Three out of Five: But only after an extensive study by the Department of Environmental Services to determine any aspect of environmental depletion, an analysis by the County Auditor to determine whether or not the light bulb is truly in need of changing and the County Tax Assessor to determine whether or not sufficient revenues have been collected to fund the effort.
It will also require three public hearings to receive public comments on whether or not it is in the county’s best interest to change the light bulb or perhaps rewrite county ordinances on just what constitutes a “burned out light bulb”
The final vote will come down to a 3 to 2 decision, but only after one councilor injects his own alternative plan on changing the light bulb that sets the whole process off for months.
In the meantime, the County Manager will report that he took it upon his own authority to replace the light bulb that will see that one councilor demanding to know how he did that.
The County Manager will give him an incredulous look and answer, “with my hand.”
The councilor will rush to social media claiming multiple acts of criminal activity and corruption, demanding an investigation of the County Manager and recall of the three Councilors approving of County Manager changing the light bulb on his own authority.
Ardent followers of the disgruntled councilor will establish a website devoted to proving he is correct and the rest of the world wrong about how light bulbs ought to be changed at the county level, accusing “the establishment” of massive corruption and being out of step in the “real conservative” manner of changing light bulbs.
The local newspaper will gleefully report every step of the process, never noticing the burned out light bulb over the editor’s desk.
Help keep this blog active with a voluntary contribution at the PayPal button at the top of the sidebar on the right. Thank you.