Publisher Walter Nicklin [“That scary time of year,” Oct. 23] says, “there’s been a lot of vocal criticism about the governance of the county seat . . .” and “no serious effort to present alternate town council candidates.” I believe that Mr. Nicklin has missed the point entirely regarding the government of the county seat. The vast majority of criticism has not focused on personalities.
The issue with the town government isn’t about “who.” The issue is entirely about the government itself, and that it serves no purpose other than to waste precious tax dollars on duplicative, unnecessary, anachronistic institutional structures that cannot be logically, fiscally or ethically justified, considering the number of people left in the jurisdiction and in light of the ridiculously small portion of them who vote.
We are talking about expending more than $250,000 a year — not including the wastewater plant or water system — to maintain the existence of something that for the most part duplicates the structures provided by our county government.
In addition to the fact that the number of residents doesn’t warrant a government separate from the county in which the town exists, 30 people voting seven of themselves into governmental offices (in the most recent election) with the power to make decisions in the areas that a charter allows . . . cannot possibly avoid the appearance of being ethically challenged.
Either Mr. Nicklin is choosing to be nearsighted or is somehow distracted from the reality with which we are confronted.
Editor’s Note: Mr. Nicklin’s editorial also pointed out that there has been no petition for a referendum on the status of the town charter. Without either that or a new town council, he suggested, revoking the town charter, regardless of whether it’s a good idea, will never happen.