---
We are in receipt of the following email sent from current Council Member Lou Waters (louwaters@comcast.net) to his mailing list. It is entitled:
"Critical Oro Valley Election"
Please help the current Oro Valley Town Council retain its professional traction and vote for the candidates who will help us prevent a return to the incivility that prevents progress. Please consider:
Steve Solomon
Mark Napier
Fred Narcaroti
These men have only the best interests of Oro Valley at heart.
I appreciate your consideration.
Lou Waters
Vice-Mayor Oro Valley"
Waters' use of his Oro Valley title, Oro Valley Vice Mayor, in his signature implies an endorsement from his official position. He is using his influence. He is implying that the town endorses these candidates.
He should be chastised. He should be censured.
Tobin Rosen, Oro Valley Town Attorney, speak to us on this!
By the way, don't you love the "incivility that prevents progress" comment made by Waters?
The mud slinging begins.
Lou Waters is an empty suit.
When he was an anchor man somebody had to give him a script to read.
It is Waters who demonstrates "incivility" through his use of his title to endorse candidates.
Why don't each of you write Lou to tell him what you think of his actions. His Comcast email is noted in first paragraph above and his town email is: lwaters@orovalleyaz.gov. His contact numbers are listed on the town web site.
Shame on you, Lou.
---
27 comments:
If Waters bothered to look up the definition of "incivility," he'd see it refers primarily to "his boy," Solomon, and our mayor Hiremath, both of whom have a propensity to be UNCIVIL!
Incivility is a general term for social behavior lacking in civility or good manners on a scale from rudeness or lack of respect for elders.
Anyone that has had the opportunity to listen to Solomon & Hiremath, particularly at town council meetings, are quite aware of the term "incivility."
Shame on Lou Waters!
OV Thinker sent me the following comment. I have not posted his comment in its entirety since, as usual, he rambled into something else:
"Elected officials are allowed to endorse candidates and it in no way implies that the Town is endorsing. He is not using any Town resources, unlike some other candidates in this election."
--
Thanks for your legal interpretation Thinker.
As usual, your blind adherence to the Oro Valley Political Axis leads you to an an untenable conclusion.
You are wrong.
Waters is using a town resource when he uses his town title in his email.
That's a fact, Jack!
---
I believe that you may want to check with Mr. Burns to see if a title granted to you by your peers can be considered a "resource". I venture to say that it is not. But then there is always the recourse of filing a formal complaint through the court system.
It is utterly inappropriate to send out e-mails in an official capacity advocating for vacant seats on the very council Mr Waters sits on. Feather bedding comes to mind. He, the Mayor, and other sitting council members need to stay out of it. What was he thinking?
The"Oro Valley Political Axis"?
Wow.
I sent this to Lou today:
Lou,
While I can appreciate that you have opinions regarding the current slate of candidates running for open seats on our town council, I think it's inappropriate for you, as a sitting member of the council, to proffer your personal preferences to voters, especially in e-mails from your official capacity. Let us decide, based on the voting records of current council members, and where all candidates stand on this issues.
In previous capacities that I've held in private organizations that function democratically, it was always viewed to be stepping out of line to engage in favoritism toward candidates while in leadership positions. I would hope that our council recognizes the rationale for refraining from electioneering.
Respectfully,
Apparently there was a lot of incivility in the rear of the auditorium & Waters was part of it. Several people mentioned mocking & snide comments from Snider, Waters & Hornat concerning some candidates, such as: he "washed out" of his career; "he doesn't know what he's talking about;" "he just needs to shut up."
They may want to re-read a statement from Mayor Hiremath's 2/15 Opinion column in the Explorer: "A campaign based on criticism & discrediting others often lacks the substance that voters deserve." With 1 exception, the candidates were respectful of each other during the forum. It's a shame that current Council members wre not so courteous.
We had the regret of sitting in front of several members of our town council today at the Candidate Forum. We were mortified to listen to the negative, snide remarks made as the various candidates spoke. Joe Hornat, Mary Snider and Lou Waters behaved in a dishonorable manner not only in front of constituents but in a public forum. It is an embarrassment to have council members act with such incivility toward the candidates. Acting this way publicly only leaves us to question, how do they act behind closed doors while deciding the fate of our town? Their behavior was a true display of the unprofessional traction in our current town council.
There are times when I shudder to think that some folks actually have the privilege to vote.
art lecturing anyone on civility s a joke.
The e-mail from VICE MAYOR Waters came from his personal e-mail address.
Had it come from his official Town e-mail address I would agree. It didn't. Go find a real issue.
Nombe..... :-)!!!I thought the reference was a bit wierd also. Laughable, but wierd.
OVOT,
I've never met you, and really don't want to meet you, but based on your postings you are one piece of work.
You post info without having any concrete evidence to support your posts, come off as an expert in all matters, and truly define jack of all trades master of none.
If just once you conceded that one of your guys made a mistake in judgement then you might have an ounce of credibility, but for now you are just this blog's court jester.
Hey, waitI
I AM THE COURT JESTER11
I aspire to the title, OVOT well he... gets the title by actually believing HALF of the stuff he posts.
The title is yours Nombe.
Don
Fear.......You write, "You post info without having any concrete evidence to support your posts, come off as an expert in all matters, and truly define jack of all trades master of none."
Let's have a discussion of what I have posted with no concrete evidence.
And I would suggest that evidently I am a master of soliciting responses on this blog.
I am posting this for Jay D. Apparently, Jay D can not submit a comment without some portion being an accusation. Jay D, please present facts not accusations:
"Just some random thoughts... Elected officials often endorse others. This is a common occurrence. The postcard I received from your three candidates shows Garner, flanked by Zinkin and Burns, in front of a town mural. This obviously means that Garner, a current council member, is endorsing the other two. He is using his position to support them. Does this bother me? NO, it happens all of the time. Again today, I have one of those stickers on my newspaper, again promoting your three candidates. Another example of Garner, an elected official, supporting other candidates. I attended the Sun City candidate forum on Saturday. Your candidate, Burns, mentioned that recall elections make us the laughing stock of this state."
Richard suggested I "present facts not accusations." I believe this was in response to something I had posted regarding the failed recall attempt. My comment related to Brendan Burns' statement that recall elections make a laughing stock of this state. I was happy to hear him state that, but he may not realize that one of the people he appears with on campaign material, Zinkin, was the main contributor to that failed attempt.
Here are the facts:
From the Oro Valley Recall's campaign financial report, dated 10/13/2011, found on the Town of Oro Valley's website, donors were as follows:
Mike Zinkin $238.56
John Musolf $191.16
Conny Culver $42.98
Yes, this is away from the original topic of this thread, but since Richard included part of my statement regarding endorsements on this page, along with my reference to the recall, I wanted to clear it up right here!
So you see Richard, no portion of my original, unpublished comment that Zinkin was the main contributor to the recall, was an "accusation." I tend to rely on facts. There you have it.
I also have the "postcard" and I had no idea that they were standing in front of a "town mural." The background looks like an abstract painting with some saguaro cactus mixed in. If they wanted to highlight the fact that they were standing in front of a "town anything" they would have stood in front of something much more obvious.
That said, since the town hall is paid for with our tax dollars, it is a public building and I would assume that anyone can have their picture taken on that property.
Also, the difference between what Waters did with that e-mail and what Garner did with the postcard is this...
Waters is not currently running for re-election. HE is guaranteed to still be on the council after this election. Garner is a CANDIDATE. Therefore, Garner sending out a campaign flyer showing him with Zinken and Burns, is no different than in 2010 when Waters was a CANDIDATE and Waters-Snider-Hornat went door-to-door TOGETHER campaigning. In doing so, each one of them was endorsing the other two. They were saying, please vote for this TEAM.
And that's exactly what the Zinkin-Garner-Burns postcard says.
During the 2010 election, when Bill Garner and Barry Gillaspie were in the same position THEN as Waters is NOW...a sitting council member NOT running for re-election) neither of them sent out an e-mail to their constituents instructing them on whom to vote for in that election.
They have integrity. Waters does not.
Richard, VC's comments point out another inconsistency on this blog. I attempted to post an email from a past council member, endorsing three candidates in 2010, but you chose not to post it. You said, "...the comments refer to events that are not relevant to the 2012 elections."
Why is it okay for VC to state, "During the 2010 election, when Bill Garner and Barry Gillaspie were in the same position THEN as Waters is NOW...a sitting council member NOT running for re-election) neither of them sent out an e-mail to their constituents instructing them on whom to vote for in that election.
They have integrity. Waters does not."
Maybe Garner and Gillaspie did not send out emails. But another sitting council member, NOT running for re-election did. VC must not have received the email I did, endorsing candidates in 2010, from that council member. Would VC say that council member lacked integrity?
Richard, if you are going to post comments by others like VC, that refer to events of 2010, it seems only fair to post comments by others, with additional information to encourage,as your Terms of Use state, "...heated, robust debate." A debate must have two sides!
Jay D.....Well done. "Fact" is not a concept that is popular with many who post here. As one influential person responsible for this blog once said, " You have your facts. Others may other facts." I found that to be rather interesting.
Don't get frustrated with some of the less informed.
Observation: I've written numerous letters to the Mayor & Town Council members during the past 6 months. Waters NEVER responded to a single one! Now he takes the time to send unsolicited emails touting his choice of candidates while he previously ignored every one of my concerns .. And that's an example of “professional traction??”
It shocked me to read about Mary Snider, Joe Hornat and Lou Waters behaving in such a dishonorable manner during the Candidate Forum. I was at the Forum and observed Mary Snider whispering in Mark Napier's ear before he headed to the stage.
Zeeman,
I have to side with Jay D on the position he espouses regarding, as Fox News so pithily spouts, being 'Fair and Balanced.' Although some of his rhetoric, from my persepective, clearly indicates he is passionately supportive of issues to which I find myself in polar opposition (sometimes to his detriment, in that I 'tune him out,) in this matter he is absolutely spot on. I would rather see the blog err on the side of 'equal opportunity to marginally abuse' the terms and conditions than simply preemptorily editorialize based on the origin of posts. Just my two cents worth....
What concerns me most about the comments of the Mayor and many of the council members is that they do not want any dissent. They want a council that largely agrees on everything.
It is my understanding and belief that a democracy functions best when there is a healthy attitude toward parties being able to disagree without being disagreeable.
For this reason, I plan to vote for those candidates that I believe will think and act counter to the current council members. I want a balance, not an overwhelming majority.
Chuck,
You make a very valid point.
Chuck....You make a valid point but then your logic appears to me to go off the deep end.
"For this reason, I plan to vote for those candidates that I believe will think and act counter to the current council members. I want a balance, not an overwhelming majority."
To "act counter" simply for the sake of taking the opposite view point is not what I would consider to be a reasonable stance. If a proposal is placed on the table that benefits the community as a whole then the councilmembers should support it.
Let's reflect on Innovation Park. It was proposed as a project that would benefit the community as a whole. Yes, there were some negative impacts to a small segment of the community. In retrospect has the project benefitted Oro Valley? I think any right minded person would have to say yes. And it has the potential, when the economy improves to have an even larger positive impact.
Fear....By the way, I believe 6 of the the Council voted incorrectly when they voted to add an energy element to the General Plan.
I don't think that Chuck's logic went off the deep end. I think that OVOT, wanting to disagree with him, looked for something to disagree WITH.
My take on Chuck's comment was that he does not want a council that is made up of members who continually vote in LOCKSTEP with each other. He wants to see some independent thinking, the ability to look at things from angles other than, "I need to protect the business community" and "I need to protect the police department."
He said, "I want a balance, not an overwhelming majority." Well, the only way to do that is to vote for people who think COUNTER to those currently on the council.
Post a Comment