Comical Council says one thing - does another ...

I can't stand hypocrites.

People that say one thing and do another.

When you interpret something one way in March and the same thing completely opposite in October, I call you a hypocrite.

The Lockport Common Council's stance on the proposal to house juvenile sex offenders at Wyndham Lawn is hypocritical in my opinion.

Wednesday evening, David Warsocki, president of the Tollgate Hill Citizens Association, showed up at City Hall with a petition of 700 names opposing the installation of juvenile sex offender at the Wyndham Lawn campus.

Suddenly, Alderman David Blackley drew up a late resolution opposing the plan – not that the city council has any say-so over Wyndham Lawn (which sits at the corner of Lake Avenue and Old Niagara Road – in the TOWN of Lockport) – and his five colleagues on the Common Council unanimously supported the resolution.

Now, some of you may see this as representational government at its best: The people asked, the council responded.

But I have a problem with it ... not because I think that Warsocki is over-reacting, over-reaching, and generally nervous-without-a-cause (although I do) ... but because back in March, I asked the Common Council to show their opposition to another cause which the effectually had no control over ... and I was told, “we don't do that.”

On March 4, I wrote “Voice of a Million Tongues” and asked the Common Council and the County Legislature to show their opposition to the War on Iraq.

I even drafted a resolution for each body to adopt, taking into account their required legelese.

And the next day, March 5, Pat Schrader, president of the Common Council appeared on my talk show, Dialog. I asked him what he thought of my proposal. I assumed that him being a good Democrat, he would have seen the War on Iraq for what it was – an attempt by W to get even with the evil Saddam for making his daddy look stupid.

I was wrong. My friend Pat told me, “We don't do that.”

Don't do what, Pat?

Apparently, the Common Council doesn't take up positions that are outside the guise of their direct control.

Hmm, I thought for sure I had recalled them taking sides on issues that didn't “directly affect” them before, but maybe I was wrong.

Okay, Pat. Thanks anyway.

But then, seven months later, on Oct. 1, the Council adopts this Warsocki resolution opposing Wyndham Lawn. Unanimously, I might add.

What does all this mean?

It means that our friends on the Lockport Common Council change their minds with the political winds. I'm sure that had I had a petition of 700 people back in March opposing the war, they would have been more than happy to support my resolution.

It means that they have no convictions and no leadership.

You could say that voting with the public is what they're supposed to do. I say that's hogwash.

The majority of the public in this country supported the War on Iraq because they were brainwashed by our president to believe that if we bombed Iraq, it would halt terrorism.

The majority of the country NOW knows that just wasn't the case.

We elect these people to make decisions and have opinions. If we wanted to make the decisions ourselves on a one-by-one – as-needed basis, we wouldn't need them.

Come to think of it, we don't.

But back to Wyndham.

True there are 700 signatures on that petition, stating their opposition to the plan. But do you really think those 700 people ALL know exactly what is and isn't going to happen at Wyndham?

I got an email from an anonymous writer stating that someone named “Donna” had misled her into signing the petition. And had she known then what she knows now, it would have been 699 signatures. How many others were misled?

This is why we pay people to represent our best interests ... because we don't all have the time to sift through every little detail.

Worth noting: The Common Council doesn't have time to sift through every little detail either.

Joe Gallagher, communication director for Wyndham, told me no one from the city has asked for an official account of what it is Wyndham wants to do.

Explaining the process ...

I find myself in an interesting position.

Due to this column, my web site, NiagaraBuzz.com, and – of course, my role at WLVL as host of the morning show Dialog, I am blessed with a voice that not many people in the area have.

And with great power comes great responsibility ... Spiderman taught me that.

So I'm trying to use caution and due diligence when it comes to the upcoming election.

See, here's the thing: You all know my stance on things. You should, at least. I'm a people person – and by that, I don't mean that I do well at parties. I mean, I want what's best for “the people.” The most people possible. I'm a populist, you couuld say.

And I want to see the people that I support get elected in November. I want the people that I think are going to do a good job to represent me and you ...

And I could – very easily – tell you who you should vote for. I could make endorsements ... much like local newspapers do.

In fact, when I worked for Greater Niagara Newspapers, I was an on-again / off-again member of the editorial board, the little group that decides the newspapers official opinion on matter. Now, it may be worth noting that, more often than not, I was the voice of dissent, but that's another column for another day.

Anyway, it's not that I don't have experience in recommending to people what they should do ... or who they should vote for.

But I'm not going to do that this year. Not in my column. Not on my radio program. Not in person. I am throwing my endorsement to the process. I want you all to familiarize yourself with the issues and make up your own mind on who you should empower. You may elect all the people I want. You may vote for all those I disagree with. Odds are, it'll be a split bill. We'll agree in spots and not in others.

Another way I'm trying to NOT effect the election is by bringing political candidates onto Dialog in pairs. In other words, if a candidate for seat A wants the opportunity to talk with Dialog listeners and callers, the other candidate for seat A must come along as well.

This strategy will be interesting, I must say. If you want to keep your opponent from being on Dialog, all you have to do is not go on yourself.

Hmm.

Now, some people have said that I'm not being fair if one person wants to go on and the other refuses.

“That's not how J.R. Reid did it,” I've heard.

Okay, first of all ... I'm not J.R. Reid. I thought that had been duly cleared up.

In fact, my policy is – in-part – due to J.R. and the last election. I recall people griping that so-and-so got a better day that what's his name. Or Billy Bob was on closer to the election that Billy Rae.

I'm not having that. All or nothing, folks.

However, in an attempt at fairness, I'll be sure to note who wanted to come on and who didn't want to take questions from Dialog callers ... or from myself.

I'm not going to make a HUGE deal out of it, but I am going to start a list on my web page saying who offered, who declined, and who just couldn't figure out how to call me back.

And you can take that list with you to the polls and it will tell you who doesn't endorse Dialog. And maybe that will help you to make up your mind.