This is a good thing. Also, as someone who attended the meeting, I do not think anyone on Council voiced that they would/would not support the plan. It was moved out of committee without a recommendation, which is essentially not voting on it. If Reuscher understood parliamentary procedure she would have voted for it. In fact, one councilman, I think Rechutti, said he was not sure how he would vote but thought it was worthy of the whole council's discussion.
Cathy Reuscher voted against the plan in committee and was against sending it to the council. The Express Times reported her vote and also her comments saying that this would set a bad precedent. Don't try to spin the facts or accuse her or being ignorant (of parliamentary procedure or anything else) without having something to back up your accusations.
I was there. The motion was to move it on to full council with a neutral recommendation to be placed on the agenda for the 2nd meeting in June. The reasoning was to allow more time to explore other options, and engage more residents. The date was chosen after questions of the school engineer about a deadline to go forward. He said July would be the deadline. Reuscher did not say what you think she said, either. This is from the ET article: "The committee voted 2-1 to send the proposal with a neutral recommendation on to the full council to consider it June 17. Committee Chairwoman Cathy Reuscher said she voted against the motion because it so far seems residents don't support the temporary parking lot."She felt the residents did not support the plan, which those in attendance did not. The other 2 guys said they thought more residents input was needed. They were concerned with the residents who were not there. Reuscher is one of the twits who voted against Diana Morganelli for the parking authority, before she changed her mind and voted for her. She is new and inexperienced, but should understand that her vote to move it on to council was not binding, but would allow a final resolution.
From MCall: http://www.mcall.com/news/local/bethlehem/mc-bethlehem-council-rose-garden-0519-20140519,0,768785.story"'We're in a tight spot here,' added Cathy Reuscher, chairwoman of the committee. 'A lot of folks are saying they'd rather deal with the cars. And there is no good answer for this. I fear it sets a bad precedent to eliminate one of the nicest parks, albeit temporarily, for a parking lot.'"It seems pretty clear from the comments that she found the plan objectionable because (a) the local residents who spoke were against the temporary lot and (b) since destruction of the park would set a bad precedent. I'm sure she knew the vote was non-binding, but, had one of the other guys voted down the motion it probably would have stalled in committee and died there---effectively ending this thing Monday night.The point is she was the only one to vote against the destruction of the park and she showed some real courage (esp. for someone you point out is new at this).