Good Governance and Rumor Central

by lewwaters

McKenna 3It’s no secret that County Councilor David Madore is heavily despised by the left, evidenced by smears from the facebook group “Clark County Citizens for Good Governance” as well as the local newspaper of record and daily mouthpiece for the Democrat Party, the Columbian, better known here as the “Lazy C.”

And face it, some of that disdain is brought on by Madore’s own conduct, but even this bull in a china shop manner does not merit anywhere near the vitriol and abject hatred seen from both.

I always felt it strange that they labeled themselves with “Good Governance” as the one-sided view promoted there does not approach good governance, but more one-party rule.

Searching around a bit, I stumbled across an Australian site: WHAT IS GOOD GOVERNANCE?

Quite eye opening, even considering Australia isn’t a complete carbon copy of our governmental system.

In my personal opinion, good governance means elected officials collaborate and come to a ‘meeting of the minds’ in the best interest of the community, not special interests or developers hoping to reap windfalls of profit off of the taxpayer’s backs.

It means personal disagreements are set aside to give consideration to and hear opposing views of other elected officials, not stack any council or commission with rubber stamps to blindly follow and agree to the whims of the leader of the group.

Much has been said of Madore not following any of the above practices and I cannot wholly disagree. But by the same token, there is no mention of others, like former County Commissioner Steve Stuart or Vancouver Mayor Tim Leavitt having their own hissy fits and making no effort to collaborate or consider a different view coming from Madore, Stuart acting very childish in abruptly resigning from the County Commission as soon as he no longer was getting his way.

Madore lost my respect and support by personal acts committed against me and this blog, but that doesn’t change that he was duly elected and very well may be reelected if he runs again.

That is why I am disturbed to see a comment left by the Mayor of Vancouver this morning against Councilor Madore.

C3G2, Leavitt No Tolerate Madore

In the first place, why is an elected official participating in a group site set up primarily to undermine other elected officials? And yet, he would expect collaboration as well, even though he feeds discontent against others?

Yes, Leavitt whines that during the last campaign, his numerous prevarications of fighting to stop tolls on the now comatose CRC light rail project where brought back up. So he whined about that, but has no problem throwing barbs back instead of seeking any collaboration himself.

Leavitt is not the only elected official participating in such a biased left-leaning group nor is C3G2 the only biased group on facebook concerning our community.

There is also the South West Washington Opinion page which is more right-leaning with no elected official actively participating. But there are also members of C3G2 that have been allowed in and unlike C3G2, so far only one person has been barred for disruption, C3G2 having barred several, even pre-banning some.

What sort of collaboration or cooperation is that, banning contrary views on a site allegedly concerning “Good Governance?”

To me, it approaches an ethical concern to see elected officials joining in with expressions of discontent against other elected officials, when they are also saying they want a better working relationship or expecting collaboration on matters with those same elected officials.

Contrary to some opinions, Liberals are not the only point of view allowed representation or consideration of their views.

Such heavy bias adds nothing towards good governance; it only pushes for one-party rule.

And it is not only a few elected officials adding to discontent there, as we saw recently with an rumor being spread by a reporter from the Lazy C, Katie Gillespie as periodically throughout the day, she “updated” the group on this rumor prior to her writing and quickly publishing an article pushing that rumor out to the public that same evening, on the eve of the last election.

Are they a newspaper or rumor central?

Now that dust is settling from the election, Gillespie has said she obtained the emails the rumor concerned and has put them up on the papers blog, you can read them here.

I cannot say the situation was handled in the most appropriate manner, but where is there any justification of the urgency we saw in running with what even she admitted at the time was “unconfirmed rumor?”

Kat, Unconfirmed Rumor

I just cannot see any sense of urgency to push the rumor as she did on the eve of an election, unless there was some hope of affecting the outcome of the election.

That is not good governance nor is it responsible objective journalism.

But it is what we have devolved into as the left and the right vie to be the power brokers instead of seeking a meeting of the minds to make our community the best it can be.

And now with the election of Marc Boldt, returning him to county government as the chair of the county council, I fear we will see less of the left-leaning hotheads blasting and wagging their fingers at Councilor Madore, and more right-leaning hotheads blasting and wagging their fingers at Councilor Boldt.

As before, any semblance of good governance will tossed out on the heap of political discontent.

It doesn’t have to be, but that rests in the hands of our elected officials that would rather submit to their political parties or downtown special interests instead of listening to the citizens and working together, instead of stabbing each other with vitriolic words.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Keep this blog active with a voluntary contribution at the PayPal button at the top of the sidebar on the right. Thank you.

One Comment to “Good Governance and Rumor Central”

  1. “WHAT IS GOOD GOVERNANCE?” Good governance is bureaucratic gobble-di-gook for process. For the bureaucratically inclined it is all about the process, and not so much the outcome. The out come only matters if there is a hearing about why the outcome was so bad, and they rarely touch upon how or why the process was bad or good.

    Like

%d bloggers like this: