[Vision2020] Challenge to the candidates: What's up with Weber & Lambert?

[josephc at mail.wsu.edu]

In spite of Donovan's comments, I repeat my point: Candidates for council
are obligated to answer any and all questions from the public. To say
otherwise is to suggest that council members work for only a select few.
But they work for us all and as such candidates for council should answer
to us all.

I am aware that some questions are biased. In such instances, candidates
have as an option to explain why they think a question cannot or should
not be answered. Such a response would provide valuable information.
Silence provides no information at all, and without information no one is
in a position to make an informed decision.

Weber and Lambert should respond to the questions asked by Vision 2020 or,
if they feel as Donovan does, they should explain exactly why they find
the Vision 2020 questions to be biased. Unlike Donovan, I just don't see
this view as even plausible (note that Donovan provided no support for
this view either) but I am open-minded. If Weber and Lambert can explain
to me what's wrong with the questions I am more than willing to listen.
What I can’t listen to is silence!

I don't want to find out the views of Weber and Lambert on, say, the Third
Street bridge option after the election. I want to find out now and use
this as a basis for determining whether or not they are the candidates
that I want serving on council.

A failure to respond is itself a response. It shows that one does not care
about the concerns of at least a segment of the electorate. This does not
bode well for one who wishes to serve the public.

Joe Campbell