Opponents condemn Smithfield social district vote

SMITHFIELD — Three councilmen, including West Smithfield’s David Barbour, were absent when their colleagues voted 4-0 to allow open-carry alcohol downtown.

But Barbour doesn’t think his colleagues were trying to pull a fast one. “I do not believe this was done to undermine those who, due to other obligations … were unable to attend that night,” he said in an email last week.

Creating a social district had not been on that night’s published agenda; the shorthanded council added it at the request of Councilman Sloan Stevens.

“I was disappointed that this issue was added when none of those who opposed it could attend,” Barbour said.

A council majority favored creating a social district, so approval was certain even if opponents had been there, Barbour said. But the issue didn’t get the thorough debate it deserved, he said.

“It would have been better to delay this item, seeing that minority opinions were not available that day,” he said.

Barbour said as much in an email to Mayor Andy Moore and his fellow councilmen. “My issue is with … bringing up such a controversial issue that the council was clearly divided on at a meeting when all those in opposition were unable to attend due to work-related issues,” he wrote. “This, at the least, gives the appearance of an underhanded attempt to squash any opposition to this issue. This is not what we as a town should be doing.”

Barbour said the move showed disregard for those voters who elected the absent councilmen to represent them. And he said it could sow the seeds of conflict on the council.

“District 1, 3 and 4 representatives were not available and were not notified to have any input in any discussion or decisions made,” Barbour said. “This is not what a representative democracy is all about.”

Opponents — himself and Councilmen Marlon Lee and Travis Scott — would not have carried the day on open-carry alcohol, Barbour wrote. But they could have had a say in shaping its rules and boundaries, he said.

“Even with our voting no … we would still have had an opportunity to help mold the final decision,” Barbour wrote. “And that is what representative democracy is all about.”

Councilman Scott had harsher words for the council’s handling of the matter.

Scott said he had informed the mayor and his fellow councilmen that he would not attend that night’s meeting because of a family emergency. “I was disappointed to learn that the mayor and certain members of the council coerced the inclusion of this issue on the agenda despite knowing the full council would not be present,” he said in an email.

Scott accused the mayor of shaping council agendas to suit his wishes. He noted that Moore had pulled the social district from the council’s May 21 agenda when he sensed opponents would prevail in a vote. But the mayor said nothing when Stevens asked to add it to the July 16 agenda.

“This inconsistency in his approach is troubling and suggests a manipulation of the board and the agenda to achieve his desired outcomes,” Scott said.

And unlike Barbour, Scott wasn’t sure a social district enjoyed a solid majority. “From my discussions with other council members, it was clear that the majority were not in favor of the social district,” he said.

Scott said the social district merited a public hearing and thorough debate. It got neither.

“This is not just a matter of policy but of principle,” he said. “Our role as a council is to represent the citizens of Smithfield and listen to their concerns, and I take that responsibility very seriously.”

The post Opponents condemn Smithfield social district vote first appeared on Restoration NewsMedia .