Wed08202014

Last update11:02:17 PM

Font Size

Profile

Menu Style

Cpanel
 
Back You are here: Home Opinion Opinion Section Letters to the Editor Council Appointments

Council Appointments

Council, Residents,
If I understand this deal Council is going to interview and introduce the candidates that are in the final running.
This is 5 people, that means 11 people were put out of this process by Council after PRIVATE interviews by 3 Council members alone. How is the public going to know that some of the 11 that were essentially dumped by Council for whatever reason would not best serve us?
This is another deal of Council letting us see and hear from who they want us to have and not what we necessarily need or want.
In essence those that have been provided to us to hear from are 5 that were hand picked by 3 Council members only for whatever unidentified reason.
I do not view this process as having any semblance of an open process that will serve us in the best way.
What you are doing, or have done if appointed last night, is select 5 candidates and then picked 2 from this 5 who you want to serve on Council with you for the next year. How does the public know you picked the best of the best from the 16 that applied? The best 2 of the 16 may have not been included in your process of 5 finalists for all we know.
The only folks that have any inkling of what the eleven folks think or stand for that were kicked out of your process are the 3 of you on Council who had the audacity to interview all 16 of these folk in a private setting and picked and chose who you want us to have.
Thus we end up with the possibility of a flawed process created by 3 members of Council. All the public has to go on in this deal is faith that you will pick the right folks to represent us for the next year.
I for one do not have this faith in your decision making. But nevertheless as a resident I am stuck with what I believe is a flawed system.
Please read on, there is a better system to give us two council members that received more than three votes.
Time is not of the essence in these appointments regardless of what you would have us believe.
We have 3 members and that makes a majority that can represent us until this Council gives us a better process.
This Council can legally and should take the 2 people that received the highest number of votes that lost in our last election and seek to appoint from this pool to these 2 seats.
Should these two not care to serve then go on down this list of vote receivers until the process yields two people that still want to serve and the sun would shine in this process and the will of the people/voters and not necessarily the will of only the three on Council would prevail. 
Frankly speaking, I trust this procedure better than Council's apparently flawed process. There could then not be any valid arguments as to what was done was open for all to see and our highest vote receivers that lost in our last election were the ones appointed to these two seats.
There cannot be any fairer way for the public than this process. At least in this process the will of the voters would have prevailed and the public would not have to rely on only the 3 that want to choose who they want to serve with them for the next year.
At the very least the folks from this pool chose to run to represent us and all received more than 3 votes.
It also makes me wonder why out of all of the 16 folks that applied for these 2 open Council seats the only one of these 16 that has been elected by the voters to serve a full term on Council was not chosen from the 16 applicants to at least be among the 5 that were in the final running.
Please do not take this as being an endorsement of anybody but this process on its surface doesn’t pass the smell test to me. Have a good day.
D.A. Lewis,
Carolina Beach, NC