In today's (6/3/09) Shawnee Dispatch there are three letters on this subject http://www.shawneedispatch.com/news/opinion/letters/
The letter that really caught my eye was submitted by Dawn Kuhn, 3rd Ward council rep, and that letter can be viewed at http://www.shawneedispatch.com/news/2009/jun/03/no-sneaking-through/
When I started reading her letter much of what she said was making sense. No decisions had been made yet, staff was still studying, task force had submitted its recommendations etc etc etc.
Then, this comment made my eyebrows go up:
A number of people I have spoken to have been told the Council is ready to sneak through a single-hauler ordinance before anyone knows about it. Worse, some elected officials are perpetrating this blatant untruth.
I'd like to see verification of that. Most of the comments that I've read seem to indicate that folks want a choice, but not anything about it being a done deal.
But, what really got my BP up was this comment:
It is the height of irresponsibility for a Council member to take a stand on issues without having complete information. Shawnee residents should be able to count on their elected officials to protect their interests, improve the city and make informed decisions. We should also expect that our representatives not emit ill-informed opinions attempting to mislead the public. Shawnee should demand more from our representatives.
Back up for a minute. I'd disagree most adamantly on this one. It is the height of irresponsibility for a council member not to take a stand, with or without complete information. What is wrong with an elected official saying that based on current info available that their position is such and such? Additional info can always either enforce that position (stand) or it could make them change it. I expect any elected representative to be able to say at any given point in time what their stand is, based on the information currently available. (By the way, isn't that what happens during election campaigns? Candidates state what their stand is on certain issues, and then, after being elected, change them.)
Additionally, on this subject there is a basic economic concept being discussed: free choice with competition or single sourced monopoly. In differing circumstances there can be pros and cons for both. But, any elected rep has a duty, a responsibility to inform the public what their basic stand is. Then, let research and evaluation either confirm that position or afford them an opportunity to change their mind.
Also, who is to be the arbiter and decider of what is an "ill-informed opinion" ?
Well, here is my opinion on that paragraph: It smacks of sanctimonious, holier than thou dribble. Now, if that is an ill-informed opinion, then so be it......but it is my opinion, and nobody is going to subvert my right to voice it. They can disagree with it..........that then becomes their opinion.
