We found Team Orr’s online material. Unfortunately, just like the Recreation Board page, it is a closed group. This means that you cannot view it unless you are either “accepted” or“invited” into the group. The administrators of this site are some of the same administrators of the Recreation Board closed site, which leads me to believe that the “closed group” thing is not a mistake but a calculated decision to censor viewership.
It is genuinely concerning to me that a group of people expecting a vote of endorsement from the community thinks that exclusionary practices are acceptable leadership methods. I can’t say that I am surprised by Orr’s closed approach to politicking, as he started closing his rallies off to the public years ago. I am not surprised that Cocker, Bennett, Tompkins, or Donahue are going along with Orr’s ways because that is the way Orr works. You either do what he says, or he ignores you completely.
I am shocked with Kerns, though. I mean, here is a guy who literally wrote “Defender of the Constitution” on one of his many campaign websites. Just this week, he stated that he is a part of a group that opposes “…ALL RESTRICTIONS on free and honest expressions, most critically THOSE THAT INFRINGE ON POLITICAL DISCOURSE.” Not only does Kerns limit access to information, but based on what I have watched on his Facebook page, he censors critics of his political positions by removing their posts. This seems kind of hypocritical. Almost King George III like if you ask me. Maybe Kerns is for HIS free speech but not for equal rights?
On the other side, the reformers, as they call themselves, have an open website, an open Facebook page, and have openly invited the entire community to a rally at the corner of 7th and Eddystone Avenue on Sunday evening.
These little tidbits, the openness of the reformers compared to the closedoffedness (Like that word?) of Orr’s people show us how each team will lead if elected. You can’t call yourself a leader in American society if you are going to treat yourself like some maharajah who only surrounds himself with adorning fans and beheads the opposing infidels. Free speech is about allowing everyone to speak their mind; free speech is not limited to “the people that agree with you,’ unless of course you think you are a king.
Which brings me back to where I started. If one team says that they are for“free speech” but their actions limit the speech of people or access to information that may (or may not) disagree with them, what should I believe? Their words or actions? On the other hand, another team is open and forthcoming with information. They say they want to work with everyone and they are inviting everyone to talk. Their actions and words convey an identical message. I don’t have to wonder which to believe because they are sending one consistent theme.
As Election Day quickly approaches, I am asking myself two questions. First, "Which team's plan do I think is best for the community? I am also asking, “Which candidates are going to be able to work with the entire community?”