Demand transparency from elected officials
Change was a big theme of last week’s municipal elections. As a result, there will be a some political newcomers taking office effective Nov. 3.
In Russellville, Lonnie Freeman will take over the District 4 seat formerly held by Dexter Hamilton.
In Phil Campbell, Greg Williams will be the new mayor after he beat Eddie Marbutt, who was appointed to the seat in April after Michael McQuary resigned. Marbutt had previously been serving as the Place 3 councilman.
Meegan Scott was elected to Place 1 after Barry King chose not to seek re-election, and Place 5 went to Thomas Inman after Philip King did not file for re-election.
And in Red Bay, challenger Mike Shewbart defeated incumbent Mayor Charlene Fancher.
And in council Place 3 election, challenger Jonathon Strickland will square off against incumbent Herbert Trulove in a runoff on Sept. 23.
When you have sweeping changes such as this, it’s generally believed the electorate has sent a clear message to those elected.
There are some key elements of sweeping changes in an election. It’s a sign that voters had grown tired of the status quo, or they did not approve of the ways some things have been handled in the past 4 years. It could indicate they were bothered by the failure of their elected officials to openly share their decision-making processes, policies, and operations in a manner that allows the public to understand those decisions.
In short, they didn’t feel their officials were accountable to the electorate.
Public officials need to remember one simple but very important message: It is the public’s money they are spending, and those funds need to be spent in a responsible way.
And at every step of the way, our elected officials need to be gauging the feelings of their constituents before those decisions are made, and not after they have voted to spend those funds. More public meetings to discuss major projects should be held.
Voting for a major project without giving the public the right to weigh in on that decision is not transparency.
So, what happens when government bodies aren’t proactively disclosing their plans, making public records readily available to the public, and don’t clearly communicate their intentions to the voters?
When you don’t have transparency … that leads to speculation. And that leads to public distrust.
An equal concern is the feeling that council members should be in lockstep with their mayors.
What constituents want most from their leaders is a representative that is not afraid to vote against an issue that is not in the best interest of their district and/or the city or town overall. Just because a mayor, or any other council person for that matter, supports certain actions is not reason enough to vote like everyone else just so you can be seen as a member of a unified team.
There are times to be unified and there are times when council members should ask hard questions and seek clarification that can then be shared with their constituents. Delaying a vote to do just that or voting against a project is not a sign of weakness. It shows constituents you are willing to go against the grain when necessary to get more information that can be shared with those who elected you to do just that.
