Voices From The Readers – November 25, 2022

Voices From The Readers – November 25, 2022

Pharmacy Nightmare

Editor:

My wife had a stroke in the middle of October 2021, was taken to TidalHealth in Salisbury then admitted to Encompass rehab in Salisbury and then Berlin Nursing and Rehabilitation Center. After three months, she came home in a wheelchair, but she could get in and out of bed on her own. She could take care of herself.

I was told to pick up her prescriptions from Walgreens in Ocean Pines. I picked up eight prescriptions and was never told that the blood thinner Eliquis was not given to me, even though it was prescribed. In the past when a prescription was not right they would let me know.

Six days later, she had another stroke, this time very serious. She was admitted to TidalHealth in serious condition. The doctor in the emergency room wanted to know if he could do whatever necessary to keep her alive. We both have living wills, so I told him to stick to the living wills. A priest was called in to give her last rites.

Worcester Preparatory School Virtual Tour

Then she was moved to a room, she was doing just a little better. I asked the doctor what could have caused the stroke, and he said he wasn’t sure but it was likely that she wasn’t given her Eliquis blood thinner. When I went home, I checked the prescriptions I was given by Walgreens and the blood thinner was missing. When my son brought it up to the manager at Walgreens, he just shrugged it off and said that people make mistakes.

Starting with Memorial Day, I was demonstrating outside Walgreens. When I first started, a retired nurse stopped to talk to me and said the only way I will find peace is to forgive the pharmacist and I told I would never do that. A few people that stopped to talk to me said the pharmacist must be a real bonehead to make a mistake like that.

Then in August the manager came out and said he was nice enough to let me stay but I should stop talking to customers. I said I would keep demonstrating and talking to the customers. I asked him he would like it if it happeneded to his wife. I was very upset. My blood pressure went up to 180 and they gave me medication in the ER to deal with it.

In September, some who likes the pharmacist tried to get me into a fight with the manager. I’m 88 years old. He is about 20 years younger than me, so that makes two boneheads. On Nov. 7, they called the police so I had to stop.

My wife is in Berlin Nursing and Rehabilitation. I don’t think she will ever be able to come home. We have been through hell and are still going through it.

John Scrudato

Ocean Pines

X

Fenwick Concerns Aired

Editor:

When Fenwick Island Mayor Natalie Magdeburger reactivated the Ad Hoc Parking Committee, she asked three commercial property owners to join — Scott Mumford (Warren’s Station), Kinsley Parker Hazel (former PNC property) and Virginia Childers ( Sea Shell City). The purpose of this committee was to discuss a very controversial newly proposed parking ordinance. After gathering the views of the primary commercial property owners in Fenwick, they in good faith agreed to serve on the committee.

I attended all these meetings, personally or via zoom. Many ideas, thoughts, and concerns were discussed. Although this committee is still active and no final report has been publicly released, the mayor, who appointed herself as the chairman of this committee, sent a letter to all Fenwick residents outlining 10 points. Not only are these points out of context, misstated or moot, they also are inflammatory. No one that volunteers to serve on a Fenwick Island committee should ever be put in a position where their contributions are turned against them. The best intentions of Scott, Kinsley and Virginia fell victim to a classic courtroom tactic — get it on the record and use it against them.

If you are a Fenwick resident that desires to see a healthy business community continue, ask yourself why the town needs to employ a strategy that casts such a negative approach to working together as a community. Fenwick has one of the most restrictive commercial building codes at the beach. There has been virtually no new commercial building in Fenwick in the last 15 years. There are only three undeveloped lots that have the potential for commercial development. Fenwick cannot be another Dewey Beach or Ocean City. However, if more restrictions on commercial property, as advocated by our mayor, are put into place you will see a gradual demise of your Fenwick business community.

If this concerns you, as it does me, let your Town Council know.

Tim Collins

Fenwick Island

(The writer is a long-time, year-round resident and commercial property and business owner.)

X

Show Safety To Motorists

Editor:

I enjoyed reading about Berlin considering speed cameras. What bothers me is that the State/Berlin (not sure who initiated the speed change) lowered the speed limit on Route 113 to 45 mph (surrounding Berlin). In paragraph 12, Downing said the state would not approve speed cameras on Route 50 or 113. Then, in paragraph 14, the mayor is quoted saying, “the goal is to get people to abide by the speed limit and keep our streets safe.”

Let me say that I drive through Berlin (via 113) just about every day. The posted 45 mph speed limit is a joke. I don’t think I could count on my hand the number of times I observed a passenger vehicle going 45. When I’m traveling south, most vehicles reach 60 mph by the time they get to the ball fields. According to paragraph 10, any vehicle would need to do 57 mph to get ticketed (assuming 12 over).

I don’t understand why the speed limit was lowered to 45 from 50 (I believe it was 50). If Berlin actually cares about its road safety, they would enforce the speed limits or install speed cameras that provide results. And I mean, once folks know the cameras are there because of a recent ticket, the next time they slow down (fact).

The mayor claims it’s not the revenue; it’s the safety. If that’s the case, show us the safety and not just the hot air, in the town or on the highway.

Pete Bott

Berlin

X

Question A Reflections

Editor:

Now that Question A has been defeated by the voters of Worcester County, it is time to set the record straight. The People For Fiscal Responsibility, a ballot issue committee, was formed solely to bring the matter of a specific Bond Bill for a Sports Complex to the voters. From the outset, we made it very clear that we are not opposed to a Sports Complex, per se; but we are opposed to the use of public funds to build it, to operate it and to pay an exorbitant price for the land. For the County Commissioners to pay nearly $75,000 per acre, when land is readily available throughout the county for $10,000 to $19,000 per acre is ridiculous.

From the beginning, we were repeatedly told that the bond proceeds were to be used for construction of the complex and to purchase the 95 plus acres next to Stephen Decatur High School. It was not until we had met the signature requirement that we then learned that bond funds could not be used to purchase the land.

Later, there was confusion about the language of the bond bill as it appeared on the ballot as Question A. Some insisted that if the Bond Bill was defeated, a Sports Complex could never be built in Worcester County with bond proceeds. That was never true. Question A pertained to one Bond Bill, and one Bond Bill only. Furthermore, our committee never had any control over how the language was written on the ballot.

On behalf of the People For Fiscal Responsibility, we want to thank the 71 volunteers who gathered signatures throughout the county. We also want to thank the 5,093 voters who signed the petition to place the issue on the ballot. Finally, we want to thank the 11,760 voters who voted against Question A, thus defeating the Bond Bill.

What we learned from this initiative and this tremendous effort is that people still have the power to take control of their government. While we all enjoy the right to vote, the power of the Petition to Referendum allows for citizens to override the actions of their elected officials in the passage of an ill-conceived bill. The founders of our great Nation understood the right of the people “…to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” In Worcester County, Maryland, the Constitution is alive and well.

Vincent dePaul Gisriel, Jr.

Ocean City

X

OC Branding Follow Up

Editor:

I appreciate the reply from Mayor Rick Meehan of Ocean City to my letter on behalf of Ocean City Advertising Agency, located for many years in North Ocean City.

The mayor makes several very good points about the new OC logo and ad campaign. Upon further reflection, I find myself persuaded of the validity and the power of the mayor’s observations about the new Ocean City/BVK ad campaign and logo. Who says an old dog can’t learn new tricks? I certainly can.

Despite my 40 years’ experience in advertising and three decades of teaching advertising, marketing, and business management in various colleges, I find the mayor’s case persuasive, compelling, and convincing for the new “carefree” OC campaign from BVK. And the market research behind the new campaign? Persuasive, indeed.

Who could possibly question the success (dare one say, market penetration?) of “Carefree Tampons,” or the six-decade history of the smiley-face emoji used by Wal-Mart, McDonald’s and Hallmark Cards, to name only a few of the thousands of other commercial users who have used the smiley-face emoji over the past 60 years?

So, I salute Mayor Meehan, the OC Tourism Board, BVK, and the 100,000 people surveyed during the development of this new “carefree” OC campaign that employs a 60-year-old emoji. They have proved, truly proved, there is nothing new under the sun, especially, a smiley-face emoji.

Paul Jankovic

Ocean City