More detail
Editor: I’d like to take this opportunity to add more detail to the editorial written last week by Matthew Hall regarding the last Town Council meeting. Matthew wrote that I had requested that gun control be placed on a future agenda, that this request was not considered Windsor’s business by the mayor and a council member, and that none of the five council members are currently elected, so we are not following the will of the public unless the public speaks up. There is more to this story.
First, I am your elected representative. I have been elected to Council five times in the past. I serve you because you have elected me to do so. I understand Matthew’s main point — that the last two elections have been uncontested and he wishes that people had stepped up to run. I am certain there will be a large field of candidates in 2014.
At issue was not “gun control.” I received four requests by the public to agendize Windsor sending a letter to our California Congressional delegation asking them to vote to reinstate the federal ban on assault weapons, like the ones used at Sandy Hook. I don’t ask for items to be agendized based on my personal beliefs, but I do when asked by the electorate. That is my job as a council member. This issue has already been heard and passed by four other cities in Sonoma County without any of the controversy that was generated by the Windsor Council. This is something that I hope Windsor residents start paying attention to.
My main issue is that both Sam Salmon and I requested this item be put on the agenda and it wasn’t. It has been the policy since Windsor was incorporated in 1992 that any council member can place items on the agenda by contacting either the Town Manager or the Mayor.
Those that asked me to place this on the agenda feel that when there are killings in communities by regular people who possess assault weapons that are intended for military use, that this does indeed become a local issue. And they want their community to weigh in to prevent more killings in the future.
This issue is now on the August 21 agenda. Council members can vote yes or no. As always, I hope people weigh in, express your opinions, ask us to agendize issues, and follow our meetings. After all, this is the true Democratic process.
Debora Fudge
Windsor Town Council Member
Under the radar
Editor: Its amazing how important positive news gets buried or not reported.
I received wonderful news a week ago and have yet to find even a blurb about it in the media. We hear enough about the violence in our communities, the gangs, domestic abuse and bullying in schools, the endless discussions surrounding the Boston marathon tragedy, the Sandy Hook School massacre, and the slayings of people of color, but never do we hear an honest dialogue about solving this endemic problem. Nor do we hear about the existence of successful cost-savings programs that can change this culture. So I feel compelled to give you some good news for a change.
Following three years of intensive education, discussions and testimony, given by members of the California Peace Alliance, California Democratic Party Delegates, elected by their respective County Committees, Clubs and Assembly Districts, decided that peacebuilding should be considered a national priority, and that it was past time for our country to institute and fund strategies for peace in our communities.
The vote was unanimous at the Executive Board meeting in Costa Mesa, on July 19, 2013, when the California Democratic Party endorsed Representative Barbara Lee’s legislation, HR808, for a cabinet level Department of Peacebuilding.
Margaret Koren
Windsor
Relay success
Editor: Another successful Relay for Life of Windsor. We’re up to $80,000 and counting. Thank you to all who supported our efforts to raise money for the American Cancer Society. A special thank you to the many local businesses for their support.
Thank you to our wonderful fire fighters for the great barbecue dinner they prepared. Early on Sunday morning, as they do every year, the Kiwanis Club prepared breakfast for the weary walkers. And breakfast is always served with a smile. On a personal note, I want to thank my wonderful team, Life Savers.
Jill Sullivan
Windsor
Food bank donations
Editor: Thank you so much for your article on the Windsor Food Bank and the need for fresh produce. I took a BIG bunch of chard and tomatoes from my yard this morning. It made me feel really good to share my abundance. It’s given me the idea to put more planter boxes in my back yard so I can grow more for just this reason!
Sandra Lee
Windsor
Free Speech?
Editor: Four times recently, I have headed for the Windsor post office in Lakewood Village Shopping Center and found, right in front of the United States Post Office, a large sandwich board sign calling for the impeachment of President Obama. Behind this freestanding sign, two women sit or stand by a large table they have set up with printed material and colorful posters. They call out loudly to passersby to come and see their information on why they are saying the President should be impeached.
When I walked around their table and sign (which blocks a walking area in front of the Post Office) and asked them whether they have a permit from the shopping center to do this (it is, after all, private property), they reply that the First Amendment guarantees their right to free speech.
I contend that public slander, libel, innuendo and interference with commerce on private property are not guaranteed by the First Amendment.
Jane Wilder
Windsor
Elected to office
Editor: Your commentary of July 25, 2013 mistakenly stated: “None of the current council members hold their current seat as a result of an election.” The truth and fact is three of the current councilmembers were elected to office in the November 2, 2010 General Municipal Election. The official return and statement of votes cast can be found on file with our Town Clerk.
Your point about officials representing voters and being vigilant in their decision making and deliberations is well taken whether the office or committee holder is elected or not. In my experience as a Windsor elected, the most important part of the job is establishing trust. Establishing trust can be difficult as the important decisions usually involve different points of view and compromise. Many times no one is happy with the ultimate decision but a decision had to be made. Trust comes with time, knowledge, experience and following the rules, not by someone saying “trust me.”
To answer you question, posed towards the end of your interpretation, I am willing to consider spending time on discussions that you or others may believe have no measurable impact on local issues because it is quite probably more than one constituent believes in the issue and relates the issue to the Town. If your council by majority does not want to discuss something, it only takes a motion, second and three votes to table the discussion. That’s democracy and what I believe the Council holds dear.
The other question raised although not straight on, is why haven’t we had a contested election since 2008. Is it we are all apathetic and don’t care? No, some possibly but not many. Is it we are all just too busy with our lives to commit the time and energy? No, I see so many giving so much in our Town. Is it we are so satisfied with the Town government, that change isn’t considered? No, change and debate occur, more with controversy than not. There is more likely some combination of forces.
We should consider the upcoming election in of November 2014. Contested elections are part of our democracy and welcome. I found the best discussion, debate and governance occurs when all points of view are given consideration.
Sam Salmon
Windsor
Editor’s Note
In regards to last week’s commentary and two of the above letters some clarification appears to be in order. There was in fact an election in 2010 however, it was uncontested as the only candidates to file were the existing incumbents. In 2012, two candidates filed to fill two open seats and the council chose to cancel the election rather than proceed with the uncontested vote.
In both cases residents had no choice in whom to vote for and I think an uncontested election compared to an election canceled due to lack of candidates is a distinction without a difference. Either way, the council lost its electoral mandate.
While I stand by my conclusions, we are a newspaper and accuracy counts. I should have said none of the current council members hold their seats as the result of a contested election.
— Matthew Hall
