By Bennett Hall, Corvallis Gazette-Times gazettetimes.com | Posted: Friday, February 17, 2012 8:00 am
"The Philomath City Council (Oregon) decided in May 2011 to stop putting hydrofluorosilicic acid into the municipal water supply, saying it had concerns about the safety of fluoride compounds and doubts about the wisdom of adding fluoride to drinking water...John Barlow of Citizens for Healthy Teeth, the sponsor of Measure 02-76, lodged a complaint Wednesday with the Oregon Elections Division alleging that the city was improperly attempting to sway voters in advance of the election..."
Ok, here's the timeline>>
1.) The City Council did their own research, prior to May 2011, having plenty of open, public discussions about it, and decided to take fluoride out of the city drinking water.
2.) Along comes the director for "Citizens for Healthy Teeth" starting a petition to put it back into the water with a public vote to be held on March 13, 2012.
3.) The City Council explained their position of why they voted the way they did in their own self-printed, quarterly City newsletter, and mailed it out to the residents with the monthly water bills--which was last Sept.'s issue
4.) Because of the opponents' petition filed after May and before Sept. to have an election in March 2012 about fluoride, the City put in their own self-printed, quarterly January 2012 newsletter an announcement about a town hall meeting for the public to debate the issue of fluoride (again) on Thursday, Feb. 23, 2012.
5.) The "Citizens for Healthy Teeth" accused the City of purposely trying to influence the residents with their explanation in the Sept. newsletter, with the article's author pointing out that, "The September edition was devoted entirely to the council’s rationale for discontinuing fluoridation, while the January edition contained a brief notice of a town hall meeting on the issue."
6.) "These (City's) actions were designed to discourage Philomath voters from signing the initiative petition subsequently approved by the circuit court, and to influence the outcome of the election scheduled for March 13, 2012, the complaint charges."
7.) The complaint continues accusing the City of taking a position on the matter while also using "city employees and resources" to do it....
8.) ...and then, of all things, accused the City of being "wrong" to post in their January City newsletter about the town hall meeting "because only the anti-fluoridation position will be represented there."
9.) "Citizens for Healthy Teeth" verified that they were invited to have speakers and take part in the town hall debate, but they declined their invitation, and then accused the city manager of working with the pro-fluoride people to have speakers at the town hall meeting next week.
10.) "Citizens for Healthy Teeth" director got mad and complained to the Oregon Elections Division, stating that >> “It seems to me that both elected officials and city officials have caused other city employees to put out what’s basically campaign literature on city time and at city expense,” Barlow said. “There’s a role for public entities to play in terms of education. I just think this went well beyond that.”
11.) The Elections Division says they've started an investigation, and states that, "If Philomath officials are found to have violated election law, the city would be fined $75."
What's wrong with this picture?? Sore losers? Diversionary? Crying "victimhood?" Granted, the City's elected officials ----
- did "take a position" after research and public debates on the matter of fluoride and voted it out last year, May 2011;
- did give their explanation for voting it out in their own self-printed, quarterly, city newsletter in Sept. because the proponents' petition to bring fluoride back had been filed in court prior to Sept., but after the City's quarterly newsletter went out in May;
- did arrange to have a town hall meeting for the residents to debate the issue all over again in February because of the proponents-for-fluoride being granted a ballot election for it in March;
- did announce same-said town hall meeting in their own quarterly city newsletter in January;
- did invite the proponents-for-fluoride to speak at the town hall debate;
- did receive from the proponents-for-fluoride a decline to their invitation, with the proponents-for-fluoride admitting to the media that they declined the invitation to speak;
- and finally, yes, because it IS a city town hall event that the city scheduled, the city manager official did "work with" the remaining people who will be speakers at the city town hall event (who else would have the authority to do it?)
The 7 of the 8 comments below the article give more details of how the city officials arrived at their decision to stop using "fluoride" in their water, including public debates before their decision and all summer long even after they stopped it, but the proponents still filed the court complaint against them. The article's author provided his name, phone number, and email address >
Contact Bennett Hall at 541-758-9529 or bennett.hall@gazettetimes.com
And the contact information for the Oregon Elections Division, Secretary of State Kate Brown >>
Contact Elections Division
Open 8 AM - 5 PM, Mon - Fri
(503) 986-1518
(866) 673-VOTE
elections.sos@state.or.us
255 Capitol St NE, Ste 501
Salem, OR 97310-1306
(503) 986-1518
(866) 673-VOTE
elections.sos@state.or.us
255 Capitol St NE, Ste 501
Salem, OR 97310-1306
No comments:
Post a Comment