In Search of a Litmus Test
Though I am generally reluctant to post a response to comments offered on my site, I feel the need to do so in response to positions taken by some pertaining to the letter of support written by Ms. Carol Childress. I do hope you will indulge me..
In a previous post titled “Time Will Tell”, I wrote the following: "...My purpose here should not be misconstrued to indicate support or lack thereof for a particular candidate. Rather, it is merely to suggest that a prudent course of action would remain mindful that campaigns based upon pro-growth or limited growth, development of Route 15 or not, the expansion or reduction of Open Space purchases, etc. etc., are of little significance if there is cause to doubt the integrity of anyone aspiring for our support. True prosperity will come as a direct result of honest and transparent engagement of the issues facing our community.
Perhaps, as voters, we might focus our efforts on those qualities that will truly lead us to a path of economic prosperity and cultural vitality. Qualities such as honesty, impartiality, selflessness, and commitment to principled governance will provide the greatest foundation for ensuring our economic viability. When residents trust their elected officials and have confidence in their objectivity, they are generally more engaged and more supportive of the steps taken by those representatives on behalf of the community. Surely, the reverse is true when trust and confidence are lacking.
Would it not do us all a great deal more good to distinguish our candidates based upon the content of their character as opposed to the simplicity of whether or not they support growth on Route 15? Would we not do our community and our children more justice to seek and support candidates who would serve as solid roles models of integrity, objectivity, and principled governance? Should we not aspire for leadership that fully recognizes its responsibility and accountability to all residents within the community, as opposed to any particular group? Do not our children deserve the best leadership we can provide them?”
My point being, that considering the glaring lack of integrity and intellectual honesty displayed by two current members of the Board of Selectmen – two supposedly pro-growth candidates who have done nothing to promote any economic growth in this community – one might cautiously consider what is at stake here. The current vice-Chairman of the BOS is pro-growth when it is conducive to his particular business or those business interests politically convenient for him. The service station request for sewer is a prime example of such, as was his position against plowing the sidewalks along Route 20, which has been done for years. Mr. Garieri wanted to fine shop owners for not clearing snow on town owned property because he has to clear the snow in front of his side-street business in Southbridge. As for the Chairman, I’ve seen nothing in any way reflective of a strong sense of economic growth. In fact, one could argue that she has been an impediment to progress.
Some have made the determination that those individuals supporting a particular candidate are the key in deciding who to vote for. Were we to direct our votes based upon who is supporting who, I would be unable to vote for either candidate, if as suggested, the Chairman is backing one candidate and the vice-Chairman another. Both selectmen have displayed poor leadership, selfishness, and serious character failings, which would suggest that anyone they support is reflective of who they are – were one to adhere to such logic.
An argument has been made that as a result of the support tendered candidate Mary Dowling by Ms. Carol Childress, Mr. & Mrs. Ed Goodwin and Ms. Penny Dumas one should refrain from voting for her because she is obviously anti-growth. If in fact Mary Blanchard is supporting Mary Dowling, should not that alone be cause enough to recoil from supporting Ms. Dowling? Would that not mean that Mary Dowling is just another Mary Blanchard? I can assure you that such is not the case and I hold Ms. Dowling in high regard. Could not the very same be said for supporting James Ehrhard, as he is strongly supported by Scott Garieri? Would that not be cause enough to believe him to be as equally self-serving as one of his supporters? Should one then abandon all support for James based upon that alone?
In my short tenure as a selectman, I have come to a better understanding of the passions and positions taken by many people. Some I agree with, some otherwise. As well, I have been fortunate enough to establish - and in some cases reestablish - relationships with those I have previously had strong disagreements with. To that end, I am thankful that my relationships with individuals such as Ms. Childress, Mr. & Mrs. Goodwin, and Ms. Dumas have improved significantly. I have come to better recognize their concerns and their commitment to this community and I hope that they have gained a deeper appreciation for mine.
As a selectman, I have had occasion to work with several of them on issues facing the community and I am grateful for their willingness to work cooperatively and collaboratively with me. They have provided sound guidance and support on those issues we’ve partnered on. It is my sincere hope that my relationships with them and all Sturbridge residents will grow and flourish. This willingness to engage by all is necessary if we are to lead our community towards a more progressive and prosperous future.
No doubt there will be disagreements and there will be passion on all sides as it relates to the issues faced by this community. Clearly, I am as passionate as anyone and I am never reluctant to openly state my position. Bearing that in mind, right now, for me at least, the most important issues are those of credibility, integrity, accountability and honor. These character traits are sadly in short supply on the Board of Selectmen and if it continues, efforts towards sound economic growth will continue to be fruitless. Where there is no faith in the leadership, there manifests no support for its policies and certainly no trust in its governance. By extension, government is thus doomed to failure.
Clearly, there are issues to be debated and positions offered by the candidates that will help guide us towards our eventual decision. Certainly, to his credit, Mr. Jeff Bonja has frequently raised the issue of specifics being offered by the candidates and such should be expected and provided. I respect Jeff, and he, like myself, is not one to be taken by emotional arguments. We both have a preference for sound intellectual arguments that are fact-based and specific. I suspect that is the foundation from which our friendship has manifested and grown. To that end, we must be able to trust that promises made in the heat of an election campaign will not be jettisoned once in office as have those of two of our current selectmen. Short of one campaign pledge (which is taking longer than expected), I have delivered on every other item I committed to in the first year of my tenure. I am proud of that and believe that once a promise is made it should be kept. At least two of my colleagues clearly feel differently. Review those campaign pledges made two years ago and you will note doubt come to a similar conclusion.
I respect and like both Mary and James. I wish that there were two seats open on the Board, as I believe both would be HONEST selectmen. We are surely in need of a dose of that on the Board. There is however one seat, and if a sound decision is to be made then let it be made based upon character, integrity, and specifics, not upon who is supporting whom. As I stated earlier, were that to be the litmus test, I can tell you without reservation that I could support NO candidate endorsed by either the Chair or vice-Chair of the BOS.
Posts
