate role, and offered a sincere commitment to improving communication. Instead, we received a lengthy explanation of why the administration is frustrated with Council and why our questions are creating additional work.
There is no meaningful effort to bring the parties together in that message. Quite the opposite. If the intention was to extend an olive branch, it was difficult to find it among the criticisms and justifications.
I am perfectly willing to have difficult conversations, ask difficult questions, and work toward solutions. But I will not apologize for doing the job I was elected to do, and I will not accept the suggestion that legitimate oversight is somehow an obstacle to effective county government.
The residents of Northampton County deserve better than an administration and Council that communicate through frustration, defensiveness, and carefully worded lectures about each other's responsibilities.
A reset requires two sides willing to participate. It cannot begin with one side effectively telling the other to pound sand while wrapping the message in language about trust and mutual respect.
Respectfully,