Call the police! Sound the alarms! Shut down the streets! A THEFT HAS OCCURRED IN EDDYSTONE! Lock your doors people, arm yourselves, and prepare to fight a revolution against the rising tide of thievery amongst our neighbors. The Endorsed Republican Party put their platform literature out this weekend. And it is strikingly similar to the RRPOE platform, which has been on their website for weeks.
A heist of platforms! Embezzlement! Copyright infringement! Armed theft robbery! Grand larceny! Assault on a thought! HELLLLLLLPPPPPPPPPP!
I might be exaggerating this just a bit. However, what should not get lost in my gross overstatement is that even though the Orr people put out their literature this weekend, it really did not help me understand what they were hoping to do. They use big words like “positive change,” which sounds like the phrase another group used when they actually changed something in the town. They use words like “Fiscal stability,” which sounds really good. Except Orr neglects to mention the fact that we have not had a tax increase in almost a decade (that is pretty stable). My personal favorite is how they wrote about accuracy and accountability, yet they ignore the fact that the only some people are held accountable (SEE: AGREED UPON PROCEDURE TO NOT INVESTIGATE ALL PAYROLL ACCOUNTS). They also talk about recreation, policing, and job creation. All of these ideas were mentioned on the RRPOE website long before any literature went out.
Which, let’s be honest, is not really a big deal. There was no theft. This is not something to get really upset about.
But, it does make me wonder, if Ralph Orr had all of these great ideas, why has he sat on them for so long? He has been Mayor for how many years? 10. What has he done in 10 years to enhance Eddystone? The drug dealers will say that he has understaffed the police department, eliminated the bike patrol, and made the streets much easier for them to work on.
Since both teams practically have the same platform right now, I guess this election is going to boil down to which team I trust to implement increased recreation, increased policing, and ensure accountability.
They say increased recreation. Practically his entire team is on the recreation board, albeit they have only been there a few months. If increasing recreation is what they want, then they should stay where they are on the RECREATION BOARD. They can increase recreation without being on Council.
Increased policing: How many years has Ralph Orr led an understaffed police force? Seriously, you can’t say increased policing with a record like his as a mayor and expect to be taken seriously.
Ensure accountability: Umm….ensuring accountability for everyone is not the same as a witch-hunt for a few. If you want accountability, then hold everyone, even yourself, to a certain standard. Can Orr honestly say he has stood for accountability when he literally excluded his best friend from an agreed upon procedure investigating payroll? Can Kerns really say that he is about being held personally accountable for his actions?
Orr’s team can say the same words as the RRPOE. What he can’t do, though, is hide from his 10 years of neglect. It has to say something to the community that 3 of the 4 members of Council chose to start their own party rather than run with him. And the 1 who chose to run with him has been pining to get elected into something for years but has been unsuccessful in doing so and really is only worried about getting himself elected. Two years ago, Kerns screamed (loudly) about Orr and his weak leadership. One year ago, Orr kicked Kerns off the ballot for Committeeman. This year, they are on the same ticket. Desperate people do desperate things.
Call off the dogs. There is nothing to see here. It was a false alarm. No thievery. Team Orr is just using big words that sound good at an election time in an attempt to distract people from the 10 years of neglect this community has received while he has been at the helm.
You know what would flesh these ideas out, though?
A community meeting, debate, or whatever you call it, where the candidates could actually explain what their words mean. It would kind of be like sharing an action plan for the platform. If I were running, and I had a plan, I would not only want to share it, but I would want the opportunity to prove that my plan was superior to my opponents. Which makes me wonder….why is team Orr backing away from Kerns’ idea of a debate? Why has Kerns backed away from Kerns idea of a debate?
Perhaps it is because the word ‘debate’ sounds good, but in reality Team Orr knows that if they have to talk about an action plan, then they are in trouble. After all, look at the 10 years worth of inaction they would have to defend.