President Dan Miller posted an update concerning criminal records and running for elected office in Mt. Lebanon. This is probably old news to those who follow Dan's blog since it was posted September 15, 2011. Sorry I didn't see this sooner, Dan.
Bar to Office
Why does Mr. Miller feel citizens should confront ex-convicts directly and ask them why they are running for public office?
ReplyDeleteSeems like common sense to me.
David Huston
David, I don't think the average citizen would feel safe contacting someone who was convicted of simple assalt or anything else for that matter. I have gotten many emails from individuals who are afraid to comment at meetings, blogs, or contact the School District over issues for fear of retaliation.
ReplyDeleteHow about the anonymous person who contacted the Trib, the PG, several commissioners, and who knows who else besides me and no one would touch it except me? Questioning the convict is a tall order. In this case, the Republican Committee endorsed a candidate with skeletons in his closet.
Elaine
Now, wait a second. As I was saying to some folks the other night - I don't think that having a checkered past or a record is necessarily a dealbreaker for public office.
ReplyDeleteSome of the country's finest leaders were treasoners and vandals after all ;)
Nor should anyone be afraid to talk to any candidate for public office, ever, for any reason whatsoever. That's just terrible!
If we hit that point, and media becomes the only channel to discourse with our representatives then stick a fork in us because we are done as a society.
I get that people are justifiably concerned given the nature of some of the acts under scrutiny. Mr. Brown is doing the right thing to step down. But I still hold that openly acknowledging one's flaws is the proper course of action for an current or would-be public official. I like honesty, I like accountability, and I like to see those characteristics in the people who purport to govern me.
I'd much rather that these contests are decided on the issues, and on the character of the individuals, than on any kind of fear or, so help me, "perceived reputational harm to our fair community." (In case you haven't been paying attention - that horse left the barn a long time ago, folks.)
As I said - he's done the right thing. So let's give Mr. Brown a fair shake here, Elaine.
Has he stepped down, Matt? Do you see anything on his website? www.joinbrown.com
ReplyDeleteElaine
This looked darn conclusive to me... ?
ReplyDeleteIn the same article, it says,
ReplyDelete"There is no indication on his campaign website, www.joinbrown.com, that he is no longer running."
The point that I am trying to make, Matt, is that Dan Miller's expectations of us to confront a candidate of his or her criminal background can be dangerous. We need to rely on a system that does this for us, whether it is for candidates, elected officials, coaches, or any individual serving in a leadership capacity.
Elaine
And I must respectfully disagree with you, Elaine.
ReplyDeleteSystems can be compromised, corrupted, or predispositionally biased. Putting trust in a system to vet a candidate is no different, in a sense, than just putting trust in a candidate directly.
At some point, you as an individual voter/taxpayer have to do your homework and decide in your own best interests.
If that's dangerous, well...
(Now, that is not to say that we shouldn't hold existing systems to our same standards and expect them to apply the same level of scrutiny. We absolutely should. But nevertheless we should also be independently auditing the performance of those systems.)
Matt, I think we are saying the same thing. See my post on doing our homework. The Republican Committee did admit that they did not check backgrounds in this case. But do you think it would be wise for a woman, let's say, to confront a man who was convicted of dragging another woman out of a car? To me, it doesn't seem like a wise choice to confront someone with a criminal record. Do you?
ReplyDeleteAnd his website has no mention of Brown stepping down. In 42 days, we will see how many votes he gets, in spite of his background. The voters will decide. But I don't agree with Dan Miller when he says we should confront candidates with a criminal record.
Elaine
If the criminals can disagree without being disagreeable, there shouldn't be any problems.
ReplyDelete~Therese McDowell
I think it depends on the circumstances surrounding the encounter. The hypothetical questioner is likely going to get very different mileage out of
ReplyDeletea) a phone call
b) a one on one encounter in private
and c) a semi-public forum, like a "Meet the Candidates" setting
I think it's also going to depend on the tone and prejudgment (if any) of the questioner doing the confronting.
My take on Dan's advice is more or less just that: if you're concerned, reach out and say so, and ask your question. I think there are ways to do that that don't bring any kind of personal safety concerns into play.
But then, I've never really gotten the whole "fear of retaliation from speaking in public" thing. I mean, heck, sometimes I can't shut up on the blogs and I'm still here. :)
As to the campaign website - I can't say why it hasn't been changed. I wonder if it has something to do with his withdrawal occurring after the formal withdrawal deadline, and his name thus remaining on the ballot for November.