To the editor:
Last week’s paper contained a letter written by Councilor Chris Bell explaining how the council came up with its choice to fill the current vacancy left by Karla Bell’s resignation. He said the council asked several questions including, “Is there someone available who has experience and can contribute to the governance process during that short time frame that he/she will be serving?” Uh, ya, there are several people who fit that scenario, and in this last election, there was one who previously served on the council and one who currently serves on the Planning Board.
Another question was, “Should we appoint the candidate with the next highest vote count if that candidate once held a council seat and was unsuccessful in his/her re-election bid as an incumbent?” Uh … why not? If memory serves me correctly, when filling the vacancy left before this current one, the council went to the person (who was a former councilor) who ran in that recent election and came in dead last! He declined, so the council, in all its wisdom, totally ignored the other two, very viable, seasoned candidates and went to the same one they appointed this time. We all know why.
Then he asked, “Are we listening to the will of the voters if we appoint someone who lost in the general election?” What? Are you kidding me? Did you really ask that question? Did you listen to the will of the approximately 1,200 voters who cast their vote for the candidate who “lost”? Don’t they count?? No! Why? We’ve rung that bell before, haven’t we, Councilor Bell? Don’t forget, only 39 votes separated Mr. Martin from Mr. Morrell.
I would be curious to see how this would have played out had the tide been turned. If Mr. Martin had lost the election, would the council have gone to him and asked him to fill the vacancy? I’m guessing they would have.
Another question by the council, “Would the appointment give an individual an unfair advantage in the next general election?” Huh? Why would it? If the public doesn’t like the choice … vote him/her off! Sorry, Councilor Bell, but I really do think you and the council are grasping at straws here.
I personally have nothing against the person the council appointed, but I have a big problem with its reasons for doing so. In the council’s world, it wants everything to run smoothly, without controversy. Don’t rock the boat, don’t ask hard questions, and don’t, for heavens’ sake, raise your voice. I’ve heard “coffee shop talk” that one councilor in particular made a comment that he may not run for re-election because it’s “not fun anymore.” Whoever said serving on the city council was supposed to be fun? If you are in it for the fun of it, then please, do us all a favor and bow out. This is not fun and games, it’s serious stuff. You are playing with our community’s future and people’s lives. Yet you continue to let “good ole boys politics” rule your actions.
You are right, Councilor Bell, the council will never be able to please every one. It’s a “darned if you do, darned if you don’t” job. But is everyone really putting into this job what it requires of them? The 2011 budget draft is 45 pages long. How many of you have read it, and better yet, do you understand it? (You can download this and lots more on CaribouWatch.com)
Joan Theriault
Caribou
