On the Monday, January 19 edition of OPEN AGENDA (S3 E5) we discuss why the new Salisbury city council president, Angela Blake and her sidekick, Michele Gregory, are pushing to impose “ranked choice voting” in city elections when voters have shown absolutely no interest in such a change. What voters are actually demanding is a more democratic process to fill council vacancies when they occur. So why the push? The only plausible answer is that they believe ranked choice voting will work to their political advantage. Additionally, we show you video of council president Angela Blake trying to suppress a citizen's free speech during public comments at last week's council meeting. During this meeting she also advised that police officers will be present at all future meetings. Although security is important, is her real motivation to intimidate citizens from speaking their minds? We also address councilwoman Michele Gregory's obscene social media rants using offensive language unsuitable for young ears. Regardless of whether or not you agree with her on the subject matter, shouldn't elected officials conduct themselves with dignity, respectability and common decency? How can we expect the general population to be civil when our so-called “leaders” are not? Isn't it time to raise our standards as to who represents us in government? Tune in and be informed.
Open Agenda TV: S3 E5 Survey Says City Council Distracts with Election Reform
Show Transcript
Disclaimer: The following transcript was auto-generated and may contain spelling or contextual errors.
You're watching Open Agenda. Here's our
host, Joe White.
>> Welcome to Open Agenda. I'm your host,
Joe White. In the studio with us right
now is Dr. Joe Venosa from Salsbury.
Thanks for being here.
>> Thank you,
>> Mr. Melvin from uh Futland. Thanks for
being here.
>> Um there's there's some topic of debate
about rank choice voting in the Salsbury
City Council uh at their last
legislative meeting. Uh, and I want to
ask you too about that and and also how
this is not addressing the appointment
reform that a lot of folks have asked
for. Trish, you have you have some
concerns about this rank choice voting,
right?
>> I have concerns. You know, I know in
theory it can be very good
>> and fair. Um, but then there's the
practicality and the cost issue. So, we
need to explore that.
>> And Joe, it's it's come up that that if
we did a citywide runoff, it could be
$85,000. This is something that might be
talked later if they
>> if they start to proceed with it. But at
the end of the day, right now, where
they're at is talking about putting out
a survey,
>> hosting a town hall, and having a
discussion where they may be a little
bit off topic. Right.
>> Well, and they don't even have a
consensus from what it seems at the last
council meeting. I don't think they even
know what they're doing yet as a body.
>> Well, I'd like to bring in Joe Scafino
and I want to get a little bit of the
sense of what was said at the meeting
and then if you would come back in. Um,
I know you're you're a city of Futland
resident, but I want to get your
feeling. Uh, because you're you don't
have a dog in this fight just like me,
but you you could you could get bring
some levity to it.
>> Sure.
>> So stay with us. When we come back,
we're going to bring in Joe Scafino and
we're going to ask him just what he saw
at the last city council meeting.
>> Welcome back to Open Agenda. In the
studio with us now is Dr. Joe from
Salsbury, Joe Scavino from Salsbury.
Thank you both. uh want to talk about
the Salsbury City Council. Uh there a
lot of topics came up at their last
legislative and open work session. Uh
and I want to break a few of them down.
Let's start by let's talk about the rank
choice voting because it does seem like
this is something they're going to
consider although we don't have a lot of
details yet, right?
>> Rank choice voting is is an idea that uh
there's some uh special interest groups
spreading it around the country. Um,
it's used mostly in primary elections,
not general elections because primary
elections where you have multiple crowd
generally not used in in general
elections.
>> Um,
>> it's also not I'm sorry to interrupt,
but it's also not used in elections that
are inherently nonpartisan.
>> Well, that and I'm going to tell you to
me that's the question I have. Salsbury
doesn't have partisan elections, right?
>> So, is this uh is is this just because
some folks aren't happy with the results
of who's been elected? I mean, is that
is that what we're looking at here?
>> The mayoral race is exactly what the
>> what it is. In fact, the mayor basically
said, "Yeah, it's it's about me."
>> There's only one race in this last
couple election would have applied would
applied. It was my race. It was the
mayor's race. So, the whole idea that
you're propping this up is got one word,
not sentiment, not constituent
involvement. It's complete fiction
politics. But the fact that you're
saying this like you're saying it like,
"Oh, it's a lot of people communities
are using it and I've got heard from my
constituencies." You and I both know
that's not true. And and
>> and I'm not trying to call you a liar.
What I'm saying is
>> I I've talked to
talk to intelligent people every day.
They don't even know what rank choice
voting is.
>> So the idea that you have people calling
you is for, you know, it's just it's
utterly ridiculous. So let me just say
it this way. the reason behind this is
clearly politics and you're trying to
whip up people to support your your
cause that you know it's silly. So
>> just because it wasn't a public
discussion, this was something I had
brought to both the previous mayors um
when sitting down with them in meetings
and asking and talking to them about
things that I would like to see the city
pursue. But what's interesting is, you
know, somebody else who was in the mayor
race who who lost, Jamaich Mitchell has
come out against the rank choice voting.
So even people who were on the losing
end of the mayoral race
are not all inherently for rank choice
voting. So it's it seems to me that
there is a very small group of people
who have kind of maybe planned this push
uh over the last few months and I think
now they believe they can try to execute
that plan. But I actually don't think
it's going to happen.
>> Well, and and then there was a some
public debate through public comments
about whether this should be a
referendum or this should just be passed
as a resolution. I mean,
>> it should be a ballot issue and let the
voters decide if it if it comes to that.
I actually think that's a good sort of
compromise approach to it is let the
people of the city determine that rather
than you know a small number of elected
officials who maybe have had this in
their mind for a long time. We keep
hearing from some elected officials on
the city that a lot of constituents are
are asking about it and yet no one spoke
out dramatically in favor of it at the
last council meeting at least beyond you
know the idea of putting it on the
ballot. I have not heard anything about
a problem with the elections and knew
nothing about election reform until
Councilwoman Gregory and Blake brought
it up. I think if you're going to send a
survey out, it just doesn't start with
the way it was. It should start with
would you like to see election reform?
Yes or no.
>> So why I recommended the survey is
because it was those two, Angela and
Michelle kept saying that people calling
them and suggesting it. And so I wanted
to see how many people was contacting
them to suggest it because nobody's
called you.
>> No one's called me. Has anybody called
you, Melissa? Nobody's called us. So I
I'm kind of I was kind of confused. So I
said, "Let's do a survey and see how
this is going to go." So what how does
this relate to the survey? Is is the
survey based off of them reaching out
cuz I mean they're going to have a town
hall in March. So is this is this to to
gather that information or what?
>> The survey I think is a dead letter. Uh
I think the idea of the survey is is
buffoonery too. Um they can be stacked.
You know, you can get multiple responses
from the same person or or a small group
of activists. Doesn't really mean
anything. Uh the only objections that
were significantly stated here at the
podium the last few meetings have been
about the appointment process. Let's
address that.
>> Okay.
>> Um that was a public comment. a number
of us got up and said it's a complete
waste. Um,
>> you know, I have a marketing degree, you
know, uh, my undergraduate, but and and
one of the things in in marketing at
direct mail campaigns and the average
response rate is 2%. So,
>> it's hard enough to get anybody to
respond
>> and then when you're only going to get a
2% response rate, it's it's it's a
pointless exercise. Well, we also heard
from some public comments that in the
last time they had a survey that some
folks voted multiple times.
>> Exactly.
>> And I'm going to tell you, one of one of
my one of my biggest fears is voter
fraud. And then it's like and I know
it's a survey. It's not an election,
right?
>> But then you're actually almost creating
a situation where like, yeah, we know
we're going to get some skewed numbers,
right?
>> Well, it kind of would be funny, right?
Hypothetically, if in a city where you
only had, I don't know, 3,000 people
vote and you had 5,000 respondents for
rank choice voting, that would be the
tip off as to whether or not those
surveys are compromised.
>> There's some of us who think that we've
seen that in other elections as it is.
So,
>> you know, I want to just add too, um,
one of the council members that's
promoting this rank choice voting, um,
she said that multiple cities and and
counties in Maryland, uh, have it, but
that's not true. only two cities in
Maryland have it and a number of them
are looking at it.
>> So I I think it's disingenuous to to say
that
>> uh a lot of Maryland cities and counties
are doing it because it's only two
>> and and I think Sharon Dashil,
Councilwoman Deil, she she tried to
clarify some of that,
>> but it needed to be more clearly stated
so that somebody picking it up who knew
nothing about it would still be able to
take the survey.
>> Yeah. And again, you know, I don't think
it's a it's an unfair intellectual
discussion to have as as far as how the
city wants to do the elections. I think
the concern that a lot of people, at
least I have on this, is the timing is
is highly suspect and the framing of it
as some grassroots demand versus, you
know, like I honestly I would appreciate
more anybody on the council getting up
there and saying, "This is what I want
to do. This is what I would like to push
and I would like to convince you of
that." rather than be given the
narrative of well there's this ground
swell of of support that people are
yearning for that they've never
mentioned at any point in the previous
years and now we're just bringing it up.
>> So what what folks did bring up is
reform on appointments.
>> Exactly.
>> So is this is this like the the whole
you know distraction thing. Uh so and
and there were comments made about that
like hey look don't don't cloud this
with uh appointment reform. We don't
we're not asking for election reform
here. Well, and ironically, I think
Melissa Holland had said that of all
people. And credit to her because I
myself was quite publicly skeptical
about whether or not, you know, she
would uh be an independent mind on the
council.
>> Ever since I took the seat, what I heard
from the community was there was a
problem with the appointment process.
Um,
>> that's the one thing I was going to ask
about. There was no nothing on there.
>> Well, I get that, but let me let me
finish where I was going with it. And so
I've heard there's a problem with the
appointment process and now I'm hearing
we're looking at a complete election
reform. So I guess I'm very unclear
because the the citizens that have
reached out to me have only talked about
the process for appointment and what I
would like to know about the process for
appointment doing a spe special
election. I want the numbers. I want to
see how much it costs and how we can
budget that in order to have the money
for a special election. I have not heard
the voters say there's a problem with
the actual election itself. And I'm not
I'm just unclear how we went from
changing an appointment process to
possibly an election, special election
to now we're bringing up all these
groups are coming together and giving us
information. If you're going to do a
survey to poll, you can't put it on a
Facebook page. You can't throw it on a
website and say do a poll and we got 2%
of Salsbury to respond to it. I commend
Melissa Holland for I think sticking to
the issue rather than going along with
the faction. She was very explicit in
that you know she said people have come
out to voice concern over the
appointment process. They have not come
out to talk about rank choice voting.
>> But talking about distractions, how hard
is it to have a very important
conversation about rank choice voting
and appointment uh reform when you have
such distractions coming from Angela
Blake and Gregory? I mean,
>> are you referring to her uh Facebook
post?
>> Her her Facebook post uh is it to me is
just way out of bounds. Not because of
her opinion, what she's welcome to for
how she feels about the government,
>> but at the end at the and this we've
seen this time and time again. your
opinion matters, but then when you say,
"Okay, if you don't if you don't agree
with me and I can't even repeat what she
said, then you're you're not you're not
with me or
>> you're against me.
>> You're against me." That that to me
that's not representative of of your
your constituency.
>> Yeah. There's certain certain boundaries
as an elected official. You know,
everybody has free speech, but an
elected official has to be a little more
discreet in in how they express their
own personal opinions. I I get that and
I generally concur. I think the argument
that a lot of people are making and can
make is that we're in an era where
certainly, you know, the current
president and other politicians
throughout the country routinely do
quote unquote worse things on social
media or in public action. And so, why
go after her? Now, I want to be clear in
this cuz I I personally kind of have a
history with this approach of Miss
Gregory. you know, she she does make Tik
Tok videos
that I think are designed to either, you
know, be provocative or or in my
opinion, just be mean-spirited. You
know, I've said this before,
>> and and there's one argument I'll get
I'll make against what you just said,
and I'm not necessarily disagreeing with
you.
>> None of their constituency elected them
to to deal with national issues.
>> That's that's that is that is true.
>> So, you you you need stay in your lane
to the degree. I mean, if if by chance
as a as a citizen of the United States,
you want to have an opinion. I I support
that whether I agree with you or not.
>> But on from your from your political
platform, if you're elected for the city
of Salsbury,
>> you need to fight for your entire
constituency. When you're when you're
signaling out 48 to 52% of them and
slicing them off, then you no longer are
are showing that you're willing to to
represent them.
>> Well, I I agree. And maybe this goes to
the bigger issue is that I think some
politicians, regardless of whether
they're on the left or the right, I
think they use the national stuff and
they use social media to inflame their
own um political uh followings.
>> I felt like Mayor Taylor's press release
tried to hit the reset button to get
Salsbury focus back on
>> on on themselves. And and so one other
distraction that came up, I mean, uh,
President Angela Blake cited that, hey,
we have the police here in the back.
>> And before we get to the pledge, I want
to review one more thing on the rules of
order. Um, before we get into tonight's
session, uh, page seven under the public
comment and participation part
spills over to page eight. I any person
making personal, impertinent or
slanderous remarks or who becomes
boisterous in any manner and disrupts
the meeting while addressing the council
may be warned by council president and
if necessary requested to leave the
meeting immediately. In addition, just
so the people who aren't in chambers and
in the public um know in general that
the city police are scheduled it to be
in attendance at every scheduled council
meeting.
>> Is is that is that what we've come to
when it comes to public comment?
>> Yeah. You know, I sent a a letter to the
city council and it's um it has to do
with public comment because I also
addressed it with the county council. So
it was kind of uh fortuitous that the
issue came up at the city. So, I copied
them
>> um on what what the law is on public
comment and and the a a
council meeting is considered uh a
limited public forum
>> and the rules and court decisions have
said they absolutely in a limited public
forum can set parameters. They can. So
in a way what she says in the beginning
is
is she's allowed to do for example um
they can say look
>> we we're going to you know public
comment is for agenda items or anything
related to city yeah or for city
business if someone gets up there and
wants to recite the Lord's prayer or
somebody wants to get up there
>> and talk about a national issue totally
unrelated
>> that can be restricted but it has to be
laid out in rules.
prior so that the public is aware of it.
She can't just get up there and like she
arbitrarily did with that uh Mr. Smith
who even though I disagree like we say
he has the right to say what he says.
>> Is this the say anything part
>> last time I was here the Salsbury city
council game show was in full force.
I see that Steve Deshawn Daddy Harvey
was self-deported back to where he was
living.
>> We're not gonna we're not going to get
into that. If you have anything
pertinent to what we're talking about or
anything that's not
>> So you are restricting my speech. Is
that what you're saying?
>> No, I'm saying that we're going to
follow the rules of order that I I
>> The rules of order are restricting my
speech.
>> Okay. We're going to follow the rules of
order and I just Can you reset his time?
I'm going to reset your time for you.
Okay.
Okay, pick up where I left off.
My understanding it was not the
Salsbury. And congratulations to the
buzz buzzer lady Vanna Angela Blake
White who was promoted promoted herself
with the help of her two comrades to the
city council president. And now we have
a new addition to the Camala sisters,
Holland, Blake, and Gregory.
>> Okay, we're not we're not doing the name
calling. Okay. Name calling.
>> Okay. This this is the this is the part
that we're not going to do. We're not
going to do that this time. We're not
getting into this.
>> So, you're restricting my speech again.
Is that correct?
>> I'm following the rules of order.
>> Are you restricting my speech?
>> Making impersonal, impertinent, or
slanderous remarks
in a manner that distress who are you to
judge what the public wants to hear.
>> Okay. This is your first warning.
>> Okay.
>> Thank you. And this is your first
warning that you are restricting my
right to speak.
>> Okay. No name calling. If you don't like
a policy,
>> it's a description. It's not name. A
name is if I called you an
>> You don't like If you don't like a
policy or procedure, you can talk about
that all all day long.
>> That's what I'm talking about.
>> Being slanderous is not with an analogy.
>> Okay.
>> May I define a small sister?
No,
>> that's that's not appropriate.
Okay. Well, it's not in other words, you
were not appointed
official, unelected, not voted on by the
citizens of the electorate.
>> That's not true. In 2019, I was
appointed for 10 months and I've had two
elections.
>> You just said you were appointed.
>> I was appointed in 2019.
>> Doesn't matter. You all were appointed
before you were elected.
>> Correct.
>> Okay.
Uh I am not surprised since they are
democrats who are who like to endlessly
cry democracy yet with procedural rule
operate more like a communist form of
government than a republic. And one more
time, America is a republic, not a
democracy. They love the misinformation
label for everybody else, but of course
not themselves.
>> Um she can't just say, "Oh, oh, that's
not allowed." Well, where is it? So, it
has to be I made it clear in my letter.
You can do that, but you need to make it
clear to the public. And that lack of
clarity is important because with some
of the interactions that I've seen, uh,
and it wasn't just last week, but even
with previous city council meetings, uh,
Council President Blake,
if she doesn't interrupt somebody, which
which has happened, she will actually
almost engage in in a back and forth
with them while they're talking, even if
it's factually incorrect. You usually
don't see that in these kind of venues
and I don't think you should and she
could always clarify at the end but I
think part of the problem is that she
herself doesn't really know the rules
that she I guess wants to enforce to
your point. It's very disappointing. It
was very problematic when you go to that
meeting and one of the first things she
says is essentially hey we have two
police officers here in the room uh just
in case you get any ideas. And and we
were there for almost the entire
meeting. They sat there and they, you
know, and again, they were required to
be there obviously, but I'm thinking to
myself, that's two police officers that
could be out on the street helping us
solve a crime or prevent crime or, you
know, engaging in in community needs.
Like, why why are they there? Like, are
we at the point where the city council
president now is going to have just
designated law enforcement there so that
she feels comfortable?
>> Yeah. She fear for her life.
>> No, I like the extra security. What I
don't like is when you when you frame
the extra security as a threat as a
threat and and and I'm not saying that
she did. I'm saying she came very close
to it especially and you know I may
disagree with you about what what other
people can have for public comments. But
at the same time put the rules out
there. You know it it don't don't have
don't have a double standard. Just one
set make it transparent. So thank you
both. I appreciate it. Um I want to
bring Trish Melvin back in and I want to
talk to her. I I she's somebody who
watches a lot of this stuff and she has
good perspective from coming from the
city of Futland.
>> So stay with us when we come back. We're
going to bring in Trish Melvin and see
what she has to say about the Salsbury
city council.
Welcome back to Open Agenda. Joining us
back in the studio now is Trish Melvin
from Frandland. Thanks for coming back.
Dr. Venosa, thanks for sticking around.
>> Sure thing.
>> So it was great to have a chance to talk
to Josephino. I know he's very active
with attending Salsbury City Council
meetings. Uh, we had a chance to talk
about the rank choice voting, the
survey, and maybe some of the
distractions that some of the council
folks are are causing with their outside
rhetoric or even police threats. Um,
Trish, I want to see I mean, do you do
you feel like this the folks in the city
of Salsbury
are should be gaining
enthusiasm behind how their government
is progressing towards their goals or is
this spiraling into chaos?
Well, the introduction of the rank
choice voting topic does throw an a
variable into an a discussion that's
already existing or a problem that was
already raised with the appointment
process. And so, probably isn't the time
to bring in the rank choice voting to
force that on the people or even ask
them what they think of it. Um,
rank choice voting. I I understand the
impulse completely because everything
I've read indicates it's fair and and
gets more people feel that they've
contributed to the outcome. But in
practicality,
my opinion is that Salsbury's it's
Salsbury is not the place for it.
>> Yeah, I'm I'm very I'm very skeptical of
rank choice voting, but to your point
and even to Jose Cafino's point, it has
to be because there's a bottleneck. Um,
and I would agree, Joe. Mayor Randy
Taylor said, "Look, we're having a hard
time getting two people to run in these
districts."
>> The idea that when we went to districts,
we can barely attract two people to a
race. So, the idea you've been chasing
rank choice voting for the last 8 or 10
years, it's like a dog chasing a bumper.
It's like, what the hell? What the hell
are we doing?
>> Why would we need to do that?
>> I have two concerns. One is the fact
that it it is almost always used in a
very different kind of electoral system
than what we have. As I as I've said
before, it's typically reserved for
closed primaries
as a way to kind of get people to, you
know, to your point to sort of maybe um
have have more um citizen input and buy
in for who they want to see rather than
say, well, it's either this person or no
one. If you got three people, you can
kind of make, you know, a staggered
series of choices. I think that's fine
in a in a partisan primary, but we don't
have that in Salsbury.
>> Well, and and and I want to go back to
that point. I I don't want people to
lose sight. Right now in the city of
Salsbury, you don't even have partisan
elections,
>> right? So,
and before Deshawn Dowy resigned,
>> that was starting that we were starting
to hear rumblings that they were going
to go back into a a primary system, a
partisan primary, which in Maryland is a
closed primary.
>> Yeah.
>> So, what um what is this serving? And
are we just distracting from getting to
the appointment u reform that we want?
>> It's definitely a distraction from that
because that was the one thing that came
up in a big way uh in the last few
meetings. So there's clearly, and this
is my thought. I think
for the moment, let's let's pretend that
we're thinking about it from the
perspective of Council President Angela
Blake specifically. In her mind, she's
probably thinking, well, we'll give them
the appointment change, but in exchange,
we want the rank choice voting so that
in the future, we can avoid a situation
like what we had in 2023. I think that's
what she thinks.
>> They're really just rebuffing getting a
Republican mayor.
>> I think so. And again, I'm not a
Republican. I want to be clear on that.
But one of the beauties of a nonpartisan
election is that people can judge both
the candidates and what they do in
office based on the actions. So, for
example, you know, Sharon Deile, who's
my council person, she's also my
neighbor. She's a Republican, but I got
to tell you, she's got tremendous
support across the aisle. I there are
incredibly progressive people who would
never vote maybe for a Republican at the
state level, but who think she's doing
one of the best jobs they've ever seen
on a council cuz she studies the issues.
She reads the documents. She knows the
process.
>> And she's also boots on the ground
herself.
>> She and Miss Jackson, again, Miss April
Jackson as well, Democrat, different
part of the city, but they're both boots
on the ground. They're both um people
first and and they are not partisan. And
I think if you alter an electoral
process to not only put the rank choice
voting in, but also to frame it in a
partisan way, I think not only are we
going to lose something, we're going to
gain something. And that g the thing
we'll gain is the kind of toxicity that
we're seeing elsewhere. And my concern
is that if I had to explain it to a room
full of people and be accurate about all
the potentialities and the different
ways that it could play out, I don't
think I could do it. I wouldn't trust
myself to explain it accurately to
voters.
>> Yeah. Um, that was one thing that got my
attention. Another thing, I heard a
discussion about a survey
to see what the voters want. And
I feel that bad information is worse
than no information. And one of the u
public commenters, Miss Bratton, brought
up, she made a very good statement about
the fact that it has to be statistically
sound and you have to ask the same
question in different ways to get the
numbers that you can base the statistics
on. Um, bottom line, bad data is worse
than no data. Because if you have bad
data and you take the survey and you run
with it, you're making assumptions and
you have confidence that this is the
correct information.
>> Confirmation bias. When you see the
outside distractions from Michelle
Gregory with the Facebook post, does
that does that to you does that instill
any confidence in that she's got a
Salsbury first mentality or is this
really just protecting free speech? I
suspect that she probably anticipated
all the feedback that we're getting.
Everybody's just falling into what she
>> Yeah.
>> You know, intended.
>> Yeah.
>> So,
>> attention seeking.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I mean,
>> again, I agree with the sentiment, but
>> isn't that a tell though? I mean, if if
if all you have when when faced with
some major hurdles,
>> appointment reform or even election
reform, if that's what you believe the
city of Salsbury needs,
>> and then you distract everybody with a
national political
>> Well, and what's what's interesting
about that, it's almost a mirror
opposite of what the county executive,
Julie Jordano, did because when she was
rebuked in a quite embarrassing and
troubling way for her with the veto
override on the audit, what issue did
she go to for national political riing
up. She went to she went to the prayer
review. So, Julie Jonno goes to public
prayer to rally her base and you could
argue Michelle Gregory um goes to her
her base as it as it were uh on the
issue of of of ICE. I I don't mean to
equate them as the same thing
necessarily cuz I know that for
different people they're very different
things. But I do think if you're looking
at it from the outside, what is the one
common theme in this whole series of
episodes is that people are trying to
gain street cred on national, political,
cultural issues and topics rather than
things that are inherently local. And
now again, I want to be clear. I don't
think that means people's views on those
issues don't matter. Yeah. A lot of
people have deeply held convictions
about what ISIS is doing, immigration
policy, public prayer, the role of faith
and religion. I'm not saying that
doesn't matter, but I think in both of
these instances, they're the issues are
being used quite cynically by local
politicians
uh for purposes that don't really help
the regular people in either the city or
the county. See, I have to say I lost
track of that timeline because since I
don't do Facebook, you know, days later,
you know, and I heard about this post
and I I sought it out.
>> Um, so I didn't I don't know in the
timeline where that post was made in
relation to the discussions of uh voting
and appointments.
>> Well, thank you both. Thanks for your
insight. Appreciate you being here.
>> Thanks for watching this episode of Open
Agenda. We'll be back later this week
with another new episode.
I'm speaking. I'm speaking. I'm
speaking. Okay.
>> Okay. You had your turn. Now it's my
turn.
