The editorial "Setting a flawed precedent" (Opinion, Dec 4) stated in part, "American government systems don't make laws for a single person. American government systems make laws for us all. Singling out an individual suggests some deserve different treatment than others, that some individuals are more special."
After the Hospital Service Area Board voted unanimously to recommend the operational audit, an effort was made to tag me as the ring leader of that vote. My political views were re-framed from old newspaper articles and I was made to be some kind of a politically radical zealot unworthy of involvement in local government.
When the Assembly realized that the SAB voted unanimously to accept my application to fill a vacant seat, they moved to prevent strongly opinionated people like myself from serving in the future. To do that, the Assembly moved to consider changing the law on how vacancies are filled.
In order to prevent the CPHSAB from being fully independent and able to provide much needed oversight of hospital operations, the Assembly intends to change the law because of my own assertive personality, essentially making a new law because of one person. From now on, if the Assembly has its way, all appointments will need the approval of the Assembly even though the individual has been previously vetted and approved by the SAB.
I find here an ironic twist. In "Chumleygate," the Assembly is considering a new law that allows the old law to be broken. At the same time, the Assembly is considering a new law that prevents checks and balances, a function of the SAB.
Can we the people no longer rely on the objectivity of our elected officials? Making laws that prevent accountability by others is just as bad as making laws that insulate oneself from it.
© 2017. All Rights Reserved. | Contact Us