The Oct. 12 editorial utilizing phrases like malcontents, perfect storm, disenfranchisement and summarizing by recommending going to court only serves to promote disgust in the political system.
My first thought was, did we decrease the senior exemption just to fund a public lawsuit? The borough administration and assembly provided minimal leadership in informing the public prior to the election, and the Clarion's editorial is providing none after the election.
Regardless of voter preference on the issue, the so-called malcontents followed the rules as did each candidate, who ran for office. However, the facts concerning the outcome and political upheaval is unusual, as they were clearly predictable. There is nothing known now that borough leadership did not know before the election, except for the final tally.
The elections office properly placed in the elections pamphlet, that "incumbents would be prohibited from serving another term, if the areawide term limits proposition is approved." There is no voter disenfranchisement, there is only choices made by incumbents and voters, who knew that a majority vote on areawide issues takes precedent over area issues.
As an example, nine area assemblymen routinely vote on boroughwide issues, which may have a negative impact on any one area, but the majority rules. Similarly, the voter majority spoke on term limits and the borough correctly chose not to seat the three incumbents.
This issue should not end in court, as it would be a hypocrisy and inconsistent with majority rule. Any incumbent going to court on this issue will be openly thwarting majority rule and promoting regionalism.
Litigation is not the answer and a waste of public funds. Consistency in the application of majority rule needs to prevail, if we are to have any trust in the political process.
Peninsula Clarion ©2013. All Rights Reserved.