[
OpenCdA commenter “up river” appended a comment to the OpenCdA post titled “Steve Widmyer: Not Suitable for Mayor” on October 15. “Up river” commented in part, “In fairness I have to question whether or not a person’s one comment, perhaps ‘Freudian’ in nature, sixteen years ago necessarily characterizes who a person is today.”
It is a very fair question that deserves an answer.
Widmyer ran for election to become an NIC Trustee in 1996. Presumably more than one prospective voter asked Widmyer what an NIC Trustee’s responsibilities are and what he hoped he would be able to accomplish as a Trustee. I don’t know what the responsibilities of the NIC Trustees were in 1996 when he ran and was elected, but NIC Policy 2.01.02, Revised 10/28/09, defines what they are now.
One of the Board of Trustees responsibilities (specifically the Chairperson’s but presumably with the advice and participation of all Trustees) is to periodically evaluate the President in accordance with Board policy. I doubt the Trustees’ responsibilities have changed much. So when Steve Widmyer ran for election and represented to the voters that he was qualified and suitable, he should have done it with eyes wide open that the duties of his office as a Trustee might require him to make some very difficult decisions that could affect his social, economic, and political future. Still, Widmyer sought election, won, and took the oath of office. Then seven months later he resigned saying, “To be a public official, it takes a certain type of individual and I’m not one of those types.”
In my opinion, Widmyer in a moment of personal reflection, made a carefully considered statement in his letter of resignation, at least according to The Spokesman Review’s reporter Ken Olsen. I believe he made it in a moment of genuine candor and self-assessment.
Now Steve Widmyer is running for office again, and I believe that in 2013 the voters have every right to expect a satisfactory answer to these questions:
“In 1997 when required to perform one of the duties of your office, you performed your duty and then resigned. You could have voted ‘no’ on the motion to release Bennett, but you didn’t. You voted ‘yes’ and then resigned. In 1997 you weren’t an inexperienced young adult; you were 36-37 years old and were the Controller for the Hagadone Corporation and had earned Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees. If you quit and abandoned your duty to represent those who voted for you then because couldn’t handle the pressure of the relatively low-key position of NIC Trustee in the city of Coeur d’Alene, why should voters believe you would be able to handle the much greater pressures and demands as the Mayor of Coeur d’Alene? Why shouldn’t voters on November 5, 2013, be concerned that in a moment of crisis when leadership is required, you won’t simply quit again?”
OpenCdA believes the voters in Coeur d’Alene deserve an answer to those questions. The voters who trusted him once are entitled to be absolutely convinced that he won’t succumb to social, political, or economic pressures that may result in his making decisions and personnel appointments harmful to the voters’ best interests.
Bill,when presenting something as fact as the people that read OpenCDA believe you always do you cannot use words and phrases like “Presumably, in my opinion, and I believe” you and I both know people skip over those words and take what is said as gospel. I might add to assume what someone is thinking is always dangerous, to assume what someone was thinking 16 years ago is just not right.
Comment by Mike Teague — October 17, 2013 @ 9:16 am
Bill: We all know that sometimes an organization will hire people to do their dirty work for them such as help fire an employee. Our city went through several administrators to remove those who did not promote their dreams because of the tough questions they asked.
So that could be a possible reason why Widmyer saw that he needed to jump ship. Politics can be honest or they can be mob like.
Comment by LTR — October 17, 2013 @ 9:51 am
Mike Teague,
It is necessary for me to try and distinguish fact from my opinion. It has to do with the laws of defamation. The very short broad version is that with some exceptions, opinion is protected as free speech. Even then, whenever I express an opinion I’ve formed based on fact, I’d prefer to link readers to my source of information so the readers can form their own opinions.
It is valid to look at how Widmyer behaved 17 years ago as an elected official under pressure. He resigned seven months into a six-year term. Voters in 2013 have every right to ask him why he would behave differently now when the pressures are likely to be far more varied and certainly no less intense than they were then.
Comment by Bill — October 17, 2013 @ 11:22 am
LTR,
You’re correct, but I believe what I just put in my comment to Mike Teague: It is valid to look at how Widmyer behaved 17 years ago as an elected official under pressure. He resigned seven months into a six-year term. Voters in 2013 have every right to ask him why he would behave differently now when the pressures are likely to be far more varied and certainly no less than they were then.
Comment by Bill — October 17, 2013 @ 11:23 am
I totally agree that Mr. Widmyer, given your further explanation of the reason(s) that you raised it and the question’s relevance, should answer the question. I personally doubt that he actually regularly visits this site and thus he will not answer it in this forum. Indeed, even if he were to answer your question in this forum, I doubt that the local ‘press’ would report his answer for their readers. Perhaps one or more City residents (e.g. city resident and voter(s)–which I am not–who actually care about the direction that the City will take over the next decade will ask him this exact question at a public forum. That type of forum would provide him with the opportunity to answer the question and it would permit the city residents/voters to ‘judge’ it.
Comment by up river — October 17, 2013 @ 2:21 pm
I don’t think any political candidate should blog. It’s just not a level playing field, having to expose yourself to potential attack from biased, anonymous bloggers. You can’t win, so why even play?
That being said, I feel that everyone running for office should make themselves available. Sending an email or making a phone call could work. Testing to see whether a candidate is responsive or not is a major yardstick I use to judge suitability for office. E.g., a few years ago I emailed some questions to a candidate who never replied. Is that what I should expect from them after they’re elected? It’s a legitimate question.
Comment by Dan Gookin — October 17, 2013 @ 2:35 pm
Dan,
On a similar note, I don’t read other blogs regularly, so I won’t comment on what is said on them about posts and comments appearing on OpenCdA. If someone wants to comment on a post here s/he can register here and post the comment here to get a response from me.
Comment by Bill — October 17, 2013 @ 5:38 pm
I don’t blame Dan and other public figures who decide to avoid local blogs … it can get too ugly. Stuff you say is ‘stolen’ from any site you may comment on and then taken out of context and put before the dogs to pick apart. Don’t bother to play – you have the kick the ball their way or the highway.
Unfortunately these sites tend to blame some of our public figures as the reason that our city is divided, however, it is quite the opposite, it is our local media who/that spins their agenda in the favor that enhances their own pocketbooks. It is painfully obvious how the spin is twisted and how some commenters are booted, including public figures when one disagrees and publishes their opinion to that site. It is so bullish that the same media will attack anyone who is affiliated with a candidate they do not endorse by going after private citizens.
Years ago when newspapers such as the Spokesman-Review were struggling, they went out and searched the area in order to capture independent bloggers like Bill McCrory in order contain those opinions and use them for their own gain by offering citizens/bloggers their own columns etc. Blogger meeting were created to form and control this small but growing community. Meanwhile, they started losing their own staff but retained some area bloggers, basically to boost their favor with the community and get some free content, but taking credit for “discovering” local writing talent. If you did not produce or you ended up in disfavor, your link is removed. Blogging sites came and went and reunited in other venues because mainstream sites like HBO no longer approved of their commentary or did not follow their lead like the loyal puppy dog they demanded. The paper was not about to risk publishing anything that was not in step with their own “visions.” Criticism was not welcome. A site like HBO did not want to take the chance to offer opposing opinions thus, it alienated and “coolered” many people who were interested in citizen journalism as well as offering their own educated comments to the site. When an article is published that may hurt their vision, it is put up with leading questions to destroy and attack it. Credibility was and is not wanted.
Unity is not easy when a main news source offers nothing but their own opinion that cannot be challenged, but only weakened by a backlash of vipers riding the coat tails of a spin doctor who is paid to cause the strife and turmoil. Nobody has divided this city but the shock jock journalism that begs for the negative feedback in order to drive local dysfunction and increase their page hits anyway they can. Pathetic.
Comment by Stebbijo — October 17, 2013 @ 6:49 pm
Stebbijo,
Thank you. Your comment was eloquent and very accurate. Unfortunately, it won’t resonate with The Cowles Corp., Stacey Cowles, or Gary Graham or or with the Hagadone Corp., Jim Thompson, or Mike Patrick.
Comment by Bill — October 17, 2013 @ 7:47 pm