I have made my best effort to understand the candidates and their positions, but more importantly, character. I have to make choices and take my responsibility seriously to vote in this age of tweets and blogs. My letter to the editor today, serves to remind candidates as to the value of character and their devoir to be true to the virtues they espouse.
There are nine candidates of which two slates have emerged. One slate coalesced around a platform of promising a professional and positive outlook, the other slate around transparency and fiscal responsibility. The slate of Mr. Recker, Mr. Gibson and Mr. Honig have chosen the former and Mr. Sacher, Mr. Petricca, and Mr. Honecker the latter.
Here is where I now discern character in light of recent comments made by Mr. Magel, chairman of City Council to guide my votes. Mr. Gibson, Mr. Recker and Mr. Honig are claiming the same platform of professionalism and positive outlook that Mr. Magel heralded in 2008, to secure his seat on council.
I need to make choices that do not lead to a repeat of the past, and confirm if the candidates are true to their platform. Again, a key is character, as my father advised: Who you choose and associate with as friends is a good indicator of your character.
Today, Mr. Magel is expressing his views publicly by attacking one slate by creating negative scenarios devoid of facts indicating a lack of professionalism and pitting citizen groups against others. I would expect a higher standard from a chairman. But we are not voting for Mr. Magel, so how am I to make a choice based on character of candidates?
Quite simply: I will listen to the silence of Mr. Gibson, Mr. Recker and Mr. Honig as they offer no comment on Mr. Magel’s language to endorse them and promote their candidacy. I would have expected them to publicly denounce such language, as not in their interest and counter to their platform promoting a “positive” and professional outlook.
If I really want change I do not want to repeat history, of electing candidates that make claims simply offering a positive and professional approach. Consequently, I will not vote for incumbents and now through Mr. Magel’s endorsement, Mr. Honig and Mr. Meyer, as well. The slate may have sealed its fate by claiming to run on this platform which now rings hollow given their deafening silence. It may simply be Mr. Magel doing the heavy lifting to say what the slate he endorses will not say publicly.
To return to my theme of devoir: Duty and responsibility, I will choose those who adhere to their platform so I am going with Mr. Sacher, Mr. Petricca, and Mr. Honecker,. A slate based on bringing transparency and fiscal responsibility to the public forum with a fresh and professional approach to sit, and most importantly, challenge Mr. Magel on council, who continues to divide this city with fear and pitting citizen against citizen.
Ann Sepe | Marco Island