Councilman Alan Jackson was out of the country on vacation for Mon. and Tues. Shreveport city council meetings.
Evidently, he did NOT check the council meeting schedule before scheduling his trip like the other council members do, and have done in the past.
By not being present he did not personally hear the many opponents to the amendment to the Smoke Free ordinance firsthand, in a public meeting.
After the Tues. vote, Jackson posted on Wed. on his Facebook that he supported the amendment and would have voted for the same.
If he HAD voted, the 5-2 majority vote would have been veto-proof. But he did NOT.
Mayor Arceneaux should veto the amendment for the reason set forth below in this SETTLETALK.
Add to the reason the failure of Jackson to be at the meetings and to actually cast his ballot.
Saying how you would vote versus actually voting in front of God and everybody are two totally different matters.
Jackson's constituents and the general public are entitled to review his actual vote, and Jackson should be willing to do so.
1. Yesterday's meeting was the first-time casino representatives and others spoke FOR the amendment.
Thus, the general public did not have time to respond to their statements. (In Friday's FOCUS SB I am publishing the statement of one casino representative and will be happy to publish a second statement. I have previously published two editorials opposed to the amendment.)
2. The conflicting data by those pushing the amendment and those opposing it requires careful study and analysis, as well as confirmation by the Mayor. And deservedly so.
3. An ordinance/amendment making a substantial change with far- reaching impact should be voted upon by ALL the council members. The general public and the constituents of council members should know the positions taken by their representatives.