On behalf of the Bipartisan Coalition For New Council Leadership announced yesterday in the Spy, I would like to clarify that we have indeed narrowed the focus of our effort from unseating three incumbents to unseating just the Council President. I would like to explain.
The Coalition said in its widely viewed introductory memorandum that we intended to oppose the reelection of Ms. Williams and also Mr. Pack and Mr. Callahan–for the simple reason that all three had so often voted together and in the wrong direction on key issues. But we since concluded there are other important considerations to be taken into account.
Before describing our reasoning, let me address the single argument we considered that ran against our decision to narrow our focus to defeating just the Council President: the appearance of the thing. Voters of good will might infer—wrongly—that the Coalition’s campaign will devolve into nothing but a series of mean-spirited, personal attacks on Ms. Williams, as if we are impugning the Council President’s character or personality or motives. But we will do nothing of the sort.
The Coalition’s campaign will be direct—our message, after all, is “Vote Out The Council President.” But as our Honorary Chair Judge North was quoted yesterday, “We will express our views in a civil and respectful manner.” Our ad campaign and all other initiatives are designed to motivate citizens to come to our website, CountyOverParty.org, where they can hear about the issues and access the hard evidence—video clips, transcript excerpts, letters from the Planning Commission, and so forth, along with the relevant legislative history.
Given the considerations below, our only alternative to presenting this evidence objectively and free of malice is to abandon the effort altogether and leave voters to make these important decisions based on yard signs, emails, slogans in ads, and the cacophony of confusing posts on Facebook and social media. We are striving for a better way.
We respect and appreciate the hard work, very long hours and no doubt good intentions the Council President has committed in service to the County. But she has been the prime force behind bad policies that are actually contrary to citizens’ interests–policies that, if she has her way over the next 4 years, could divert Talbot from its goal of maintaining its “high quality of life and rural character.”
Our decision in favor of narrowing our focus were these:
Taking other things into account, it should be enough to remove the person who is the moving force behind the problematic positions the Council has taken. Evidence presented at CountyOverParty.org underscores that the Council President is clearly the individual leading unwanted change. All members on the next Council, new or returning, will get the point—citizens do care and are paying attention.
Unseating all three of these incumbents, maintaining a strong expectation that Ms. Price is reelected, would leave the Council with a paucity of experience and, more importantly, a serious loss of continuity in government.
Mr. Pack unquestionably allied himself with the Council President on important and ill-conceived issues in recent years—yet he also served admirably for eight years previously. He would provide continuity if voters judge that important.
Mr. Callahan has seemed to be the Council President’s second vote, a very serious matter. He is certainly not a prime force devising strategies that threaten Talbot County.
In sum, narrowing the Coalition’s focus to the Council President means voters will have nine other candidates to choose from, rather than seven, a healthy difference in a democracy. We are confident our decision to urge citizens to vote down the Council President is in the County’s best interest.
Dan Watson, Chair
Bipartisan Coalition For New Council Leadership
Write a Letter to the Editor on this Article
We encourage readers to offer their point of view on this article by submitting the following form. Editing is sometimes necessary and is done at the discretion of the editorial staff.