Letter: A Call for Independent, Honest Candidates

The list of prospective candidates for Puyallup’s 2011 council elections is not exactly awe-inspiring. The official and unofficial list of “insiders and usual suspects” does not “answer the mail”.  Puyallup is in desperate need of a fix to long standing problems, particularly the image and ethical problems that have plagued the city. What a refreshing thing it would be if a couple of innovative, reasonably intelligent, attentive individuals actually threw their hats in the ring. Here are a few credentials that could possibly make a great candidate. 

  1. Someone who does not get their paycheck or retirement check from a federal, state, county or city employer. Someone who has worked for an organization that understands “free enterprise” and the market economy. Why ? – the council makes policy including economic policy.
  2. A reasonably educated person with enough business comprehension who will not be baffled by the endless stream on nonsensical budget briefings. Someone who can advise their peers on the council whether a finance issue is sound, complex or absolute garbage.  Why ? – nobody on the current council can read a balance sheet and citizens have paid the heavy price.
  3. Someone who is not running for the position for the health and welfare benefits that come with being a Puyallup council member. Why ? – personal monetary gain should not be a driving force.
  4. Someone not “in the pocket” of the handful of local land and property developers. Why ? – The rubber-stamping by some on the Planning Commission for high-density cottage housing developments throughout the city is a detriment to the quality of the community.
  5. Someone not overtly aligned to either of the two “unofficial” parties and their leaders. A true independent.
  6. Finally, someone who can initially attend council and executive sessions at their absurd ridiculous early times of 6PM and 5PM. (Probably mutually exclusive to requirement #1). Someone, whose first action as a council member will be to put forth a motion to return the start of council meetings to 7PM so the public will once again be able to attend council meetings at a decent hour irrespective of council members’ personal schedules.

If you exist, and are not busy helping either the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus, please consider running for office. Puyallup needs fixing. 

Dave Churchman

Advertisements

7 Comments

Filed under Letters

7 responses to “Letter: A Call for Independent, Honest Candidates

  1. Well, that sure eliminates someone who already announced his intent to run–all but item #6, of course, as surely he’d be happy to leave his job at the County early enough to make it to his seat on the Puyallup Council, if he, god forbid, should win the seat.

  2. Randy Cutter

    Robin Farris for city council at-large.

    • I disagree, Mr. Cutter.

      Ms. Farris has made too many mistakes in her newly-found status in the local politico.

      When she was told she broke the law by accepting far above the limit of in-kind donations of legal services from her attorneys, and that she needed to “pay down” her lawyers illegal contributions (nearly $20,000) before using contribution monies for other things, she and her attorneys submitted a letter to the PDC demanding the charges be dropped, using Citizens United v. FEC as their argument. Yes, Citizens United!

      When it was brought to her attention that the same limits applied to the office space which has been donated to her for full-time use as a campaign office, she stated that she would pay anything above $800 total to the donor in real money. This shows an obvious disregard of the PDC’s instructions for her to pay down the illegal attorney contributions—and her recent procurement of t-shirts, banners, the use of an RV to serve as a mobile campaign office, it could appears she has no intent whatsoever to become compliant with the PDC.

      When she was told there was a law prohibiting paid signature gatherers for recall petitions, she and her attorneys fired off a letter to the A.G. saying it did not apply to them.

      She could have avoided her 3 PDC violations by simply reading the rules or calling the PDC in advance of breaking the law. Or her attorneys could have. To date she has yet to admit she was wrong. She has formed a pattern of “the rules don’t apply to me” behavior. Is that what you want in a council person?

      Stacy Emerson

    • Scott McElhiney

      Why? She already fails the test at #1… Federal paycheck as a military officer that retired after 23 years. Nothing free enterprise about that, but I guess reselling used junk on Ebay counts.

      #2 Fails again… can’t make it through the recall regulations without incurring 3 PDC violations… so far and decided to dedicate the next year of her life to eliminating an elected politician based on TNT articles.

      #3 Maybe… but retired military does get to pay for a bunch of their medical now, so who knows. That pension ain’t a bunch.

      #4 Hmm… she’s got all the insiders piling on to promote her project. No outsider status by the time she’d get into office.

      #5 Could be… both parties like her at the moment because they both hate Dale Washam. But the insiders from both are kissing up to her big time.

      #6 A win!

  3. Randy Cutter

    She still would be better than who is going to run for city council at-large. The important part of a canidate is being honest and independent.

  4. Randy Cutter

    Missed the point, Ms. Emerson and Mr. McElhiney.

    The point is that Ms. Martineau should not run unopposed and that anyone that runs against her should be able to get more votes. Ms. Martineau got an appointment and made a right wrong. What we need is someone that can take a wrong and make it right. Isn’t that what Ms. Farris is doing mistakes and all.

    Way to go John Hopkins you are doing the right thing for district 1. I am behind you all the way even though I am in district 2.

    • I believe it is you who is missing the point, Mr. Cutter.

      Ms. Farris is NOT the person for the job–unless you want someone who makes multiple mistakes (law-breaking mistakes), and then, rather than apologize and correct her mistakes, she challenges the laws she broke and continues to thumb her nose at them.

      I think Puyallup deserves better.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s