The Explorer in the Dec 31 issue, reports that campaign signs of the three incumbents, Helen Dankwerth, Terry Parish & Barry Gillaspie have been damaged.
Although we support the candidacy of Bill Garner & Salette Latas, we would hope that all their supporters would want them to win by their votes, not by the destruction of the incumbency's signs.
Actions such as that will not help the new candidates, and can only serve to aid the incumbents.
Hopefully, we have seen the last of this deplorable action.
As we noted in yesterday's posting, all of our citizens should take the opportunity to have their voices heard----but with their vote, not by any other means.
Art
Read the article here.
http://www.explorernews.com/article/show/21130
12 comments:
Personally I would never damage property.
However I can understand the frustration that lead to this mischief.
Perhaps a person or persons felt so outraged by being ignored by these council members they took it out on their signs.
Better if they used that energy to
encourage and educate their friends and neighbors, so we can see Dankwerth, Parish and Gillaspie defeated at the polls.
There are two possibilities here:
Someone is sending the current council members a message: you don't represent the interests of the citizens, just the big developers and we don't want you back.
On the other hand it is a clever idea for the incumbents to damage their own signs and then cry "foul"!
It's best to express your feelings at the ballot box!
So Parish is a crybaby as well as a bully. Big surprise.
And Dankwerth has a problem with logic. She assumes: if signs were damaged, it MUST be the fault of the supporters of her political opponents. (And Art, sorry, but you play right into this flawed logic.)
She has complete control over her suporters, and so should the other candidates. Therefore, damaged signs MUST be the fault of the other candidates who have no control over their supporters.
Hmm. Dankwerth fails to mention that her biggest supporter (one would assume), her husband, is the treasurer of GOVAC, the financially insolvent organization that wants the Town to bail them out of their financial mismanagement.
By her own reasoning, is Helen Dankwerth responsible for the financial mismanagement of GOVAC???
Yeah, nice that the incumbents can't imagine that they have any enimies besides the supporters of the challengers.
As far as I'm concerned, the damage to the signs is nothing compared to the damage the incumbents have done to Oro Valley.
Went back and read the article in the Explorer and it seems that Dankwerth is making accusations.
Is Ms.Dankwerth that blind that she can't see that there is a lot of anger from residents and it is not just a pocket of citizens who support a change in council seats that feel that way.
Maybe if her and Terry Parish did not place their signs in a position that tries to block other candidate's signs, none would have been vandalized.Well maybe not.
People are angry at the majority of the council. Rightfully so.
I am adamantly opposed to disfiguring, dismantling, destroying any campaign sign in any way whatsoever; yes, there is anger and frustration out there but this is NOT the way to counteract those factors which have contributed to it.
However, is it not the Town Council itself that sets the example for these unfavorable reactions? At a Council meeting, during a 'call to audience' I was verbally abused, in a public forum, by Mayor Loomis himself, relative to a mistake(?) HE made accusing me of denigrating another person/entity which I had most certainly not done. In other public forums I have personally witnessed Terry Parrish mock citizen speakers by leaning back in his chair, looking at the ceiling, and rolling his eyes in a dismissive manner, bathing himself in the muck of self-importance; it has also been conveyed to me that the same Mr. Parrish has verbally dressed down, again in a public forum, other citizen speakers. In another forum, which I personally witnessed, this same Terry Parrish went into a rant against another participant falsely accusing that individual of professing that the Council was breaking the law when, in fact, said citizen was only expressing 'wonder' as to the ramifications relative to the subject at hand. And, too, Councilperson Parrish even had the audacity to blast one of the Council's own, Paula Abbot, once again in a public forum.
I could go on and on relative to actions, procedural and otherwise, regarding the atrocious behavior of some of this council's members (and staff) for it is THEY that have set the reactionary mood of futility and disgust that does permeate much of this community.
However, this being said and more left unsaid, PLEASE, take the high road and maintain the dignity of our concerns rather than promote or approve the 'at any cost' mentality that is the Council's. Let US not sink to THEIR level!
Zev,
Great comments! Would you consider sending them as a letter to the editor of the Explorer? It would be helpful for a few thousand people to see them. The more voters who know of Parish's behavior (misbehavior), the better!
This won't happen often but I have to come down squarely on the side of and agreewith the words of Mr. Segal.
There is NO excuse for this kind of behavior nor should it be condoned by any person who believes in our system. And for someone to think that a candidate would damage their own property and refer to it as "clever" is frightening. This kind of conduct is no different than someone keying your car of egging your home.
It is comments like some of those posted in the responses that cause others to dismiss honest concerns as just babble from a bunch of malcontents.
Thinker you are right there is no good excuse for vandalism.
Personally I think there are some very angry people in OV. And no it is not the people who some of these candidate's assume may have damaged their signs.
I will guess it is not the people who are publicly or vocally angry or against these candidates, my gut tells me it is people who for whatever reason have not spoken up.
People do strange things. Remember a few years back a well known local realtor had damaged or removed other realtor's signs.
Now did that make sense, not to me.
OV OBJECTIVE THINKER:
Anyone who would "dismiss honest concerns as just babble from a bunch of malcontents" because of a few possibly controversial or arguable statements by individual writer/contributors is akin to 'throwing away a whole bucket of apples because of one bad one' and is not in keeping with appropriate intellectual acuity as is demanded by fundamentally sound discourse. You blew it, OVOT, your last paragraph has revealed that you are neither reliably objective nor are you a reliable thinker.
Ms Coyote...
There are angry people in this Town. Zev I suspect falls into that category. And I agree that the damaged signs were probably not the work of anyone directly associated with any candidate. The signs in this particular area are repeatedly damaged. I can personally attest to that fact from my own experience two years ago.
And I do believe that most if not all of the Parish signs were out days before Latas and Garner put theirs out.
Hope you had a great holiday season!!!
ZEV...
If you are truly seeking "intellectual acuity", I might suggest you begin with a basic. The correct spelling of the Councilperson's name is PARISH.
Have a great day and take a moment to smell a rose or have a cup of hot chocolate. Your deep resentment of opposition opinions is not healthy.
OV Objective Thinker
Sorry about the misspelling however I doubt that this error should be categorized within the realm of 'intellectual acuity'.
More importantly, I am not an angry person; but, I am angry that there is a somewhat care less attitude by certain individuals, 'power players', within this community that toss others' concerns to the wind. While you might not agree (and I can respect that), it is my firm belief that those who 'govern' should be held to a higher standard
than the myriad of citizens that they represent and, as such, should respect the Arizona Constitution which emphasizes the importance of municipalities' inclusion of thier 'subjects' in the process of governance as well as follow those demands as outlined in the Constitution in order to enable the reality of same; there is overwhelming evidence that our Council (some staff included) has failed in this obligation. At the same time, I am just as angry that a certain individual or a group of individuals would damage or destroy legitimate signage as allowed for and which is a traditional facet for responsible campaigning; this destruction, to me, is abominable and totally unacceptable (no excuses).
As an aside, OV OT, remember that one of the fundamental principles upon which this country was founded is the allowance for responsible dissent. Hopefully, this shall remain as one of the basic tenets of our society.
Judge what I might say OV OT, but don't judge what I am; my ideals/observations might be arguable, my character is not!
OVOT,
I agree with you "that the damaged signs were probably not the work of anyone directly associated with any candidate."
That's why I find it particularly despicable that Dankwerth implied that the damage was the responsibility of other candidates, and that both she and Parish used this as a publicity stunt, and that the Explorer obliged them, and that Art played right into that flawed logic.
Post a Comment