Recall effort part of the process

Hundreds of Homer residents signed recall petitions in March after three council members unwisely decided to declare Homer a Sanctuary City. The council members changed the wording of the resolution and tried to pass if off as an “inclusivity” document that promoted love and kindness while rejecting hate and intolerance. Their true intention leaned more toward promoting a nationwide “progressive” agenda that rejects and resists the Trump presidency.

For the past month those who support the recall have been labeled unkind, hateful, disrespectful, vicious and many other names. The recall is to “punish” and/or prohibit the free speech of our elected officials, according to other “progressives.” They claim the recall is hurting our community, and a waste of money.

What is hurtful to our community is this mindset that this is a war that must be won, and the three council members under recall have brought in the big guns — the ACLU — declaring that their right to free speech has been violated.

It is Aderhold, Lewis and Reynolds vs. the City of Homer. The council members who have been praised for their service to the city are now suing the city, and asking that the city pay for their legal fees. Citizens have called for a recall vote, and this is nothing more than to block that vote. The three have claimed all along that their actions were just part of the process and the way business is done in government, but when hundreds of residents disagree it seems that they no longer believe in the democratic process — which is what the recall is.

Catriona Reynolds has said that she thought about resigning, but changed her mind when a friend told her not too, because “they” would win. So the “war” goes on. It began when they chose not to include anyone who thought differently in the discussions about the resolution. They denied that this was a Sanctuary City resolution because they knew the term was divisive and would cause problems. Now they refuse to own their mistakes. Enough people have agreed that their integrity and motivation is in question and the community should be allowed to vote, but the three continue down the divisive path.