With the filing deadline for this year’s SCA Board of Directors election still two days off, writers on the Goodman/Arendt forum are tearing their hair out over who they think has filed, or will be filing, to run for one of the three available seats.
One writer has gone so far as to virtually guarantee a nasty election process, not surprising in view of her own personal nastiness.
My permanent message at the top of the blog home page says unequivocally that we will be political from time to time.
That time is almost here, but there is no need to inveigh on the race, or specific candidates, prior to the opening of the starting gate.
To answer a question I’ve received frequently in recent days, I plan once again to offer each candidate the opportunity to record a video message to my readers.
In addition, Channel 99 is resuming the practice of recording candidate videos, though I will allow candidates more time than Channel 99 will give them to express their views.
Most candidates show respect for my more than 3,100 readers by recording videos for this blog, but some have not chosen to accept the offer in the past.
Though I can’t prove cause and effect, I can tell you that no candidate who has declined to record a video for this blog has ever been elected to the Board. Who knows, perhaps that will change this year if one or more candidates decline the offer.
All I can do, as the campaign process proceeds, is bring you such information as the candidates wish to share with you, and in time to make my own recommendations. In the end, you must consider the information you have or acquire and make the decisions you think will best serve Sun City Anthem.
Dave: Mike Waterhouse posted a well reasoned commentary related to the election on the Goodman blog. Mike said he was representing the views of a group he has conferred with, but he chose not to give their names.
Arent immediately jumped on Mike for not revealing the names of his friends, as if it lessens the argument because they were not named.
Arent and others on that blog frequently publish comments they claim are from people who don't want their names used.
Typical hypocrites! Arent and his buddies feel entitled to keep the names private, but Mike Waterhouse is not allowed to do the same.
Posted by: Mikey | February 16, 2012 at 10:19 PM
I agree with you, Mikey, and here's another example, taken straight from a Goodman comment to Mike Waterhouse tonight:
"As for your "group", please relay to them that they are more than welcome to post here and have their say, as we would like to hear from them personally, and you don't need to be a middle man."
That's pretty funny when you consider hers and Arendt's frequency in posting comments from people they "have heard from." In other words, they have no hesitation in acting as "middle man" for THEM.
But why look for consistency from Ms. Goodman? You must do as she says, not as she does.
In addition, she seemed to have a lot of trouble grasping the points in Mike Waterhouse's thoughtful posting, which apparently was too long for her to get her arms around.
Perhaps this is because she views the upcoming Board election as some sort of a game, to be taken lightly for her entertainment, as per this comment of hers:
"At 4pm tomorrow we will post the names of all candidates folks.... then LET THE GAMES BEGIN!"
It is not a game, Ms. Goodman's cavalier comment notwithstanding.
Posted by: David Berman | February 17, 2012 at 12:24 AM