Citing differences, Megon resigns from Trafford council
Trafford Council has an open seat as a result of Vicki Megon's resignation last week.
Megon, 47, becomes the fourth council member to leave the board in the past 16 months, starting with Frank Bruno's resignation. Rita Windsor decided not to seek re-election last year, while Henry Schultz lost races for both a two-year and four-year seat in November.
Council set a July 18 deadline for residents who want to submit letters describing their interest in the seat. The term runs through the end of 2015.
Megon, who joined council in 2010, credited her council colleagues for making “great strides in this town over the past five or six years.”
However, she said, she thought the borough was lacking in other areas, such as being able to retain volunteers.
“At this time, I do not feel we are striving for the same things,” Megon said.
In Megon's time on council, she was critical of the cost of the project for the new public-safety building. She then teamed up with Schultz, John Daykon and Rich Laird in March 2012 to remove Windsor as board president and Bruno as vice president and finance chairman after officials said they were overspending on the building.
Council members last week seemed surprised about Megon's decision to step down.
“I'm sorry to see it happen,” Laird said.
Chris Foreman is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. Reach him at 412-871-2363 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.