Minnich move under question

Published 12:00 am Saturday, November 18, 2000

DEAR EDITOR: In reference to the confirmation of St. Charles Parishs Director of Planning and Zoning, my position on Mr. Lamberts appointment is irrelevant. Like everyone else following the process, I was certain he would ultimately be confirmed, 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 the vote his opportunity to vote is strange, indeed. Two other members were absent from the meeting. How about their opportunity to go on record in this matter? The vote to reconsider could have been made at the next meeting, or postponed initially until the full council was there. After 10 months delay, another two weeks would not have mattered. It is not uncommon for a council member to arrive late. Should every vote that they missed then be reconsidered? Here is a suggestion: Due to concern when absent members miss voting, lets just make nine the quorum for the council to do business. Meanwhile, give them all a chance to weigh in on Mr. Lamberts appointment by introducing a measure to rescind the appointment which, of course, will not pass. But every council member will be on record with their votes. Thelma C. Schexnayder Destrehan