Penman’s comments inappropriate at council meeting
I watched the rebroadcast of the County Council meeting of March 5. Aaron Penman withdrew the Accessory Dwelling Unit bill. I appreciate his decision.
When it was time for remarks from council members, however, I was prepared to hear about functions they attended or projects they were working in their district. Yet, when Penman, who represents District B, began his remarks, I was shocked. His remarks were not about how he spent time addressing issues in his district. In my opinion, Mr. Penman, seemed argumentative and that led to “a darker terrain”, as quoted March 13 in The Aegis (“Charges of ethical lapses, wiretaps embroil council”).
I don’t believe any of our elected officials are always right. When a discrepancy is discovered, it needs to be addressed.
The County Council meeting was not the place for Mr. Penman to address his issues. He accused the county executive of improper actions, abuse of power, unethical and bizarre behavior, conflict of interest, weaponizing the ethics board, and waging war on law enforcement.
Mr. Penman’s remarks contained some serious accusations that are between the Sheriff’s Department and the county executive or he and the county executive. They should be addressed through appropriate channels.
Mr. Penman’s remarks on March 5 made this County Council meeting uncomfortable, even embarrassing, to watch.
— Janet Hardy, Abingdon
Public attacks are not the work of a public official
Arguing in public is neither warranted or pretty. To be honest, I am not too keen on responding to Sheriff Jeff Gahler’s recent commentary, but perhaps those reading this response will concur that it has value and furthers healthy discussions of the public’s concerns over political infighting. The back and forth is a slippery slope, yet I will endeavor to remain on the high road.
Describing my comments about back-and-forth bickering and the public tirades between elected officials (“Harford County Devolves Into A Sleaze Fest,”, March 15), you label my words as a sleazy political hit piece (“Letter writer misrepresented sheriff’s positions”, March 19). Beginning your article in this manner unfortunately colors your own comments as sleaze, and there is simply no need for that. Character attacks are cheap, sophomoric gestures. The words I have written in ‘Sleaze Fest’ and past articles attack the very public behavior of nastiness that we have all witnessed.
Due diligence in reading my article would show that I am not attacking anyone. I have the utmost respect for my public officials, whether I agree with them or not. Each one of you have studied, trained and worked hard to get where you are. Voters believed in electing this current slate of leaders, and that’s where we go from here. The challenge for you, sheriff, and for all public officials, is to be supportive, encourage discussion, work hard to find common ground and get the business done.
What is not a job requirement is calling the county executive out for allegedly defunding the Central Precinct and Training Academy (County Council Budget Session, April 25, 2023). Defunding the police is a vitriolic phrase that insinuates many things, and when you made that remark, you clouded any notion that you and the county executive were working together.
Instead of saying that you had disagreements and were working to resolve the issue, you have spent precious time fighting your battle in public, trading insults and turning up the heat. I am not excusing the county executive of innocence in this matter of respect either. Both of you have leveled pot shots at each other. Perhaps your own words define your stance: “I’m to the point where I’m not sitting down and talking to him because I know I’m not being treated honestly.” Perhaps out of context, but if every elected official believed that way, we’d be in a mess.
Genuinely though, I must apologize for my poor choice of words in describing this training academy as your pet project. Reading back, pet project sounds derogatory, although that was not my intention. In the context that I said it, pet project is meant to describe your passion and desire to get this project approved. I did not express this clearly, and you are correct in calling me out for it. You strongly believe that this facility is what the public needs and that is admirable.
Yet, as far as my words being a sleazy, political hit, nothing could be further from the truth. I am not interested in personal attacks, I am not aligned with any candidate or any side of an issue. I don’t make insinuations and my imaginative stories, as you call them, are my perspective and opinion on what I and many others are witnessing from our local public officials.
In your recent commentary, you mention the many meetings that you’ve had with the county executive’s office. This is newsworthy and the first time we’ve heard this. Still, you characterize Bob Cassilly at those meetings as having “unprofessional behavior and unhinged and dishonest commentary and attacks.” The gist of each and every news report on the ounty executive and the County Sheriff’s Office has been all about trading insults, not working together. In that sense, sensationalism has won the day.
I challenge both you and County Executive Cassilly (and others) to dial back the vitriolic barb trading and ease up on the personal attacks. If you want to show the public that working through disagreements together can be a positive thing, get to it.
Addressing your confusion regarding my statements about Councilman Aaron Penman and you being notably upset, I believe I am right. Deputy Penman works under your command, and you saw no conflict with him being on the County Council. I would be notably upset, too, if an employee I felt was a good employee had to resign because of a conflict, especially if I felt the conflict was an unfair ruling. The courts reversed that prior decision and Penman gets to work for you. Hopefully, if he, too, refrains from derogatory comments, he can be productive at his other job.
That whole wiretapping incident replete with everybody holding press conferences and trading insinuations was an exercise in pettiness at the taxpayer’s expense. From all who were involved. With all due respect, it isn’t what any of you believe in that’s an issue, it is how you conduct the battle that makes the public nauseous.
As far as I go, in the future, the less you hear from me, the better you’ll have been at doing your job. You’ve insinuated things about me and called me a few names as well, and that’s fine by me. I’m not an important figure in the political realm and have never run for office. I’m wrong a lot (ask my wife!), but my perspectives and opinions are not imaginative stories, and more voters than myself are weary of the less-than-above-board behavior from you or any of our elected officials who choose that route.
I’ll close with a statement from one of my earlier articles that should have resonance not only with the County Sheriff’s Office, but the County Council, county xecutive, town commissioners, and anyone else who got elected to serve:
Trading swipes, bellyaching online and maneuvering injustices to lay at someone else’s feet in a public forum are sophomoric traits that do nothing but parade incompetence. Sit down at the table with your opponents and figure out a professional way to do the job you were elected to do.
— Patrick Wallis, Bel Air
Trump’s baggage far more damaging than Biden’s age
I read Armstrong Williams’ opinion about President Biden. He is aging like everyone does. But in the case of the other party’s presumtive candidate, he is a liar, was found guilty of sexual abuse, and is a fraudulent tax evader.
He is heading toward trial for trying to steal the 2020 election. Joe Biden, 46th president of the United States, is doing the job for all citizens, not just the ones who voted for him, and he derides no one.
— John Farmer, Havre de Grace
