You're watching Open Agenda. Here's our
host, Joe Venosa.
>> Hi, welcome to Open Agenda. This week in
the house, we've got Miss Trish Melvin
from Fruitland, Mr. Jim Atkins from
Mardella. Thank you for being here both.
So, we've got quite an episode because
uh we're are devoting it almost
exclusively uh to the issue that has
been in the news recently, which is of
course the decision by the council to
discontinue the Lord's Prayer uh at the
start of county council meetings. Um
this is an issue that has obviously
divided the community and certainly is
all over social media as everything else
seems to be these days. And uh what I'd
like to do is we actually have our
friends uh Mr. Joe White and Mr. Jose
Caphino and I'd like to bring them on
for a battle of the Joe's and sort of
talk a little bit about their
differences uh in that decision and and
maybe get into why it h why it happened
in the way that it did, but maybe how
could it have been handled better
perhaps.
>> Uh do a little bit of a counterfactual.
So, um I'm going to bring them on in a
minute and then we're going to get into
that. Uh would you guys maybe be willing
to stick around for a bit and then we'll
come back?
>> Sure. I want to hear what they said.
>> Yeah.
>> All right. Thank you both. Stick around.
We'll be right back with our next
segment of Open Agenda.
Welcome back to Open Agenda. In the
studio with us is Mr. Joe White from
Parsonsburg. Welcome, sir.
>> And of course, another Joe, Mr.
Josephino, right here from Salsbury.
Thank you, sir. So, gentlemen, we're
going to talk about an issue that
obviously has uh engendered a lot of of
debate and intense disagreement in some
cases. And it's certainly an issue that
is once again putting our little county
on the map uh as far as media coverage.
And that of course is the recent
decision by the council to discontinue
the Lord's Prayer uh as a result of
several other things that occurred uh in
the past few months. So there's a lot of
views on it and there's a lot of um
concerns in different ways and you guys
are both on opposite ends of that debate
and so I'm curious what your thoughts
are. Just if we could kind of start it
from
the basic principle of okay, the prayer
is now gone. How do you feel about it?
Let's start there and then maybe we can
backtrack.
>> Well, I'm glad you're going to because I
think they're two different issues. Uh I
I'm not happy that the Lord's prayer has
been taken off. Um more importantly, it
this has not been addressed by President
John Cannon. Uh it was just simply left
off of the agenda with no explanation,
no opportunity to have an invocation.
This is something that's 150 years of
tradition
>> in Wcomakico County.
>> Uh I don't understand that part. uh even
if I could agree with I I don't
[clears throat] want to see the county
get sued by uh some outside group.
>> Okay. So, Joe, what do you think about
the issue?
>> Well, number one, um I understand the
disappointment of of of the number of
people that that enjoyed that. Um but
again, uh when I attended my first
council meeting in 2024 and they
recited, I knew I I recognized
immediately that's not permissible. But
I didn't I didn't say anything, you
know. Okay, I'm just let it go. And it
wasn't until this past September uh when
Councilman Win, and again, I I believe
he had good intentions, but once he
started reading from the Bible and
saying he was praying for people who
weren't Christian, he crossed the line.
I brought I brought something important
here today that we've got some people in
this audience and in this council that
are trying to figure out what is going
on in the world. Why is this happening?
Why the craziness? Right? I hear it up
here. And I'm telling you, it's because
people were falling away from the word,
from Christ.
And it's actually everything's right
here. The answers, this is truth. You've
got the beginning, you've got the
present, and you've got the ending
written right here. It's all here. It's
already in Thessal uh second
Thessalonians where there will be a
falling away. And I have a few
scriptures that I'd like to read. And I
just I just want everybody to really
think about this. I know not everyone
here's a Christian, and that's okay.
I'll pray for you. And you know, there's
only one way. There's only one way
>> and that's that's through Jesus Christ
as your Lord and Savior
>> and it that's what caused you to want to
to to work with the Freedom from
Religion Foundation to
>> and the Americans United for separation
of church and state.
>> Okay. But Councilman Wyn I mean him
reading Bible verses um you know that he
he took his time to do that and I I
think five is just too many. I don't
think it's effective, but that's what he
decided. And and at the end, I I was
there. I was at the meeting. I saw how
many folks got offended when he said,
"Look, I if you're not Christian, I I'll
still pray for you, and there's only one
way." But that that is a separate issue
from the opening Lord's Prayer. and and
I do appreciate the fact that I know
you've been going to the meetings for
well over a year and you hadn't said
anything but uh this in this last four
months this since since those comments
were made to this last meeting there's
been no public discussion and that is
very frustrating for folks like myself
who who who choosed to recite it every
every meeting. Well, and again, the fact
that that that council president and
even the council solicitor, who I would
think should have known better, that
they didn't stop, you know, tell him,
"Wait a minute." Um, that raised a
concern for me that maybe this council
doesn't understand the concept of
separation in church and state. and the
an elected official sitting in a public
meeting, anything he says is considered
government speech. So by reciting the
Lord's prayer, that's considered an
endorsement by that governing body of
that specific religion. Could could I
just interject on one point because this
has been brought up by some people in
the community as well that the Lord's
Prayer is kind of traditionally
uh used because it is sort of for lack
of a better term the most inclusive as
far as faith because it sort of doesn't
necessarily
um single out again I I understand
that's debatable but I'm just explaining
that that is one [clears throat]
argument made. Do you think that the
council genuinely knew that they were
dealing with an issue that was legally
uh questionable or that maybe it was
tradition? Nobody ever complained about
it before and it was a kind of live and
let live thing until Mr. Wind's actions
kind of took it in a different
>> but I would go back to which which which
piece are we arguing here? Are we
arguing and we've talked about it on on
the show before. Are we talking about
the ruling from the first the fourth
circuit court that says that government
may not lead the prayer?
>> Doesn't [clears throat] mean it can't be
there. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be
there.
>> Exactly.
>> Or are we talking about Councilman Wyn
and his comments during council comments
because I think that that's really what
set some folks off. But that's not
that's not the that's not the remedy
we've come up with or that has been
brought on to us.
>> True. But it it it again it got to the
point where um
the separation of church and state again
and and the four we were the only county
in the entire fourth circuit that was
still doing that.
>> You know that for a fact.
>> Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So, and and the last
two cities that challenged that, one was
in 2013 that cost that city $125,000
in legal fees. And the more recent one
was 2018, that was the city of
Parkerburg in in West Virginia. That
cost the city $58,000 in legal fees. So,
the council, they did the responsible
thing by eliminating the prayer. Now,
[clears throat] just because the prayer
is eliminated and just because
we're enforcing the separate church
state doesn't make me or anybody else
[clears throat] anti- relligion because
as I said in my letter to council and uh
the the letter from the uh freedom from
religion foundation said it is perfectly
fine to have an invited clergyman. That
has been the tradition in our country
since the first Congress. And I have no
problem with that.
>> And I don't see why in the last 4 months
cuz the meeting that that that upset Joe
was from September 16th of 2025.
>> So we had six four months
>> Yeah.
>> to to come up with a solution. And the
reason why we had covered it on the show
was to bring public awareness about
>> some folks concerns about it.
>> There's been no remedy. And and I I'll
be honest with you, I'm really
disappointed in the county council for
not having been more forthcoming in
public and I'm looking for them to do
that at the next meeting. I
>> I I think um sorry to jump in, but I I I
think you are on an important point and
and and this is maybe part of um why
we're looking at a little bit
differently. It's not only the Lord's
Prayer, but it's the fact that the
Lord's Prayer was essentially the
collateral damage done by James W's
actions.
>> Yeah. I mean, I we haven't changed the
fact that at the next county council
meeting, Councilman Wyn can choose to
still read Bible verses. Whether you can
agree with that or not, I don't think
that if that is the crux of what some
folks have had an issue with.
>> Yeah.
>> I don't believe that's been addressed
whether I agree with it or not.
>> And that's a se and that's a separate
issue.
>> Okay. and and that's also debatable. Um,
most of the court decisions that I've
read, including fourth circuit ones,
strictly deal with the recital of the
Lord's Prayer by uh a council member, an
elected official. So what you're telling
me is that theoretically if somebody on
a council gets up and they read passages
from a Bible or a Quran or a Torah or
the Bhagavad Gita whatever
>> that [clears throat]
legally speaking we don't really know
where that sits or uh
>> do do we have a sense
>> we have a sense that it's not
permissible because again the courts
have ruled that an elected official
sitting at a public meeting anything
they [clears throat] say is considered
government speech. So if he's revi re
reciting from a Christian Bible or a
Jewish Torah or a Muslim Quran, that
government official is favoring one
religion over all the others. So it's an
exclusive policy. So if it went to court
based on what I see, it would be struck
down. and and my biggest fear is
taxpayers dollars being wasted on a a
very expensive lawsuit that may not
>> ultimately lend itself to to be in favor
or even address the issues at hand.
That's that's where I I I worry. And I
think that's kind of the essence of what
the council's response at least up to
this point has been was that they
recognized that it was more than likely
well it was certainly going to be an
expensive court challenge but it was
more than likely going to be a losing
one too.
>> Well, President John Cannon finally did
come out with a press release this week.
Correct. And that finally addressed part
of it. It's just why is it so late? And
also the timing of that is to your point
it's late but it's it's also reactive to
what the county executive had been doing
uh because she had gotten on her uh
Facebook account I believe a few weeks
ago and made a pretty long um
>> No, it was recent.
>> Was it recent? Okay. Well, it was
relatively
in the same line of of of time of of
this debate where she got on Facebook
and made a pretty long rant kind of
going after the council but not really
explaining to the public uh what
actually happened accurately.
>> I feel her frustration and and some of
it's the same that I feel, but again,
>> she was aware that this this happened
back in September and and you you're
looking for your your local leaders to
lead.
>> Yeah. And and to me, someone who's been
actively participating in government for
years now, u we we weren't led. We were
it it wasn't transparent and it and it
was just done ad hoc. And now even now
press releases and social media posts
coming out are merely reactionary and
>> well and and I think to some extent we
can't separate the ideological view of
the issue from the politics of this
because I feel this is my my thought in
seeing what's been going on that people
are are using this to make political hay
particularly uh from my perspective from
the executive's office because I feel
that the decision to step into the
public prayer debate now late to your
point, you know, the executive was
utterly silent for months about this
issue. She never addressed it, never
talked, never responded to constituent
outreach from what it seems, uh, and
decides to do it now.
>> Why?
>> I don't know.
>> Well, I I think I know why. And I think
simply put, the veto override of the
auditing bill, which I believe is going
to lead to some interesting discoveries,
is something that whether it's conscious
or unconscious, she's very worried
about. And I think she's going into this
religious prayer issue
>> as a distraction. Now, that's my view.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe
>> we we've seen other distractions most
certainly like with the landfill and
funding a Pruteland primary. I I don't
know. But um at the end of the day u I
think just all of our elected leaders
just kind of left a lot of us in the
lurch.
>> Right. But you know and I I just want to
add um you know the county executive
again she jumped in late. She made some
uninformed and I would even say ignorant
remarks. um criticizing council number
one for bending the knee for one person
and that affected 104,000 people. So
she's assuming that everyone in the
county supports her position and
>> except for you.
>> Yeah. Except that one person.
>> I can assure you my son does not support
the county. Exactly. [laughter]
>> Okay. Um, but what's interesting is
she makes no mention of consultation
with her solicitors, either Mr. Wilbur
or Mr. Illuminati. Um,
>> the legal team has been quite quiet on
this,
>> right? And I'd be willing to bet that
they would uh agree with Mr. Benson and
the council's decision. I mean, again,
we were the last city county in the
entire fourth circuit that was reciting
the Lord's Prayer. Um, the council made
the responsible decision. I think her
legal people would agree.
>> I I will agree with that. I would love
to hear what her legal department would
have to say to see what our options are.
But more importantly, I really hope that
we have every option on the table for
what the go forward is what that is
allowed in the fourth circuit. And I
think it's going to be interesting to
see at the next council meeting and
probably a few more after that sort of
what this does as far as uh citizen
reaction and outreach and impact and
whether the council or maybe
specifically Councilman Wyn or anyone
else is going to address about it
because I don't think this is going away
as far as a a topic of discussion. And I
think it's one of those red meat issues
for a lot of different people and it and
to be fair, it is an issue that matters
to some people quite a lot whether it's
to to keep it or not.
>> Well, there are three options. Um there
are three options that the other
counties and cities in Maryland do. They
either invite a clergyman to do do an
invocation
or they have a moment of silence
>> or they simply do nothing and they go
with the pledge and then into the
meeting. So those are the three choices
that the county has. Well, I think we're
going to see something along those lines
in the future. So, well, gentlemen, I
appreciate your time on this. This was
very informative. I'm glad we can, you
know, debate these very complex issues
from different views in a very civil
way.
>> Agree to disagree, still be friends.
Still be friends. Look, in the end,
we're all still Joe, right? [laughter]
>> All right. Thank you so much. So, uh,
we'll be right back with our next
segment of Open Agenda, and we're going
to have on I'm going to bring back,
excuse me, Mr. Jim Atkins and Miss Trish
Melvin. Stick around.
Welcome back to Open Agenda. Back in the
studio with us is Miss Trish Melvin from
Fruitland and of course Mr. Jim Atkins
from Mardella. Thank you. So, uh, we had
quite an interesting conversation
between our friends Joe White and Joe
Scafino. They obviously have very
different views on the matter. Um, and I
think it was good that we got them to
kind of talk about not only where
they're coming from, but maybe why the
failure to address the issue in the past
has led to this situation we're in now.
But, uh, what do you think about what's
going on right now generally and then
maybe where things are going to go?
>> Wow. I think it's much to do about
nothing. I mean, why does the city the
county council feel it has to reinvent
the wheel? Um, look at what the city's
doing, inviting different clergy folk in
to speak. Um, we should start that right
away. I know that there is a tradition
of opening with the Lord's prayer. Let's
continue it. Let's get, you know, a
priest in, a rabbi, a preacher, an iman,
etc. And circulate and and uh rotate
them, okay, in for prayer.
>> So, basically go to the default that
Salsbury has had for quite a while.
Different invocations by different faith
leaders.
>> Has that been a problem? I'm not aware
that that's been a problem in Salsbury.
It seems to satisfy the legal.
>> You know, oddly enough, that's probably
the one thing in Salsbury city
government that isn't in crisis right
now. It's the process of just getting
somebody to come in for an opening
prayer.
>> Well, then it's a good model to follow.
>> If you've seen a city council meeting,
you know you need a prayer to start
those meetings.
>> Uh Mr. Jim, what do you think?
>> Well, I understand what Trish is saying.
My only concern with having a rotational
part is
you then open it up to any
religious group that wants to come in
and speak on on a rotational basis and
and most religious groups are very uh
god-fearing supportive people.
>> There are [clears throat] some religious
groups out there that uh are not.
>> Mhm. And when you open it up like that,
you cannot prevent those people from
coming in and saying things which could
be very divisive for this county
>> in different ways. I I just if we're not
going to be allowed to say the Lord's
Prayer, which I fully support
that we did, I want to make it clear,
you know, I'm very disappointed that
we've lost the ability to do that. But
then to me the moment of silence is is
the way to go
>> to let everybody do that.
>> And so basically that moment of silence
is its own prayer for those that want to
engage it.
>> Each person can can do what they want
during that moment. They can say
whatever prayer is appropriate for them
or they can stand there and just stand
there for a moment and and not
[clears throat] say or do anything.
>> What do you think about that Trish?
because you and then Jim seem to have a
pretty different view about how this
could play out with having different
faith representatives come in and give
an invocation. He actually sees it kind
of as a door to possible kind of chaos
and disunityity even more so. But you're
saying that actually this could be a way
forward. I guess maybe I don't I don't
mean to put it back on you too much, but
do you think Jim's idea of at least
having a respectful neutral moment of
silence? Certainly that that would be my
second choice um to having the the I
mean so many members of the community
have spoken out that they miss the
Lord's prayer.
>> Um
>> I realized that if you get different
faith leaders in there that could
introduce
elements that we don't want of concern
with citizens um right or wrong. Um and
I I don't know how to get around that.
It merits a lot more discussion I guess.
Mhm.
>> But it's unfortunate we're we're in this
situation.
>> Yeah.
>> And I really think that this situation
arose
>> not only through the comments that uh
Kend made,
>> not the Bible verses.
>> They were fine. It was a compliments the
comments after that.
>> Yeah.
>> Which I took offense to.
>> Mhm.
>> And uh a lot of other people took
offense too.
>> [clears throat]
>> But I think we got in this position
because I know myself
and I know other people and other
council members
that emailed the council president to
address this issue
>> when it happened.
>> Mhm.
>> And [clears throat] that address never
occurred.
>> Mhm. and they kind of get into the fact
that uh it's not a personnel issue, but
they don't want to reprimand a council
member in public. Well, I agree with
that, but I also agree that if the
council member
>> is going to offend the public,
>> then whatever action needs to be taken
to address that needs to be done in
public so that the public knows
something happened and something was
done. Mhm.
>> Yeah. I think that that concern about
what didn't happen after that September
meeting has been ringing in a lot of
people's ears. Um but of course we can't
undo that now and and so I think this is
where sometimes when we don't address
issues they fester
>> and I think we're kind of dealing with
that situation. Um, but nevertheless,
that that is kind of unrelated to the
fact that we've also seen people try to
politicize and sort of
>> Oh, exactly.
>> You know, I don't want to say fund raise
off of it, but but essentially do that
in the sense of they've they they're
trying to build political capital out of
it. And I think from my perspective
that's one of the most kind of
disappointing and shameful things is is
because people seem to be using uh for
lack of a better term identity politics
>> in ways that um don't address anything
that we're really dealing with in the
county and day-to-day life.
>> Well, it really it took me back a little
bit with the executives Facebook post
concerning
>> the removal of the Lord's Prayer from
the council meeting. [clears throat] M
>> I'd like to propose a solution to her at
this date in time
>> that she can address this if she is so
taken aback and offended by the removal
of it by the
>> county council
>> then we're in a budget season.
>> Mhm.
>> We're in an election year. Mhm.
>> What a referendum on the Wakamico County
ballot
whether or not you want the county
council to fight this legal battle
>> and are you willing to put in the budget
supposedly a million or a million half
dollars for attorney fees
>> and then fight this battle.
>> To me, the ball is in her court. If she
wants to fight this,
>> then let's fight it. But she's got to
realize that if you're going to put in a
budget a million or a million half
dollars to fight this legal battle
because
>> we know how the fourth circuit is going
to rule based off all their previous
rulings. So it's going to go to the
Supreme Court and that's not going to
happen in the next two years. That's
going to take a lot of lawyers and a lot
of years to happen.
>> Well, and I've actually heard that it
could be way more than a million and a
half. I mean, yeah. I mean, there are
people that have told me that it could
be just under three if you really look
at the precedent uh in in previous
cases.
>> So, so if you're so upset
>> and you don't agree with this,
>> then put it before the the community in
the county. Like I say, this is the
ideal time. We're right in the middle of
budgets.
>> We're in an election year. Put it on the
ballot. let the community, the citizens
of the county vote on whether they want
to do it
>> and put it in the budget. Now, the only
problem that she'll have in putting it
in the budget
>> is she's going to have to take that
money from some project that she has
planned in the county
>> because it should the money should not
come out of the general fund, the
savings account.
>> It should come out of something else is
going to have to be done away with in
order to fight this battle. Well, she's
never been shy about busting the budget
before, so it would be curious if she
takes you up on that offer.
>> Well, there's the offer and and that's
what I think, you know, the the solution
is. If if you want to fight this, let's
fight it, but don't just get on Facebook
and [clears throat] and
>> Well, that's pontificate about something
that you're not going to address.
>> Well, that's kind of my point is that
that was an that was an acting
performance.
>> Not that it was particularly good. Um,
>> well, and not only that, then you had
the radio interview that she won all and
you could of course see the same acting
deal.
>> Well, it's it's literally the same
talking points, but but but but again,
what which is interesting to me is
people that are not typically religious
in any way, shape, or form or certainly
have acted in, in my opinion, quite a
Christian manner. Uh, love to play. They
they love to cosplay when it's election
time. But to your point, she has a
solution to this issue. She she can she
can. And again, like I I I want to be
clear, this executive, for as much as
she likes to align politically as a MAGA
Republican, is no stranger to the
Democrats in Annapolis when she needs
something and makes that point with her
various photos and and you know, uh
public um meetings [clears throat] with
the governor and her spending habits.
I'm I'm just saying this from fiscal
person. She has exploded the budget in
her time. And so what's $3 million more
if she really believes that Christianity
is under attack? I mean,
>> yes,
>> it would certainly be a public platform,
but among people I've spoken with, they
find it very distasteful to see religion
used as a political issue.
>> Exactly.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> The county has flown under the radar on
this issue for many, many years. This
issue only came up and got to the point
that it it is because we had a council
member, James went sit at the table and
talk about praying for people who were
not Christians and uh that there was
only one way and I believe that. But
that's not what the government is here
to do. The government's here to take
care of our lives. The religion is our
personal thing that we take care of
ourselves with.
>> Okay.
>> So, that was uh the law of unintended
consequences kicked in.
>> Exactly.
>> Well, I I really appreciate your
insights on this. Um again, it's
certainly a a political hot potato, but
it's also a complicated issue of values
and interpretation and obviously the
Constitution, which we're always
debating. Thank you for watching Open
Agenda. We'll be back next week. Take
care.
Hi, welcome to open agenda.
>> Welcome back.
>> Welcome back. Sorry. I know it's hard
when I know it's Sorry. Sorry. All
right. All right.
