Ellington

Mayor Harvey Jr. Johnson rode back into the mayor's office on a platform of openness to the media and the voting public, but he recently left himself vulnerable to criticism on this very issue.

Ward 1 Councilman Jeff Weill sent a letter to Johnson in early October asking to "have an offline discussion with" the nominees for the police and fire chief positions. He wrote that he would be "inclined to support" both nominees after a "private and thorough discussion" on their positions, and added that without such a discussion he would be disinclined to confirm them.

Johnson took offense, and considered the letter a kind of ultimatum. The letter could be interpreted as such—but Johnson came off as abnormally cold in his reaction to Weill's demands. Yes, Weill is watching Johnson like a hawk. He's overly cautious on Johnson's handling of the budget, and he's excessively nervous about how Johnson's administration is funding both the police department and street paving, as well as a flurry of other niggling concerns that come across more political than anything. Weill is clearly desperate to catch somebody's hand in a cookie jar.

Absurdly, Weill wrote in a letter to The Clarion-Ledger last Sunday that former Mayor Frank Melton—who was no paragon of openness—went out of his way to introduce his nominees to the council. Heck, he had to. We imagine that he had fire chief nominee Todd Chandler, who didn't have a prayer of confirmation, personally bring coffee and donuts to council members' doorsteps in an attempt to be chummy. Meanwhile, Melton was probably hiding in a room shredding public documents that he refused to provide to the council or the public.

Still, Johnson's administration never responded to Weill's requests regarding nominees Raymond McNulty and Rebecca Coleman. According to Weill, city staff never followed through with making appointments. Weill's request may have gone against protocol, or perhaps Johnson feared Weill would chip away at the two over coffee until he unearthed a couple of critical flaws to carry to the press—or minor flaws that Weill would try to blow up into something much of the media would jump on without question.

Maybe Johnson had other reasons to shield his nominees from Weill's questioning, but simply ignoring his request with gave Weill what he needed, and now Johnson must work harder not to look aloof or like he's backsliding on his vow of transparency.

Yes, some critics have their ulterior motives. Weill may well fall into that category, but there's no sense in helping your enemies by giving them yet another weapon with which to beat you, especially if the issue can be remedied with a simple cup of coffee or a polite explanation.

Previous Comments

ID

153162

Comment

Seems to me Johnson handled the situation just right. Why should Johnson grant Ill Weill additional powers. I bet Weill voted against him. Weill can't be won over - he's a republican.

Author

Walt

Date

2009-11-07T16:05:01-06:00

ID

153967

Comment

Just doing a little research on how JFP has been covering the Johnson Administration these first few months. Judging from the headline of this article JFP is not happy with the Mayor. The article however is, in my opinion, well balanced as the JPD also pointed out many of the disrespectful, confrontational an insulting connotations, both inherent and nuanced, in Weil's approach to the Mayor. To be fair, I would have titled this piece: "Weil AND Johnson Fumble"

Author

FrankMickens

Date

2009-12-03T14:10:41-06:00

ID

153970

Comment

We've had a number of pieces pointing out Weill's fumbles already, Frank. But thanks for the feedback!

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2009-12-03T14:45:36-06:00

ID

153976

Comment

The thing that killed Weill's argument of just wanting an open discussion is the fact that he wanted "a private and through discussion" with the two candidates. He also used the word "off-line." If you are asking Johnson to be transparent, why is it being suggested that he allows Weill to set up some type of private, off-line, back room, sinister type of situation for others. He's being asked to let Weill hide out with these two appointments; yet, asking for transparancy from him (Johnson). What a dichotomy!!! Why isn't the question being asked, "Why did Weill deserve this type of milieu." Why can't his questions be asked and answered in an open forum with other council members present? Did/Does he think that black folks will tell the truth or give honest answers only if they are alone with him??? One thing that one must remember and respect is the cultural element present in this scenario. For the bloggers here who grew up in MS during the 50's and 60's, a white male asking (demanding) privacy with a black male or female ment that they would never see another sunrise or sunset. The one person making the demand or taking the black person out of his comfort zone was acting in the interest of the group - more specifically, the KLAN. Don't get my BP up today.

Author

justjess

Date

2009-12-03T16:17:50-06:00

ID

153983

Comment

Justjess, Now I completely missed both of your points in my initial reading of the article. Thanks for the enlightenment.

Author

FrankMickens

Date

2009-12-03T19:08:12-06:00