Responses to my letters
By Charles Edwardson
May 12, 2009
For some reason some of my letters make it to this publication
and some do not. I do not know if they are screened or not but
it seems that some of my more polite letters make it on right
away and some of the more sarcastic letters do not make it at
all. In any case sarcasm is not a reason to discount the content
of an opinion.
There have been positive and
negative responses to my letters and some like Michael Naab's
that just did not read the whole letter at all.
The KPU Phone division letter I wrote did not conclude that the
phone division sale was a done deal, or that the sale of the
phone company was a 'forgone conclusion" as Naab said. His
statement read like a defense of the whole shady process that
The letter he is referring to outlined concerns about discussions
of this sale behind closed doors, it referred to the attitude
of our government and management that they are portraying to
the staff at KPU PHONE DIVISION, you tell them that this is
not a "forgone conclusion" and ask them why they (some
of them) feel that it is. Why do "SOME" employees feel
threatened to talk about this issue? Why is this subject even
on the table, who directed this discussion, what is the motivation
to sell ,etc, etc and why is the public only hearing sound bites?
I was being "sarcastic"when I requested that my share
of the sale of the phone company be sent to me via cashier's
check (come on it was not that hard to follow).
I also realize this would logically be put before the voters
unless it could be devised and construed as a fiscal emergency
and made to sound like it is putting Ketchikan in a perilous
position if we do not sell the phone division this would put
it in the realm of council authority (potentially) not requiring
a public vote????' (Those are question marks not statements of
fact for those who think I am making forgone conclusions), follow
My previous letter was in the form of questions without answers.
Some sound bites in my letter referred to the Faulkenburg report,
and responses like Naab's concern me as to how I am articulating
my concerns on this particular issue. His optimistic view of
how things should work are admirable but may be disappointing.
My concern is that the process he described is a script that
should be followed ,but sometimes governments follow their own
script. And to blindly trust that a proper, logical, polite,
morale, and legal script will always be followed is not always
a correct assumption -- and you know what is said about ASSumptions.
Complacency is what concerns me the most. While we should trust
our local governments we should always verify the actions of
our governments to be the will of the people. (trust but verify
is what I learned from a veteran KIC councilman and this is our
job, trust but verify)
About: "bothered by complacency"
Received May 12, 2008 - Published
May 12, 2009
Viewpoints - Opinion Letters:
Your Opinion Letter to the Editor
Note: Comments published
on Viewpoints are the opinions of the writer
and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Sitnews.
E-mail your letters
& opinions to email@example.com
Your full name, city and state are required for letter publication.
Stories In The News