A conversation with Alec
Alec O'Meara of the Gilford Steamer left a comment on my previous post, "Well, the Steamer asked to get Grokked, right?". Rather than just leaving it as a comment, I thought that it deserved a post of its own, so I am putting it up here:
And now that it has been reproduced unaltered, it does deserve discussing...
Skip, buddy, you're missing the point here. The issue of civility among budget committee members and the public doesn't replace money matters, it comes in next to them. For some, it comes in on top of them. I know from your writings you don't feel that the board has been uncivil this year during its deliberations. That's cool. I get that.
And that is most of my point - I don't believe that the BudComm members have been uncivil. I have noted that it seems only those that have disagreed with my stances or philosophies are the ones that are calling me disagreeable.
Don't get me wrong - there certainly should be civility but it should be a given and should not a campaign issue.. However, there are those (and I believe Mr. Dormody is leading this charge) that are making it THE issue in this campaign. To the detriment of the voters, I may add, because it obscures the real fiscal issues.
What should be the issue is how the candidates will vote given different scenarios. Would they agree with the BudComm that the SAU employees be paying some towards their health insurance, or do they agree with the School Board that taxpayers should shoulder the entire burden? Should budgets continue to rise above (and sometimes well above) the rate of inflation, or the rate of national or regional wage inflation? Should there be limits to how fast and how big local government should grow, or should there be no limits at all? Who should decide what in the areas of fiscal management?
Still, if that's how you feel, why not sign the pledge?
For one thing (and you DO keep asking that question), I'm not running! Therefore, I don't need to! So because you think this is so important, let's see who has:
 | | |
| Dale Dormody |  | |
| Bill Phillips | _______________________________ | |
| Terry Stewart | No Response | |
| Kevin Roy | _______________________________ | |
| E. Scott Cracraft | _______________________________ | |
| Delores Seager | _______________________________ | |
| Bill Knightly | _______________________________ | |
| Doug Lambert | Refused to sign |
(The above was copied from Mr. Dormody's site at 7:35pm today)
Ah, let's see – Mr Dormody. Hey Alec, it seems that ONLY Mr Dormody has signed Mr. Dormody's pledge. His site has been up for a while, certainly long enough for other candidatesyet it seems that no other candidate has seen fit to sign this pledge.
Oh, wait, there is text next to two names – Doug and Terry. I know that Doug has refused to sign, so that seems alright. Terry has been on vacation witnessing the wedding of his son so I understand why the “No Response” is there.
Yet, if no one else has responded, why isn't that tag next to EVERYONE's name? Why has Mr. Dormody singled out those two people and not being even handed and tagged everyone?
While I do not know for sure, it certainly seems to be trying to show these two in a negative light. Seems like plain politics to me – how about you, Alec? Seem a bit suspicious?
And I'll ask the more important question – why haven't the other candidates signed it? Or are they, too, refusing to sign up for a political ploy?
What harm does it cause to say, "Yes, I can be tough on spending, but I can do it in a civil manner, and here's the proof?"
Here's my take on this (shorter than before). I don't need to sign a document to show civility – and I believe that this is nothing more than a publicity stunt. If someone does sign it, and then acts in a manner that someone else considers to be uncivil, the finger pointing will begin and claims of “now you've broken the promise you signed”. Why bother with that hassle? As I asked before, who gets to play arbiter?
Sign the pledge, say you agree with Dale on this matter and the debate returns to where you want it, on dollars and cents.
IF I was running (again, which I am not – so why are you insisting on this? My name is not listed above, is it?), I still wouldn't bother and would concentrate on the important issues.
Oppose the pledge, and the civility issue continues to get play and takes away from where you want the debate to go. That's the mistake you made.
I guess that we will agree to disagree. Only those that do not wish to discuss the important issues will concentrate on the civility one.
In the end (and as it should be), the voters will decide.
