RE: Newspaper Article

["Shahab Mesbah" <meteor2@moscow.com>]

Amen!

Your brother in arms,

Shahab...

Shahab Mesbah
Technical Director
Meteor Light Labs
Voice (208) 883-9765
Fax (208) 883-2678
www.meteorlabs.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Duncan Palmatier [mailto:dpalm@earthlink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 9:29 AM
To: WMSteed@aol.com
Cc: vision2020@moscow.com
Subject: Re: Newspaper Article

Dear Vision2020:

Walter Steed accuses Moscow City Council Members Hamlett and Pall of
hypocracy for criticizing Mayor Comstock's appointment process for Tony
Johnson's replacement, which ignored the election results, but opposing
a vote on the 1912 building. Apart from the obvious, political fact that
Hamlett and Pall may have wanted Aaron Ament appointed to the Council,
as he should have been, and Walter wants to see the 1912 building
dumped, which it should not be, Walter is quite wrong in his criticism.
In our representative form of democratic government, we elect the city
council members to make decisions. When the democratic process of the
election of a city council member is circumvented, as it was in the case
of Tony Johnson's replacement, I am upset that my right to elect a
representetive has been undermined. But, this does not mean that I am
equally upset that I do not vote directly on city council decisions,
such as the decision to renovate the 1912 building. There are many City
Council decisions that I have disagreed with and I would have loved to
have had an opportunity to cast my vote on them; but, my disgruntlement
is the practical compromise of having elected representetives make
decisions for me. Indeed, I suspect that direct citizen voting on city
decisions would probably mean that a few people would end up dominating
city government. The representative democratic process is indirect and
frustrating, yet, in the larger picture, probably more democratic.

Duncan Palmatier

WMSteed@aol.com wrote:
>
> . . . The same two council members mentioned in the Tony Johnson
replacement
> remarks, Peg Hamlett and Linda Pall, both previously voted against a
public
> vote on the 1912 Building and went along with not having a more public
> process on the sewer bonds.
>
> Interesting.
>
> "Public process" must depend on the outcomes you desire.  In the Johnson
> case, they possibly wanted a different outcome; not the one decided by
> representative government. In the sewer bond case and the 1912 Building
vote,
> they probably did not dare let the public speak for fear of what they
might
> have said.
>
> Walter Steed