Civility above all - a wrong motive
Once again, a comment on what seems to be the main thrust of Mr. Dormody's campaign - the main emphasis on the BudComm should be politeness. I commented on this here, and in this post, we'll look at his code of ethics he wants those running to sign.
IMHO, it doesn't mean much, with no teeth and totally depends on what a person believes is the difference between civility and incivility. His code is as follows:
Budget Committee Candidate Code of Conduct
As a candidate for the Gilford Budget Committee, I take seriously my responsibility to work on behalf of ALL Gilford residents and taxpayers.
At the risk of being call uncivil right from the get-go, I really cannot believe that ANY candidate who is at all serious would not take this responsibility seriously. Thus, does this really have to be in a signed document? Who the heck wouldn't admit to it?
Or, does Mr. Dormody think that some do not?
I understand that property tax levels are an issue for ALL residents and taxpayers,
This I disagree with, as there some in Town that really do not care! They have either a sufficient income or wealth such that, for the property they own, it really does not matter if their tax bill goes up, even substantially.
Thus, why sign something that is not provably true?
and if elected I will work diligently to ensure that the budgets and warrant articles recommended by the committee are responsible, fair, and tight.
And here is the biggest problem with Mr. Dormody's thinking, and let me illustrate it with a real life example.
What say you, Mr. Dormody? Would you allow that funding for a new position? I was advocating for a responsible and tight budget - would you have voted down that position? Or preferred to see government grow needlessly (IMHO)?
Do you believe that it is fair that the School Board basically gave taxpayers a 250% "pay cut" with respect to support staff healthcare insurance costs when it raised the amount of money taxpayers now have to pay - and not require the support staff to pay anything towards their own care? To whom is that fair?
How would you have voted, Mr. Dormody?
I will make every possible effort to attend all meetings, including and perhaps especially those public sessions where the opinions of Gilford residents and taxpayers are requested.
Even the RSA makes allowances for absences - just make sure to tell the Chair so that it will not be an unexcused absence. I admit, due to biz trips, I missed a subcommittee meeting and a regular BudComm meeting.
However, this is nothing more than a thinly veiled swipe at Doug, as he missed the Public session on the School Budget. Why? When a large customer says "visit", you do so. Once again, under the guise of trying to establish civility, Mr. Dormody seemingly is using it to score political points.
Should I be elected, during my entire term as a representative of all Gilford voters and taxpayers, I pledge to treat all residents with respect, both during public meetings of the committee and in all other public statements and writings. While we may disagree, we can do so with civility.
Once again, this seems to be aimed at both Doug and I, with another swing at Terry Stuart due to his Letters to the Editor.
Mr. Dormody, you and I have traded emails. We have had discussions on the phone. I even met you at Dunkin' Donuts one Saturday morning. At none of those meetings could you really come up with times that respect was violated during the meetings. And you finally had to admit that at no time was the 'line crossed" during the meetings or otherwise. You DID have issues on style points, but that was it.
Yes, I was the one who said "I will not check my First Amendment rights at the door" during one of the last BudComm meetings. I said it then, and I will say it now, and will say it in the future.
This ongoing saga of Political Correctness is madness, and this whole ethics thing is not much more than just that, a form of Political Correctness. By casting someone else's speech as un-PC , or other than how you would like to define it, is keeping it in a limiting and may be cutting off future valuable discussion.
This is true even if you might disagree with the possible tone of such a discussion (which is and of itself, free speech). And that, by definition, is muzzling people's opinions and the right to say what they want in the matter in which to say it.
And remember this - you are, in effect, asking people seeking a governmental board to restrict their speech and be willing to be judged by what they say. I really hope that you do not believe that this would be a legally binding document, for it would be laughed out of court on First Amendment issues.
I say this, not to be contrarian, but to really take to heart the ability of anyone to say what they feel they should in discussing the issues of the day.
When it comes down to it, this whole code of ethics really depends on one's political outlook. So again, who gets to judge if someone is in violation of this code of ethics? You? Me? An appointed jury of whose peers?
Or is this, as I believe it to be, just a device to be used as a political punching bag later on?
Frankly, my advice to any of the other candidates is to not sign this particular pledge - it is too vague, as it really depends on interpretation of what one person thinks of another's words and actions.
