As a candidate for the Oxford Commissioner, I feel compelled to inform the community of a recent development regarding the upcoming candidate forum. I have been notified by the League of Women Voters of the Mid-Shore that candidate Josh Coder has declined their invitation to participate in the forum scheduled for 6:30 PM on Wednesday, June 12th.
The League Forum Committee conveyed this decision in an email received on May 23, 2024, stating that Mr. Coder has declined the invitation. Consequently, the forum has been canceled, as it cannot proceed with only one candidate.
The proposed forum by the League of Women Voters of the Mid-Shore was intended to provide the public with an opportunity to compare the candidates directly, as we would answer the same questions. This format benefits the voters by offering a clear and fair comparison of our platforms. It is regrettable that Mr. Coder has chosen to deny the voters this opportunity.
I find it deeply disappointing and concerning that Mr. Coder has opted out of participating in this forum. His refusal is inconsistent with his stated commitment to transparency and raises serious questions about his confidence in his position. It also deprives the voters of Oxford of the chance to hear from both candidates in a public setting where pertinent questions could be addressed.
On May 1, 2024, I contacted the League of Women Voters of the Mid-Shore to request a candidate forum for the Oxford Commissioner race. The League issued invitations to both Mr. Coder and myself on May 21, 2024, and I promptly accepted the invitation.
The League of Women Voters emphasized that candidate forums are an excellent opportunity for the community to learn about candidates and encourage citizen participation in government. As a nonpartisan organization, the League does not support any political party or candidate, focusing solely on promoting informed and active engagement in the democratic process.
Norm Bell
Oxford
Cameron Mactavish says
Democracy is based on the premise of an informed voting public. It is indeed disturbing and disappointing that we voters will not have the opportunity to listen to both candidates in a neutral forum. Perhaps Mr. Coder will reconsider? How else are we to decide for whom to vote?
Dick Deerin says
We don’t know why Mr. Coder has declined to participate in the forum. Maybe he was going out of town, or maybe he likes to hide out. We don’t know.
What we do know is that he is unwilling to meet with the citizens of Oxford to discuss his positions and plans were he to be elected as a commissioner.
One of the issues that Josh Coder “feels strongly about” (his words) Is transparency. Well, it seems to me that transparency should begin with his own campaign. Participating in a candidate forum, conducted by a non-partisan, respected and experienced organization like the League, would be an excellent way to display your commitment to real transparency. Hiding behind a lace curtain, unwilling to answer questions, is the very opposite of transparency.
As the old saying goes, Mr. Coder likes to talk the transparency talk, but he unable or unwilling to walk the transparency walk.
Art Murr says
The town is abuzz.
People are walkin’
People are talkin’
People are wonderin”
Why does candidate Coder refuse to meet openly with all Oxfordians?
How is this transparency?
If there is no transparency in the campaign, then how can there be trust as a commissioner?
You do have a choice.
Kimberly Baldwin says
Josh has been extremely transparent as he arranged for many individual type settings to have one on one conversations with the citizens of Oxford directly. As I’m sure Mr. Bell has, this allows for information to be shared with the people in a manner that is not accusatory, biased or becomes just a back and forth battle of wits and agendas.
Mickey Terrone says
Make no mistake, Josh Coder is a good man and a dedicated member of the Oxford Fire Department. But it seems clear to me his 3 years in Oxford and his career work outside the county leave him short on the experience it takes to lead as a town commissioner.
Participating in a public forum is something that is done out of respect for the public, which is being asked to vote for the candidates. Josh’s campaign priorities include creating an Arts District in Oxford, reducing spending, act on flooding, transparency and an Annexation referendum.
This sounds good on the surface, but where would he cut spending? I’d like to ask him what he would have cut from the new 2024 budget. I’d also ask why his priority is an Annexation referendum when the Oxford Planning Commission has already virtually eliminated annexation growth for the town. The town has been acting on flooding for quite some time now and has just recently approved more mitigation projects for the upcoming year. What other project(s) does Josh think should be prioritized? And how would that be paid for without grant funding if his priority is to reduce spending?
What would an “Arts District” entail for the town, which already is heavily involved in area arts projects and activities. What immediate area is his priority for the district itself and what would it mean for our residents?
And, of course, if transparency is a priority, I think refusal to participate in a public forum isn’t a good reflection on his campaign or openness. In reality, those of us who have watched events closely see Josh’s surrogates, who very likely recruited him, putting up his signs, making campaign calls and doing much of the work in his absence. Does anyone remember Josh speaking of these campaign priorities prior to becoming a candidate? Are these priorities really his campaign managers’ priorities? Having attended most town meetings in the past 18 months, Josh has been mostly absent before being recruited to run in the last few months.
In my view, Josh is a good man who means well, but I believe what is becoming transparent is that Josh will be beholden to the people who are promoting him. In effect, Josh will be the surrogate for this group and that is neither transparent nor the essence of leadership. I think Oxford needs Norm Bell. Norm has been a true leader in Oxford for over a decade He is a professional engineer well versed in Oxford’s flooding issue and has dedicated himself to leading the town. And he is his own man.
Daniel Baldwin says
Does losing an election and still accepting a seat as commissioner constitute the essence of leadership?
Kimberly Baldwin says
As stated, we are not sure why Josh Coder is not attending the forum, if you recall last election we had a similar issue between Katrina Greer and Susan Delean Botkin, Ms Botkin arranged for the forum on a day that simply did not work for Ms.Greer, so we can not assume malicious intent or avoidance on Mr Coders behalf. We do know that over the past several weeks there have been a plethora of opportunities to sit and discuss his platform, his ideals for Oxford and to answer any questions the citizens may have had. As I’m sure Mr.Bell has done as well.
Art Murr says
The town is abuzz.
People are walkin’
People are talkin’
People are wonderin’
Why does candidate Coder refuse to meet openly with all Oxfordians?
How is this transparency?
If there is no transparency in the campaign, then how can there be trust as a commissioner?
You have a choice.
Damiene Nelson says
Norm, Josh must be focusing on more important issues than debating with you at an event where the forum doesn’t carry a large Oxford constituency. He’s busy trying to make Oxford better. Low blow Norm. I thought better of you.
Deborah Pulzone says
? The entire constituency would be the Oxford residents. Norm is right to give all of the town residents the opportunity for us to hear what Josh’s platform is about. Safety – we live in one of the safest places in the states? Annexation – what does Josh not like about the comprehensive plan? Norm has been busy working on all of these, busier and with more results than Josh.
Mickey Terrone says
Damiene, we know Josh is a good and well meaning person. He is a friend and neighbor. But would you buy a junk car from a dealer just because he is your friend? I don’t think so. It seems to me Josh isn’t comfortable answering questions without his handlers immediately available just in case. Many of us don’t ever get to question him in a public setting and he is seeking everyone’s votes.
You weren’t living here a year ago when Greer made an excuse that she had a close relative’s birthday that day of the forum. My recollection is it turned out the relative lived many miles away and she wasn’t even planning to attend the event. Then she made the lame excuse she didn’t want to meet in a house of worship (Jenny’s church, long since deconsecrated).
Do you know the answers to the questions I posed in my previous comments about Josh’s priorities in this thread? I wrote:
“This sounds good on the surface, but where would he cut spending? I’d like to ask him what he would have cut from the new 2024 budget. I’d also ask why his priority is an Annexation referendum when the Oxford Planning Commission has already virtually eliminated annexation growth for the town. The town has been acting on flooding for quite some time now and has just recently approved more mitigation projects for the upcoming year. What other project(s) does Josh think should be prioritized? And how would that be paid for without grant funding if his priority is to reduce spending?
What would an “Arts District” entail for the town, which already is heavily involved in area arts projects and activities. What immediate area is his priority for the district itself and what would it mean for our residents?”
If you know, please pass that information along. If not, you should find out. I wonder if Josh’s priorities weren’t handed to him. Did you hear Josh express his concerns about annexation or an Arts District before the campaign started? If not, don’t you think these are the “priorities” handed to him as a price for all the support to get elected? Who are we electing here, Josh or his handlers? Is this “transparency”?
It must be very, very important to these people to get Josh elected. Did they even know Josh before getting him to run? Why doyou suppose they are working so hard for Josh. I think they’re working for their own priorities and their own agendas, not to support Josh’s agenda. And I don’t think you (or I) know what their agenda really is.
deborah pulzone says
I have never had an opportunity to talk to Josh. I have not been invited to any of his discussions and he has not knocked on my door. I would love to have him clarify his positions. It seems as though he’s uncomfortable with anyone who may have tough questions.
Kimberly Baldwin says
Deborah, please reach out via his email and/or website. He has made himself extremely available in many capacities.
Art Murr says
The candidate’s job is to reach out to all constituents, not a curated group. The voter should not have to pursue the candidate. That is backwards and a disservice to the voter. Honestly, there is no excuse. A candidate can always find time if they are serious to represent all Oxford. The real question is why does candidate Coder avoid doing this?
Pat Maxwell says
The forum was arranged without collaboration of both candidates. No candidate in their right mind would participate in that kind of event without a chance to have a say in how things are organized, who the moderator is, etc. as for the league of woman voters being non-partisan, they have not proven to be non-partisan in other candidate’s forums, often stacking the deck for candidates they favor. I trust Mexican tap water more.
People in Oxford know both candidates. Both candidates have been with citizens, talking to them, sharing their ideas in a much more personal venues than a forum. This is much better than having a third party organization come into Oxford and make that happen artificially. Making a comparison between to two of them is easy. One is about giving citizens more access and a voice in Oxford and the other is about the status quo of letting two commissioners decide everything without citizen input.
Mr Coder has shared more of his ideas via his website, printed material, and conversations with small groups and one on one than any candidate I can remember, including Mr Bell. It’s obvious that the other side wants to use his decision to keep meeting with people in small groups instead of a staged events against him. It seems desperate. Norm I thought Better of you, it saddens and disappoints me. My Grandmother Duncan a long time Oxford native used to say, show me your company and I’ll tell you about yourself.
Russ Gray says
It sounds like one of the commentors believes in “selective transparency” . The individual feels that one on one meetings may answer all the questions and the candidate can decide that they have been transparent enough. The forum purpose was to support a dialogue where questions would be asked of both candidates that would have allowed the public to compare responses. I don’t believe that any candidate should ever imply that they have been transparent enough and don’t need to speak any further. Transparency is not to be treated s a convenience for any candidate. My experience tells me that candidates with extensive, relevant experience wish to share that with their audience. We do know that Norm has actively volunteered and led multiple Commissions and Committees in Oxford since his arrival in town 12 years ago. All of them have produced excellent results focused on community. We also know that Josh does not have municipal governance experience based on his bio. Multiple signs with no detail make the residents guess how the candidate will handle current and future issues. We want comfort and trust in a candidate’s ability rather than words without a foundation. We also know that our current issues suggest that Oxford needs an individual who is able to make a full time commitment to meet the expressed needs of the residents. Finally, The lack of institutional history or experience gives me concern on how he will overcome that deficit. The forum would have been a starting point but now we will never know.
I also noticed that a comment offered an explanation why there was not a forum for the last election. There are always alternative dates offered and I am aware that an alternative date consideration was offered but rejected by by the candidate who could not meet the original schedule. All of us should be careful that we do not confuse rumors or perceptions with the facts. In this case, the key fact is that Josh chose not to participate in a non-partisan, independent forum.. The true reason why may never be known but his response should raise questions for several points in his platform, especially transparency and the desires of the residents.