Josh Stites is not guilty of endorsing the EPA

In a recent post, I was critical of the Council for passing a resolution endorsing the EPA's enforcement of Co2 emissions and the Co2 emission limits the EPA has established.

When the clean air act was passed by Congress, there never was an intention that it gave the EPA authority to regulate Co2 emissions.  The EPA assumed this authority which will allow the unelected bureaucrats of EPA to halt industrial developments, to mandate vehicle mileage standards and mandate the level of allowable energy plant emission and allow or disallow virtually all development, should the EPA choose to use its authority.

I was especially critical of many of the "conservative" members of Council who voted for the resolution endorsing this EPA power grab  and I listed by name some who particularly disappointed me. I stated in my recent post that RESOLUTION NO. RS2012-478 had passed the Council unanimously. I was incorrect.

The EPA resolution was on the consent agenda. All resolutions that pass unanimously the committee to which they are assigned  are placed on the consent agenda and considered as a group and passed by a single voice vote of the Council.  At the council meeting, any council member may pull a bill off of the consent agenda and have it voted upon separately and he may also have himself recorded as voting against the resolution should he desire.

No one pulled the pro EPA resolution off of the consent agenda and no one asked to be recorded as voting no.

I wrote several of the Council members asking them to explain their vote. Below is the response I got from Council Members Josh Stites:

While I was there Tuesday night, I was not there during the Resolution portion of the meeting as I arrived late.  I'm sure no one requested that it be pulled from the consent agenda. I'm a little surprised that it was not pulled. It may be poor legislating but I'm sure it's safe to assume that some of the people you have listed below don't actually buy into the global warming hysteria, myself included. 

Josh

I appreciate his response and glad to set the record straight and learn that at least one of the Council members who I respect did not support this endorsement of the EPA's power grab of dictatorial power to enforce arbitrary standards.

The Vice Mayor never votes except in a tie, so it is incorrect to count her among the supporters of this bill, although I am quite sure she would have voted for it had she been casting a vote.  Of the 39 council members who may vote, three were not present when the vote was cast so were not guilty of voting for the bill. In addition to Josh Stites, Councilman Steve Glover  and Erica Gilmore were not present.

Here is how council members voted on the consent agenda, which included the pro EPA resolution. This is from the minutes of the meeting. I have highlighted those who especially disappointed me.

“Ayes” Barry, Steine, Garrett, Tygard, Maynard, Matthews, Harrison, Hunt, Banks, Scott Davis, Westerholm, Anthony Davis, Bennett, Pridemore, Pardue, Jernigan, Stanley, Claiborne, Tenpenny, Moore, Allen, Baker, Langster, Weiner, Evans, Holleman, McGuire, Blalock, Dominy, Johnson, Potts, Bedne, Dowell, Duvall, Todd, Mitchell (36);

“Noes” (0).

In addition to Stites, I also heard from Davette Blalock. I did not get a response really, but I got a link to the below website extolling the virtue of the resolution and showing that other cities are also doing the same thing. No comment accompanied the link.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/climatelawinstitute/cleanaircities/index.html

I have still not heard from any of the other council members explaining their vote. I can only assume they stand by their vote and their vote represented their honest believe about global warming, the roll of the EPA, and the EPA's establishment and enforcement of CO2 emissions.

If any Council member wishes to explain his vote, I would be pleased to print his explanation. 

Top Stories