Post-forum questions
By
-
To the editor:
I must say that I was impressed by all of the candidates at county commissioner forum hosted by the Highland County TEA Party this past Monday evening, though some shined brighter than others. But it certainly isn’t my place to critique the candidates for their public speaking; besides, one’s public speaking ability has more to do with getting elected than actually fulfilling the requirements of the office.
It seemed that all of the candidates were basically in agreement that the county owns too much property and should get rid of it, that the budget needs to be closely watched, and that their goals are to attract more jobs to Highland County. Of course, some agreed with others more vehemently and consistently than others.
However, there was one topic that stuck out in my mind as I looked back upon the events of the evening. When asked about the policies and procedures associated with conducting the public’s business, the four challengers answered the questions in the only manner that one can. Those four all stated that the Ohio Sunshine Law and the Ohio Revised Code pretty clearly spell out the requirements for conducting the public’s business in an open and honest manner, having meetings and records easily accessible to the public.
What stuck out was that the two incumbents, each of which could have spoken to their own conduct in office as it relates to open and accessible government business, all but refused to address the question. Instead, they used that trip to the microphone to offer their campaign literature to the attendees and to invite personal phone calls regarding any question that anyone might have of them.
This was the most impressive move of the evening by any of the candidates and indicative of political polish that none of the challenging candidates seemed to possess, thankfully. In their refusal to address the questions, but their challenge to the attendees to call them personally they put the onus back on the people to press them individually for answers.
This is brilliant, reminiscent to retailers offering mail in rebates, knowing that a certain percentage of people won’t mail in the rebate. The incumbents understand that the vast majority of people will never call and challenge them on their adherence to legal requirements, either being intimidated or unwilling to call, or by being convinced that by putting such an offer out they must have nothing to hide. Those few who might call will then be addressed personally with all the charm and polish that experience in office seems to build in a politician.
I see this as a divide-and-conquer tactic, refusing to address the general public when each person can be given the answer that best fits the individual at hand at the moment.
Personally, I would have preferred that they just answer the questions as they were asked and that they would not have played politics. I have heard similar things over the past few months, being told that if I had questions I should ask them and not write letters to the editor for public viewing. What the public officials who have told me these things fail to realize is that I have no questions for them, they have provided all the information I need through their public records, or lack thereof.
However, since that challenge to ask questions has been put out there by the incumbents I would like to take this opportunity to ask a few questions which I have:
1. Mr. Wilkin, why was the public not given proper notice of the “extra sessions” that the commissioners have apparently been holding until exposed in late December?
2. Mr. Horst, do the meeting minutes document these “extra sessions” as well as the topics of discussions and decisions made by the Commissioners?
3. Mr. Wilkin, as an attendee of every commissioner’s meeting during the month of December 2011, why did I never hear any discussion of the $16,460 cut in the coroner’s budget from what was requested?
4. Mr. Horst, as an attendee of every commissioner’s meeting during the month of December 2011, why did I never hear any discussion of the $25,000 (33%) cut from the Tax Map budget as compared to what was requested?
I look forward to hearing your answers to these very simple questions.
Sincerely,
Fred Boggess
New Vienna[[In-content Ad]]
I must say that I was impressed by all of the candidates at county commissioner forum hosted by the Highland County TEA Party this past Monday evening, though some shined brighter than others. But it certainly isn’t my place to critique the candidates for their public speaking; besides, one’s public speaking ability has more to do with getting elected than actually fulfilling the requirements of the office.
It seemed that all of the candidates were basically in agreement that the county owns too much property and should get rid of it, that the budget needs to be closely watched, and that their goals are to attract more jobs to Highland County. Of course, some agreed with others more vehemently and consistently than others.
However, there was one topic that stuck out in my mind as I looked back upon the events of the evening. When asked about the policies and procedures associated with conducting the public’s business, the four challengers answered the questions in the only manner that one can. Those four all stated that the Ohio Sunshine Law and the Ohio Revised Code pretty clearly spell out the requirements for conducting the public’s business in an open and honest manner, having meetings and records easily accessible to the public.
What stuck out was that the two incumbents, each of which could have spoken to their own conduct in office as it relates to open and accessible government business, all but refused to address the question. Instead, they used that trip to the microphone to offer their campaign literature to the attendees and to invite personal phone calls regarding any question that anyone might have of them.
This was the most impressive move of the evening by any of the candidates and indicative of political polish that none of the challenging candidates seemed to possess, thankfully. In their refusal to address the questions, but their challenge to the attendees to call them personally they put the onus back on the people to press them individually for answers.
This is brilliant, reminiscent to retailers offering mail in rebates, knowing that a certain percentage of people won’t mail in the rebate. The incumbents understand that the vast majority of people will never call and challenge them on their adherence to legal requirements, either being intimidated or unwilling to call, or by being convinced that by putting such an offer out they must have nothing to hide. Those few who might call will then be addressed personally with all the charm and polish that experience in office seems to build in a politician.
I see this as a divide-and-conquer tactic, refusing to address the general public when each person can be given the answer that best fits the individual at hand at the moment.
Personally, I would have preferred that they just answer the questions as they were asked and that they would not have played politics. I have heard similar things over the past few months, being told that if I had questions I should ask them and not write letters to the editor for public viewing. What the public officials who have told me these things fail to realize is that I have no questions for them, they have provided all the information I need through their public records, or lack thereof.
However, since that challenge to ask questions has been put out there by the incumbents I would like to take this opportunity to ask a few questions which I have:
1. Mr. Wilkin, why was the public not given proper notice of the “extra sessions” that the commissioners have apparently been holding until exposed in late December?
2. Mr. Horst, do the meeting minutes document these “extra sessions” as well as the topics of discussions and decisions made by the Commissioners?
3. Mr. Wilkin, as an attendee of every commissioner’s meeting during the month of December 2011, why did I never hear any discussion of the $16,460 cut in the coroner’s budget from what was requested?
4. Mr. Horst, as an attendee of every commissioner’s meeting during the month of December 2011, why did I never hear any discussion of the $25,000 (33%) cut from the Tax Map budget as compared to what was requested?
I look forward to hearing your answers to these very simple questions.
Sincerely,
Fred Boggess
New Vienna[[In-content Ad]]