Homer City Council member Doug Stark may not have intended to use his position as an elected official to influence the outcome of Tuesday’s election, but the letter he sent to about 600 registered city voters did a good job of creating that perception, particularly since he added “Councilman” after his name.
Elected officials certainly don’t give up their rights to free speech (or letter writing) once they take office, but they do have the added responsibility to consider the effects of their words and actions on the body on which they sit and on those people whom they represent.
In the case of Mr. Stark’s letter, he did no one any good by sending his letter.
The council and the community were ill served because of the divisions the letter created. Mr. Stark must continue to work with the incumbent he criticized and who won re-election. He must build bridges with the top vote-getter for a council seat, a person his letter indicated needed some on-the-job training on a board or commission before she served on the council.
Mr. Stark also unwisely mentioned the party affiliation of one of the candidates — as if it mattered. The council best serves the community as a nonpartisan body. Who cares who’s an “R” and who’s a “D” and who’s something else? The council must work together for the good of the community — without party politics coming into play at all.
No one expects council members to agree on every issue, but council members should be able to disagree respectfully and work through their disagreements for the good of the community. Mr. Stark’s letter will make that harder to do.
Mr. Stark creates even more divisions when he tells a Homer News reporter he would be more concerned if the people upset about his letter “were substantial in the community.” What does it take to be “substantial”? Let’s hope a majority of voters is “substantial” and worth Mr. Stark listening to.
Mr. Stark’s letter shows a basic lack of trust in his constituents’ judgment. The majority of voters disagreed with his assessment of the four candidates. That should serve as a wake-up call for Mr. Stark. Maybe he needs to revisit exactly who he represents. His letter and the outcome of the election shows he is not in step with the majority of those voting.
Mr. Stark downplays the outcry over his letter as a tempest in the teapot of local politics. He has misread the situation. At the very least, using the word “councilman” on his letter was poor judgment. At the worst, the letter was an abuse of his office.
Mr. Stark should not wait for the ethics complaint against him to go to the council. He needs to apologize to the community and the four council candidates for his actions. The council also needs to take the complaint seriously and consider appropriate action.
We encourage you to add your comments. To prevent spam, comments with links are manually approved during the normal business day. Please be respectful of others with your comments, bear in mind anyone in the community may be reading your comments.
