Please follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Truth Social, Gettr, Twitter
While jogging this morning, I found a political sign which was an ironic gem. It was a campaign sign for the upcoming Town of Oxford election, and it was amazing in its hypocrisy!
You see, the thing about campaign signs for most elections is that the only information on them that you can count on as true is the candidate's name and the office they are running for. Anything else, like a slogan that the candidate is using, should be subject to close inspection and a good bit of distrust. We always say, "do your research!"
This sign was no different:
Don't get me wrong, this is a tasteful looking sign. The problem is that the slogan defies the actual history of Tom Costigan's actions as a commissioner. A commissioner with this belief would want to hear from ALL citizens of his town, would respect their ideas even if they were different from his. He would vow to serve all of them, not just the few in his favored circle. He would want transparency and the will of the people to win.
If we go into what we call the "wayback machine" and look over Tom Costigan's own words as Commissioner we find quite a different attitude.
In 2023, the Town of Oxford had an election between Katrina Greer and Susan Delean Botkin. Greer won by a very large margin. Also in 2023, the town charter had a provision in place that if a commissioner died or resigned before his/her term was up, he/she could be replaced by appointment.
The people of Oxford wanted that changed. They wanted to hold a special election in the case of the resignation or loss of a commissioner mid-term. A petition was filed, got more than enough of the signatures to put it to referendum, and the issue was left to a vote of the citizens of Oxford. After all, that is what representative Democracy is all about.
Costigan didn't like that. At a commissioner's meeting on April 25,2023, he tried to convince people that the referendum was bad: (complete quote taken directly from town minutes)
"Costigan noted that on the town website the following is posted in response to recent questions regarding the submitted Charter Amendment Referendum: In response to recent questions regarding the suggested Charter Amendment to change the procedure in the event of a Commissioner Vacancy, Oxford’s current Commissioner election process not only meets the standard for Maryland municipalities, it provides the most frequent citizen opportunity to elect their officials, with an election held every 12 months for any and all ‘open’ seats. The appointing process to temporarily fill a seat until the very next election provides continuity in government,* assures the citizenry of continued operations, and assures all residents that elections are held annually on the same day in June. Unanticipated elections, mid-term with short notice to the public, often catch citizens off guard and do not allow for a fair and transparent process."
"The current Oxford Charter reads: Section C5–15. Vacancies. In case of a vacancy on the Commission for any reason, the Commission shall elect some qualified person to fill such vacancy until the next regular election. Any vacancies on the Commission shall be filled by the favorable votes of majority of the remaining members of the Commission. (Editor's Note: That would be TWO Commissioners) The results of any such vote shall be recorded in the minutes of the Commission."
"Costigan encouraged everyone to read the information on the website and to understand what is being proposed, stating that what we have now is an orderly system that has been tested and works. He feels this change to the Charter has been sold to many residents as being more democratic and that it will lead to a better and more professionally run government, stating that if he believed that, he would support it and would offer a resolution of support to that effect. But he does not believe that and offered, at the public’s convenience, to discuss all the reasons he feels the citizens would not be well served by this charter change, saying that not only does he feel it is a bad idea, in his opinion it is being fostered by a few individuals with their own undisclosed agenda. He recently began outlining the dozen or more problems that could arise with this proposed change, and he would be happy to share his concerns with the citizens as we move forward in this process. After careful consideration he feels that citizens will see that this is a solution in search of a problem."
Pay careful attention to the sections which we have been put in bold. First, Costigan was concerned that the idea of elections to replace commissioners who leave prior to their term ending was sold as being more "democratic" than the appointment process. This implies that this idea was untrue. Apparently, Mr. Costigan felt that allowing two commissioners to select a replacement for a commissioner who is leaving prior to the end of his/her was more democratic than having an election which would involve the participation of all voters in town. Seems contradictory to me, particularly since a replacement commissioner would have to serve out most of the remaining term of that office. In Well's case, it was well over a year and a half. It was also a process that could lead to backroom deals being made. More on that later.
Costigan says that this idea was a bad one, "being fostered by a few individuals with their own undisclosed agenda." There is so much to unpack here. Costigan thought that just a few individuals wanted a special election.
The referendum for the special election won, 230-70. Seems like it was more than just a "few" individuals.
The part about the referendum being suggested by people with an "undisclosed agenda" would be laughable if the truth wasn't exactly the opposite. Reliable sources told us the "undisclosed agenda" was that of Costigan and some other town residents who knew that Susan Botkin would likely lose the election to Greer. They had a contingency plan to seat Botkin on the commission when the current commissioner Brian Wells resigned prior to the change of the Charter. As one of Botkin's supporters said about her possibly losing the actual election, "we have a 'work around' if that happens."
And they did have a "work around." Greer won. Wells resigned. The Commissioners, including Tom Costigan and Jim Jaramillo appointed Delean Botkin, the loser of the election, prior to swearing Greer into office and before the change to the Charter was made.
Who had the hidden agenda? Certainly not those who pushed to have the charter changed to provide a special election. It was Costigan and his cronies, including the Town Manager at the time, Cheryl Lewis.
And now Costigan wants us to believe he is all about "solutions through UNITY?" Hardly.
Of course, candidates have the right to use whichever slogans they want on their signs. However, it might behoove them to think about whether the slogan they are using truly matches their actions.
It's called truth in advertising.
Maybe just give your name and desired office next time.
EXTRA INFO:
BELOW: Resolution that was signed during the meeting when Delean Botkin was installed one week before the newly elected Commissioner was sworn in (6/27/23). The was one week after the election. Notice the Brian Wells's name is marked out and Susan Delean Botkin's is printed in. What was the hurry?
Connected Stories:
Fear of Transparency: House Of Cards Collapsing In Oxford
Missing Document Suddenly Found In Oxford : Updated 9/29/23
