I would like to respond to the TWO recent editorial screeds authored by city councilwoman Angela Blake. First, it appears Ms. Blake’s recent religious conversion as to accountability, transparency, process, structure, and continuity is merely sour grapes stemming from her recent demotion from council president. Where has she been all these years on those very issues?
Council went to a bi-weekly schedule in January 2025, which made sense as the county council, which has a heavier workload than the city council, meets on the same schedule. There was minimal discussion to change back to the weekly schedule, which is a huge inconvenience for the public, as well as at least several councilmembers. I understand the administration wanted weekly meetings because sometimes city employees needed to attend council meetings and it made for a long day for those employees. A simple solution would be for any employee(s) that would be required to attend a city council meeting be permitted to report to work a few hours later that morning so their work day would not be much longer than normal.
Next, Ms. Blake is opposed to the proposed simple solution to the appointment process, which has yet to be voted on by council. My understanding of the discussion at this point is to hold a special election if the remaining term is at least one year. If less than a year then the council would appoint a candidate after an interview process to be determined. In case of a tie, it has been proposed that the mayor cast the deciding vote, just like many other municipalities do. Ms. Blake is opposed to the mayor voting in case of a tie, complaining that it mixes the legislative and executive branches. That argument does not hold water as the clearest example of an executive branch officer breaking a tie in the legislature is when the vice president casts the tie breaking vote in case of a tie in the U.S. Senate.
Regarding Ms. Blake’s second screed, I have attended nearly every city council meeting for the last two years and I do not recall ever hearing Ms. Blake publicly raise any of these questions. This is merely another one of her efforts to criticize the mayor without providing the public with both sides of the issues. While people like Ms. Blake may not like the mayor’s “style,” whatever that is, it is undeniable that he has gotten more accomplished for the residents of this city than prior administrations. Just ask long time councilwoman April Jackson about all the empty promises from previous administrations that this mayor has delivered on for her district.
Ms. Blake wrote that, “recent months have seen shifts in leadership and repeated adjustments to policies that had only recently been adopted.” The change in leadership was because of Ms. Blake’s lack of leadership, bullying of certain city employees, and inability to properly run a council meeting. The adjustments to policy were to revert those policies back to what was working before her short-term presidency changed them. All for the better.
While the “new leadership” has had I think, two meetings so far, Ms. Blake complains that it hasn’t updated the public on coordination with state partners regarding the homelessness and affordability issues. Give us a break, please!
I also want to address Ms. Blake’s worthless platitudes about “good governance requires more than speeches and proposals. It requires follow-through, communication, and transparency.” These are all things that Ms. Blake has avoided in the two years I have attended council meetings.
Exhibit “A” was a closed-door meeting held I believe in 2024, that was ruled a violation of the open meetings law. The councils that Ms. Blake has served on have had several unnecessarily “closed-door” meetings that the public has complained about. Where’s the transparency?
Exhibit “B” was Ms. Blake’s, as well as Ms. Gregory’s, and Mr. Doughty’s, cowardice in the face of vocal opposition to the increase in density from 40 to 80 units per acres in the commercial business district (CBD) that they all voted in favor of. All three of them refused to explain to the public why they voted for the increase that their very own Department of Infrastructure and Development wrote a lengthy argument against. Where was Ms. Blake’s transparency then? Although councilwoman Jackson at least attempted to defend her vote in favor, her answer was not satisfactory.
Lastly, Ms. Blake claims that “our residents are asking questions. They deserve answers.” Again, she does not practice what she preaches. As one of many city residents who have sent emails to council members, I only receive a response from my councilwoman Sharon Dashiell, even though my email was directed to ALL members of council.
As a city resident, I would respectfully request Ms. Blake get over herself, and start practicing what she has preached. It would be a refreshing change.
Joe Schiaffino
Salisbury resident
Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at civiltalk@iniusa.org.
