Larson wants to be fair

Alderman Ed Larson copied me on an email he sent out to the rest of the board regarding the appointment process:

Over the past several days I have received numerous phone calls, emails as well as personal contacts about who should be appointed to fill the upcoming vacancy on the Board of Alderman.   I fully understand the rights of the Chief Executive of this community to appoint whomever they feel is capable of filling the position.   The most prevalent comment I have received is that there should be a return to the March Town Meeting Day ballot and the next highest vote getter should receive the position.   There has been deviance from this posture over the past several years as our system allows for such.  Fences have been built higher in this community by labels being associated with our citizens.  Labels such as "Yea Sayers" and "Nay Sayers".  Divisiveness that raised the philosophical fences, rather than lowering them so that hands could be extended in an effort to reconcile our disputes.  The Chief Executive entertains the right to appoint someone who may share his or her political views.  Someone who espouses the same direction when it comes to intra structure redevelopment, business and industrial development, or recreational development.  That being said, there comes to mind the question of whether the appointee stepped up to the plate and faced the voters?  The March Town Meeting Day ballot shared a field of candidates, rather than a short list.  Ignorance of that outcome, in my humble opinion, would result in a "walk in" election next March for the individual who finished just short in 2011.   My comments are not to be taken as a personal endorsement of Shawn Pemrick, but rather an endorsement of my philosophical view of the Doctrine of Fairness.  Fairness which is not so prevalent in our current political structures.  Instead my comments should be also taken as an endorsement of the principle of fairness, openness, and acceptance of the divergent views within this community.  Views that should be heard, and that voters have suggested must be heard.  Let's not imprison those who disagree with our viewpoints by raising higher fences.  Voters have indicated to this community that they desire change in the way we do business.  Perhaps that change will come if we do what is "just" and "fair".   Communities become separated due to alienation of view points.  A true community entertains acceptance of all viewpoints.  Raising the levels of distrust amongst voters is something Rutland can ill afford at this time.

Comments

[Observer]

Gordon: Has a mayor faced with filling a board seat ever appointed the "next in line" candidate? Can you check? I disagree that it's the "fair" thing to do. As you wrote in your last post, the voters did not elect that individual; there's no mandate to do so.

If they feel so strongly about it, maybe next-in-line appointment should be Shawn's group's next charter change proposal.