Having just received the political fliers from Sharon Lascola and Matt Kurit, I am left with the question as to why I should vote for either, displacing known elements on the Wellington Village Council.
Specifically, one major thing I was looking for from these newcomers in their communication was what they have done for the village during their residency; in the case of Sharon, 25 years. I want to know what experience they have had in leadership, leading a diverse group of individuals with very far-ranging opinions. I want to know what their skills are in conflict resolution, and specifically how they have negotiated compromise.
I hope that in the closing days of the campaign, our Wellington citizens will demand more than being fed pabulum and promise that one individual can hardly deliver, assuming you can figure out exactly what they are indeed promising. If Sharon wants to say “no” to excessive commercial development, what commercial development will she says “yes” to? Who does she include when she says she will put the “we” back in Wellington? Who is not “we” now and who will the “we” be if she is elected? She wants to make the council “more accountable” under her leadership and to stop “wasteful spending?” What wasteful spending is she talking about? Does she want to stop development of a senior center? And how much does this “wasteful spending” represent in our current budget?
Matt certainly also needs to curtail his political speak. When he says he wants to give “us” a voice on the village council, who is the “us” he refers to? And who does he think put our council members on the current and past councils? What development does he intend to stop, and how does he intend on doing so?
Let’s get some real answers from all our candidates, and let’s stop believing that those with little or no experience can lead us through resolution of very complex issues. Citizens need to demand specific platforms on which they can make informed election decisions.
Joseph Manning, Wellington