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

[Bruce and Jean Livingston]

Well, Bill, I agree that I wouldn't vote for someone who declines to asnwer 
the reasonable and topical questions posed on vision2020.  But one of the 
things that I gathered from the Daily News article was that Lambert is 
saying the same things that Sue Scott was saying about Council needing to 
make a decision and stop punting the downtown zoning issue back to P & Z. 
If that's what he means by speeding things up, I think I agree with him. 
But I sure disagree with him not letting us know where he stands on a number 
of important local issues asked in the vision2020 candidate questionnaire.

My point is that I can't know what the non-responders think because they 
didn't say anything.  Many citizens cannot make the forums, so answering 
questionnaires and posting them on line is a very useful tool for the 
electorate to gather information and get informed.  Moreover, most forums 
are pretty pointless affairs when the field is as crowded as this one is. 
The answers are sound bites -- 30 second and 60 second responses with very 
little detail or substance.

The benefits of an on-line, posted, written response are significant.  The 
response is available 24 hours a day for the course of the campaign, not for 
an hour while most of us are at work.  The response can be far more detailed 
and give much more insight into the candidates' thoughts -- if the candidate 
wishes to disclose his or her thoughts, that is.  And of course, there is a 
record of the response, so contradictory double-talk aimed at the audience 
of the particular forum is a lot more difficult, at least without risking 
being called on the shifting positions.  Finally, it takes a little thought 
and effort to do a decent job of answering the candidate questionnaire in 
any real detail, and the willingness to do that is another quality that is 
worth evaluating in a candidate.

For all of these reasons, I find the absence of a response to the Vision2020 
Candidate Questionnaire a glaring weakness in a candidate's resume.

Bruce Livingston




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill London" <london at moscow.com>
To: <josephc at mail.wsu.edu>; "Donovan Arnold " 
<donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2005 4:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Challenge to the candidates: What's up with Weber 
&Lambert?


> As the chair of the V2020 candidate survey committee, I spoke directly 
> with
> both Weber and Lambert about their refusal to respond to the survey.
>
> Weber refused because he does not want to use email.
>
> Lambert refused because he planned to attend various candidate forums and
> thought that was sufficient.
>
> Because of their reasons for refusal, I would not vote for either 
> candidate.
>
> I think it is imperative that every council candidate be able to use 
> email.
> If not, that means that every communication and decision will have to have
> an expensive paper copy created just for Weber.  That will cost the city
> both time and money.
>
> Lambert was quoted in the Daily News profile that he thought the city
> actions were much too slow.  He wants to speed things up, so he wants to 
> cut
> the opportunities for citizen input.  He also is not interested in letting
> the voters know his own priorities, so he did not want to provide a 
> written
> record in V2020 of his views.
>
> BL
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: <josephc at mail.wsu.edu>
> To: "Donovan Arnold " <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>;
> <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2005 2:23 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Challenge to the candidates: What's up with 
> Weber
> & Lambert?
>
>
>> 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
>>
>> _____________________________________________________
>>  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
>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>
>
> _____________________________________________________
> 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
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯