Following Three-Hour Public Hearing, Commissioner Broomell Says She Favors Outright Repeal of Residential Sprinkler Ordinance

Commissioner Diana Broomell has now explained her vote opposing a six month delay in requiring sprinklers in new residential structures, in a letter to the Cecil Whig.  Enforcement of the ordinance mandating the life safety systems in all new single family dwellings beginning January 1, 2011, was called into question at the first meeting of the new Republican board in December.  The previous body adopted the regulation last June, but moments into a new term officials voted 3 to 2 to consider postponing the ordinance for six months, as they need time to consider whether to keep the requirement.

The request, brought up by Commissioner Robert Hodge, resulted in an extended exchange with the professional staff and elected officials about technicalities involved with changing a law already on the books.  As the discussion evolved, Commissioner Hodge modified his original motion since a public hearing is required to change the law, which the Licensing and Inspection Department is required to enforce starting New Year’s Day.  It took time to sort it all out as they figured out how to go about this and most of the board shared their positions on the question.

When the vote was called Commissioners Dunn, Hodge, and More favored considering the delay.  President Mullin and Commissioner Broomell opposed putting a hold on enforcement.  Commissioner Hodge explained his reasons.  As the discussion continued President Mullin made his position clear.  “I voted for the ordinance in June and there was a fatal fire in my district over the weekend, so I haven’t changed my mind.”  Commissioners Moore and Dunn both said they need to learn lots more about the matter so it is “worthy of a lot more discussion.” 

Following a three hour public hearing on Jan 4th where over 60 people testified and some addressed the Tea Party credentials of Commissioner Broomell she has now explained her vote against considering a six month delay in a letter to the editor.  “I felt we could resolve this issue within one or two months by voting to repeal outright without putting in a place a moratorium first,” she wrote.  Justifying her assessment that the ordinance should be repealed quickly, she added that the cost far outweighs the benefit, property damage can result when sprinkler accidentally activate, and “sprinklers are not effective in preventing . . . deaths” as smoke is the most “common cause of fire deaths.”  The official, representing the Susquehanna Region of the county, added that hardwired smoke alarms, which are already required for new homes, “had increased the survival rate in house fires to 99 percent.”

About these ads

17 responses to “Following Three-Hour Public Hearing, Commissioner Broomell Says She Favors Outright Repeal of Residential Sprinkler Ordinance

  1. Smokey the Bear

    So why didn’t you just say it? She going to vote against sprinklers after she voted for them. That’s all there is to it, but the tea party had to remind her so she would remember to vote against sprinklers next time. Really very simple what happened with her.

    • Smokey, when you say “why didn’t you say it,” we’re not sure if you’re addressing Someone Noticed or Commissioner Broomell.

      The reason we didn’t say more about Commissioner Broomell’s position at the first meeeting when the subject came up, was that she didn’t present an explanation of her vote. When she voted with President Mullin, it appeared to us and to the fire service that she was supportive of the new residential sprinkler requirement. Certainly that was the buzz in the hallways as the fire service departed from the meeting and was the impression one would walk away from after hearing President Mullin explain that he was voting for the sprinkler requirement as she joined him in his vote. Also, during the public hearing Chief Wayne Tome, a former county commissioner, long-time volunteer, and a battalion chief with an urban dept. thanked Commissioner for her support of the sprinkler ordinance.

      The others made their positions clear enough during the meeting. Even if you disagreed with them, they indicated reasons for the vote.

      Thus we were surprised to see a letter that appears indicated just the opposite yesterday. It came in after the three hour hearing involving over 60 people testifying, most of them against the sprinkler ordinance and many of them taking tea party positions. In fact, when Rob Lobos, a local tea party organizaer spoke, he started by listing the tea party credentials of each of the candidates. When he got to Commissioner Broomell, he noted how she was an early tea party organizer and had been instrumental in the start-up efforts locally.

      There was a lot of pressure on politicians who’d campaigned with on Tea Party philosophies that evening. We couldn’t state more than what’s on the record about the commissioner’s position.

  2. Crazy Old History Teacher

    So, hows that smokey sprinkley thing workin’ for ya Commissioner Broomell?

    • Gosh Crazy Old Teacher, we haven’t heard from you in a long time, as you were once a frequent contributor about subjects involving Mayor Fisona. What’s got your interest here, the Tea Party philosophies or the sprinkler ordinance. When we firstquickly read the message from our smart phone, we thought Someone Noticed was getty a visit from Sarah Pallin.

    • Just the Facts Mam

      About that smokey sprinkley thing you asked about. Workin just fine for her now that she calculated where she stands, whisphering her position to a select few in tea party. If she wanted that smokey sprinkley thing revoked outright she should have said something to the others. She might have turned em around right there and got it all over with instead of waiting till the big meeting to tell a few.

  3. Jacque Broomell

    If anyone had bothered to contact Commissioner Broomell directly prior to the first commissioner meeting and/or the public hearing they would have known her position then. She has always favored repeal of the ordinance and was in no way influenced by Tea Party pressure. Mr. Lobos would have known that had he bothered asking, which he did not. Assumptions were made by many, many people and we all know what happens when we assume…….

    • jacque, assumptions have to be made when the person in question, diana, does not, or more likely, cannot make her opinions known. All she does is blame others or require time to figure out what and how to think.

      And as for asking Commissioner broomell anything, many of us know how responsive she has been and probably will be. If that offends her, or you, she had better start getting her opinion out, show up on time, and please lose the gum. Advocating transparency comes with practicing it as well.

    • Jacque one of the other new media sites contacted Commissioner Broomell with questions on this matter twice, in order to get comments and we checked today. They’ve still haven’t had a response from the commissioner about the vote. We understand they’re working on their own piece about the sprinklers and the decision making process, so there will be more details forthcoming on another site.

  4. Wow! Even when Commissioner Broomell agrees with Raoul’s (sic) position, he still manages to attack her. It is clear that his posts have more to do with political cronyism than issues.

    Here’s a possibility – maybe she had an initial stance on the subject, but unlike other politicians actually felt she should LISTEN to the public comment before making a final decision. Perhaps she should be praised for waiting to listen to public comment before making final decisions on her position.

    Do we elect people to REPRESENT US, or to be rigid in their thinking and ignore the will of the citizens?

    • Conowingo Bridge Tender

      Hey Ho So believe that do you. I got a great deal on the Conowingo Dam just for u. Stop by the dam and talk business. OK so.

    • Hu ole man,

      Raoul is the correct spelling. It is of French derivation. Please stop with bigoted innuendo.

      I do not understand your reference to cronyism. I do have issues with political manipulation, moving money around under the table, false accusations, dirty campaigns, platforms of lies and false promises, and above all, blatant stupidity.

      Did ms broomell come to the meeting prepared with her own research on the benefits and problems acquired from professionals? No. She prefers to listen to uninformed opinions.

      Can ms broomel defend her decision to ‘Outright Repeal the Residential Sprinkler Ordinance’?
      “I felt we could resolve this issue within one or two months by voting to repeal outright without putting in a place a moratorium first,” she wrote.

      You cannot resolve this issue if you repeal it outright. Repeal means to remove or reverse, revoke or abrogate. Where was she with her opinion in December BEFORE the ordinance became active? Late, again.

      We do elect people to represent us, however, we also expect them to make their representation and decision making through an intelligent and informed process. We want leaders…not politicians who bend to whomever has their ear at the moment. You cannot follow someone who cannot figure out for themselves, where to go as well as when and how to get there.

  5. Good point Hu. We voters sometimes feel shut out because of a sense that “They” have already made up their minds and our input is wasted.

  6. Commissioner Broomell as well as the other new commissioners need to be given the opportunity to either live up to or fall short of the platforms they ran on. It has been less than a month since they were sworn in. Anyone who knows Commissioner Broomell knows that she does her own extensive research, and I am confident that her decisions will be guided by sound research as well as the core principles her campaign was about. It is understandable that assumptions were made prior to Commissioner Broomell’s public statement. Now that she has made a public statement, you can feel free to argue with her position if you want, but to ignore the content of her statement and engage in an attempt to read her mind and motives with no evidence is uncalled for and the result of a personal vendetta. Smokie the Bear- You have no credibility when you don’t use your own name. You are nothing but a coward. Commissioner Broomell doesn’t need to ask the TEA party how or what to think, because she has those core values within her. Moving forward, all commissioners should explain the reasoning behind their vote from the get-go, so assumptions can not be made. Raoul, your comment about commissioners making decisions based on uniformed opinions from the public makes me cringe. You are expressing the progressive mindset that is the basis for a nanny state to take care of the people because the people are just a bunch of uninformed stooges who don’t know what’s best for them. Speak for yourself. There were plenty of citizens at the hearing who did plenty of research on the issue and expressed compelling arguments. The most compelling of all though is the basis of our founding. The Revolutionary time period is often called the “Age of Reason” because our founders believed that the common person was capable of making decisions to govern his/her own life and solving his/her own problems. Unfortunately, the progressive movement today has pushed the opposing philosophy that only an elite, educated class of government beaurocrats know what is best for the people. Your belittling of the hundreds of the concerned citizens who showed up at the meeting shows that you have bought into that philosophy. For everyone else, if everyone would focus on the issues, use arguments based on facts and principles of sound government, and quit wasting time with their own personal vendettas writing under aliases because they are too cowardly to use their own name, we’d get a lot more accomplished. Those who don’t possess the cahunas to use their own names on this blog should be shunned.

    • Jackie,
      A little information for you from the period you hold in high esteem.

      “During the eighteenth century, it was common for writers and journalists to use pseudonyms, or false names, when they created newspaper articles and letters to the editor. Franklin used this convention extensively throughout his life, sometimes

      to express an idea that might have been considered slanderous or even illegal by the authorities;

      other times to present two sides of an issue, much like the point-counterpoint style of journalism used today.

      When Franklin used a pseudonym, he often created an entire persona for the “writer.” Sometimes he wrote as a woman, other times as a man, but always with a specific point of view. While all of his writings were focused and logical, many were also humorous, filled with wit and irony. Silence Dogood, Harry Meanwell, Alice Addertongue, Richard Saunders, and Timothy Turnstone were a few of the many pseudonyms Franklin used throughout his career.”

      Franklin’s noms de plume:
      Silence Dogood
      Caelia Shortface and Martha Careful
      Busy Body
      Anthony Afterwit
      Alice Addertongue
      Richard Saunders
      Polly Baker
      Benevolus

      From PBS.org about Benjamin Franklin

      Do not assume that I was belittling anyone, or that I have ‘bought into’ any philosophy for which you disagree. I think Smokey the Bear might agree.

  7. I had an opportunity to talk to Commissioner Broomall before the commissioners meeting and was made aware of her position against the new residential sprinkler code regulation. When given the opportunity to address the citizens and commissioners at the public hearing, I was thanking her for adhering to her conservative principals. I admire her for taking the time to truely listening to the voices of the constituants and deciding to vote against this breach of our civil liberties, rather than being influenced by special interests. If I had been allowed to continue with my address without being rudely interrupted by the one commissioner that asked that we be considerate of them, I feel that maybe I may have been able to better confer my message. I hold her in higher esteem for listening to the people and then making up her mind, along with Hodge, Moore and Dunn.

  8. George Armstrong Custer

    Well well well…Ms. Diana Broomell just another politician flip flopping her views to fit the party line. You kind folks of Cecil County put her into office so I guess you get what you deserve.

    REMEMBER FOLKS VOTE GEORGE ARMSTRONG CUSTER FOR COUNTY COMMISSIONER! CAN’T GO WRONG WITH PASTOR RUNNING THINGS

    • General,
      She is not flopping to fit the party line…she is flopping to fit the Smipkin agenda.

      At Cecil night in Annapolis, she spent her time huddled with the rest of the Smipkin Regime at their round table, as they trashed the event. They didn’t help, or offer to help, mind you. They just love to look down their noses at others and posture as the all mighty, all knowing, all powerful lords of the land.

      Smigiel hovered above her for 45 minutes and lectured as she sat blinky-eyed, gum chomping, trying to get her mission straight. I am sure they all hope she gets the agenda correct before opening her mouth again and needs to do so much back tracking and damage control.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s