Saturday, September 20, 2014

An Amazing Coincidence

On Wednesday evening at the Candidate's Forum, a funny thought popped into my head. As I listened to Mike Smith talk, I realized that he reminded me of someone. It stayed in the back of my mind until I got home and realized who that was.

There was just something about Mike Smith that reminded me of that fellow that Wegman's recruited to be the owner for their (ill-fated) liquor store. Do you know the story? I started digging around online, and it turns out that both have the same name: Mike Smith. What a coincidence. Both are Ellicott City lawyers. Hmm. The more I looked at photographs and compared information, the more it sunk in: this is the very same guy.

He may have traded in his necktie for a dapper bow tie look, but it's the same Mike Smith.

Why do I care? Why should you care?

Well, among the issues surrounding the Wegman's proposed liquor store was the fact that Smith had absolutely no experience as a liquor store owner. I believe he had brewed beer in his basement as a hobby. His ten per cent share gave Wegman's the appearance that the store would have local ownership, while 90 per cent would be owned by an out of state company owned by the husband of Colleen Wegman.

It just didn't look right. It just didn't add up.

So now we have Mike Smith, freshly-minted as a Board of Education candidate. What do we know?

  • he spent valuable time on Wednesday night assuring the audience "that he was a completely independent candidate who answered to no one, who had no alliances that could influence him. Then stated that he entered race with no preconceived notions, no causes, no agenda."
  • he is one of Board Member Ann DeLacy's two favorite candidates.
  • his knowledge of educational issues is shallow, and his remarks come across as tone-deaf. "The problem of single parents" or "classes of 35 students".

After putting two and two together, I am more concerned about what we don't know.

  • Why is he really running for the Board of Ed.? The reasons he has given are not convincing.
  • Has he been recruited to run by someone else who wants their opinions to be represented on the Board?
  • Why was it so important to him to preface his remarks in the way that he did--no allegiances, no alliances and so on?

Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much. Something just doesn't add up here.



No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.