We've seen further evidence of the in-fighting and mistrust among alderman behind the scenes - and it's time for it to stop.
The polarization within the Monroe Common Council is once again showing its unfortunate face.
In online comments to The Monroe Times this week, alderman Thurston Hanson sharply criticized fellow alderman Jan Lefevre for taking credit for fighting special street assessments for 16th Avenue residents in 2008. Lefevre's comments were included in the candidate profile information she supplied to the Times in advance of the April 5 election.
In his criticism, Hanson makes it clear Lefevre only came on board with his opposition to charging street reconstruction costs "eventually" - after he brought the situation to light. He wrote Lefevre "takes credit for everything good that has happened, and forgets that it takes a consensus to achieve good for the taxpaying citizens."
We always appreciate when an elected official wants to set the record straight. (Our records show both Lefevre and Hanson spoke publicly against the street assessments at an April 2, 2008 meeting and voted against the assessments at that time.) But who actually "led" the charge is irrelevant at this point.
Our concern is this - why would Hanson think it appropriate to post his criticism in an online forum and publicly call for a resident to launch a write-in candidacy against Lefevre?
In this regard, Hanson should heed his own words: "It takes a consensus to achieve good for the taxpaying citizens." Yet, his way of doing that is to take his problems with another elected official to an Internet forum?
That does nothing to promote consensus-building on the council. And it shows a remarkable lack of taste and tact.
In fact, it just raises more questions about the professionalism and motivations of some council members. We've seen further evidence of the petty in-fighting and mistrust among alderman behind the scenes - and it's time for it to stop.
At the opposite end of the spectrum are Chuck Schuringa and Paul Hannes. They've also faced criticism this week for submitting very similar answers to their respective candidate profiles. Schuringa told the Times the two did in fact discuss and collaborate on their answers - hardly plagiarism, as some have implied, and it beats arguing with each other in public. Their constituents can decide April 5 if Schuringa and Hannes provide effective representation.
We keep hearing it's time to end the "good old boys" network at the City Hall - Hanson himself has said it frequently and loudly. And we agree.
Just don't confuse an open and forward-thinking local government with one that is in fact motivated by adolescent games and political back-stabbing.
In online comments to The Monroe Times this week, alderman Thurston Hanson sharply criticized fellow alderman Jan Lefevre for taking credit for fighting special street assessments for 16th Avenue residents in 2008. Lefevre's comments were included in the candidate profile information she supplied to the Times in advance of the April 5 election.
In his criticism, Hanson makes it clear Lefevre only came on board with his opposition to charging street reconstruction costs "eventually" - after he brought the situation to light. He wrote Lefevre "takes credit for everything good that has happened, and forgets that it takes a consensus to achieve good for the taxpaying citizens."
We always appreciate when an elected official wants to set the record straight. (Our records show both Lefevre and Hanson spoke publicly against the street assessments at an April 2, 2008 meeting and voted against the assessments at that time.) But who actually "led" the charge is irrelevant at this point.
Our concern is this - why would Hanson think it appropriate to post his criticism in an online forum and publicly call for a resident to launch a write-in candidacy against Lefevre?
In this regard, Hanson should heed his own words: "It takes a consensus to achieve good for the taxpaying citizens." Yet, his way of doing that is to take his problems with another elected official to an Internet forum?
That does nothing to promote consensus-building on the council. And it shows a remarkable lack of taste and tact.
In fact, it just raises more questions about the professionalism and motivations of some council members. We've seen further evidence of the petty in-fighting and mistrust among alderman behind the scenes - and it's time for it to stop.
At the opposite end of the spectrum are Chuck Schuringa and Paul Hannes. They've also faced criticism this week for submitting very similar answers to their respective candidate profiles. Schuringa told the Times the two did in fact discuss and collaborate on their answers - hardly plagiarism, as some have implied, and it beats arguing with each other in public. Their constituents can decide April 5 if Schuringa and Hannes provide effective representation.
We keep hearing it's time to end the "good old boys" network at the City Hall - Hanson himself has said it frequently and loudly. And we agree.
Just don't confuse an open and forward-thinking local government with one that is in fact motivated by adolescent games and political back-stabbing.
