[Vision2020] Fwd: MCA Debates

Mon Oct 25 16:10:55 PDT 2004

Regardless of where folks stand on the MCA debates -- which I think were a sincere and valuable attempt to engage the community in dialogue -- I'd like to tell you that when Mark speaks in his second paragraph below of his willingness to present himself to any assembly regardless of agenda or affiliation, he speaks out of conviction.

Friday afternoon, the students and faculty of New Saint Andrews held their regular disputatio, where "contrary thinkers" are invited to discuss issues of faith, philosophy, government, science and other topics.  I was eager to hear how any candidate would do in such a forum, particularly with taxation and the funding of public schools as the topic.  Given that NSA and Christ Church recently have undergone a bit of controversy regarding taxation, along with their very vocal opposition to public education, the disputatio could easily, I think, be considered a forum not altogether eager to embrace the things Mark likely would have to say.  In fact, it would be hard to find a room full of people more disinclined to accept taxation in support of public schools, and I doubt that many politicians would jump at the opportunity to address them.   While the students and faculty moderators were polite and respectful, Mark impressed me not only with the content of his message and the resolve behind his answers, but also with his candor and his obvious respect for those he spoke to.  

I happen share Mark's concern for community, belief in taxation justice and passion for public education, but even the most virulent opponent would have to concede that Mark Solomon spoke courageously, wisely, and competently, and I want to take this opportunity to thank him.  Well done -- you did it well, and I'm impressed that you did it all.

keely emerine mix

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Mark Solomon 
  To: vision2020 at whale2.fsr.net 
  Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 1:33 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Fwd: MCA Debates

  What Mr. Trail continues to avoid discussing is whether he is willing 
  to debate UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. I have twice proffered the 
  invitation to debate under mutually agreed upon terms. On the first 
  occasion he refused, then he reversed himself and agreed to meet in 
  the MCA debate, then reversed again and withdrew. He has yet to reply 
  to my second invitation, preferring to hide behind his party's smoke 
  screen generated to confuse the issues regarding the MCA event.

  I have never concerned myself with the organizational/partisan 
  make-up of any group willing to host a discussion of issues of 
  concern to voters of this county. I will gladly present myself in 
  front of any assembly no matter what their agenda or affiliation 
  (schedule permitting). All are citizens who vote in this district and 
  grasping fully everyone's concerns and questions is a most important 
  aspect of representing this district fairly in the Legislature.

  Still waiting, Tom.

  Mark Solomon

  At 12:08 PM -0700 10/24/04, Tom Trail wrote:
  >>>Visionaries:   There has been a great deal of discussion concerning the
  >
  >   MCA debates.  This is my reply to Bruce Livingston.
  >
  >>>
  >>>Bruce--It has been an trying time I believe for everyone involved in trying
  >>>to work out arrangements for the MCA debates.  We have the greatest respect
  >>>for MCA and it's goals.  However, it is the only organizing group 
  >>>with a specific political agenda.  MCA's charter clearly states 
  >>>that one of the
  >>>organizations goals is to sponsor and endorse candidates.  All of the other
  >>>organizers of the other 15 other debates are non-political.
  >>>
  >>>Even the Presidential Debates are organized by non-political 
  >>>organizations with
  >>>no political aims unlike MCA.  The Moscow League of Women Voters is a good
  >>>example.  Even with a non-political sponsor, the last Presidential debates
  >>>took considerable time and at least 30 pages of agreed upon 
  >>>protocol.  So one
  >>>of our concerns was the "political" nature of MCA.  We recommended that
  >>>Nathan Alford and the Daily News serve as the organizing sponsor 
  >>>of the It is my understanding that Mr. Alford and the Daily News 
  >>>accepted.
  >>>This would have met our criterion of a truly "independent" 
  >>>sponsoring organization.  However, the criticism from MCA was that 
  >>>Mr. Alfred and the
  >>>Daily News was "too independent."    I talked with Nancy Chaney, a 
  >>>MCA member over a week ago, and she said having Mr. Alford and the 
  >>>Daily News handlethe debate sounded like a good idea to her.
  >>>
  >>>The situation became complicated with MCA President Lois Blackburn 
  >>>questioned
  >>>the integrity of Jeff Harkins and the Moscow Lions Club for 
  >>>sponsoring two debates.  Jeff specifically asked Mark Boehen of 
  >>>the Moscow Lions Club to serveas the moderator to avoid any 
  >>>possible conflict that might have been perceivedas partisan.  I've 
  >>>been a member of the Moscow Rotary Club for 30 years and all
  >>>of our service clubs are non-partisan.   Ms. Blackburn's response 
  >>>further mudded the waters.  Mr. Harkins integrity was questioned, 
  >>>and he has been
  >>>threatened that he would lose votes if he didn't participate. I've also
  >>>received several similar phone calls.  The last caller simply said, "If you
  >>>don't participate, we'll get you."  I will not be participating in 
  >>>the debate
  >>>because of the reasons outlined above, and with threats of 
  >>>punishment for not
  >>>attending.  Mr. Bennett will also not be attending.
  >>>
  >>>The entire affair has not been well managed and we have been unable to agree
  >>>upon the protocols which would allow us to participate in the debate.  Rules
  >>>for debate format orginally conveyed to GOP candidates were 
  >>>changed.  Exclusion of unopposed candidates was also not 
  >>>acceptable since they as elected officialsaddress the same issues 
  >>>as candidates with opposition.  I hope we have learned a lesson 
  >>>from this experience.  Both Mr. Harkins and
  >
  >   I have continued to get harassing phone calls.
  >
  >>>
  >>>Rep. Tom Trail
  >
  >--
  >Dr. Tom Trail
  >International Trails
  >1375 Mt. View Rd.
  >Moscow, Id. 83843
  >Tel:  (208) 882-6077
  >Fax:  (208) 882-0896
  >e mail ttrail at moscow.com

  _____________________________________________________
   List services made available by First Step Internet, 
   serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
                 http://www.fsr.net                       
            mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
  ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20041025/8e7d5f96/attachment.htm