A single issue candidate? Not so much.

This is a cross post from Transparent Payson, as with all conversations, it deals with a wide variety of topics.  Figured it would fit here?  Some people say “single issue.”  Nope.  Not even a little bit.

Just some of the issues?

The method of the Rumsey plan
Follow the established process. (The process in our town is broken.)
No bid contracts
Intimidation by Town Legal
Grand plans while basic services fail or remain underfunded.
Broken promises by elected officials
Vendors “wagging the dog”

Those are real issues.

Read below for the full context.

Transparent Payson was formed to address real issues.

Recently we were engaged in a conversation on Facebook that provided that opportunity. We always welcome feedback and intelligent conversation. We appreciate Ms. Bollier’s voice and welcome her input. The full conversation may be found here. There is some overlap on outside issues, as with any conversation, but 401 and 402 are ultimately about starting the “repair process” of a broken system.

Christine Bollier I’m sorry I misspoke. It was the email to the Globe mayor and council as part of an exchange with LaRon. Although I have not met you I’ve seen many of your exchanges with people online and if this is Mr. Aal I’m speaking with, I saw your lack of respect for the group at the chamber of commerce lunch. I was there to hear you and the other candidates speak and you had nothing to say. It was very dissapointing. It seems that this is the only issue you are running on.

I have done my research on this issues. It’s important to me, it’s important to our town. I’m involved in many groups, and I have a family so I don’t have time to write up cited posts as to why I believe, based on information I’ve found that this is a bad idea.
Image may contain: text

And our reply:

Transparent Payson Christine Bollier, Good morning, please excuse the delay, sometimes the pesky day job comes first. Yes, this is Jeffrey.

The emails of December clearly sought input, that may change your view of the ability to consider we don’t? To that end, you may be surprised that the initiatives went through many revisions prior to submission. I am hard pressed to think of any requested modification that was not incorporated. The initial goal was to address the issue via A.R.S.. That is still on the table. There is slight potential the initiatives will result in “special elections” we worked hard to minimize that as much as possible and still capture large debt obligations.

Had the Town been more forthcoming in the finance plan, the initiatives could have been crafted more precisely. As a reminder, the Town’s response was “finances are unknown” for an extended time. That certainly appears incorrect based on the email exchange of Mr. Garret and Mayor Swartwood? The financing plan was known: The Town elected not to discuss or disclose it.

Lack of respect at the Chamber Lunch? The Chamber asked for very specific talking points. “S.M.A.R.T. Goals.” I was the only candidate that tried to honor that request and at least addressed the Chamber’s request. As to the time, nine candidates at nine minutes becomes overwhelming. The original Chamber request was seven minutes. Mayor Swartwood’s video ran nine, so all were given nine. Was Mayor Swartwood’s unilateral decision to run long disrespectful to the Chamber, guests, or other candidates? Was it symbolic of a lack of respect for others? Our goal was short and succinct. We will disagree that my approach was “disrespectful.”

As to a one issue candidate? Far from it. The Rumsey Plan is clearly the most divisive issue. We can all agree we want what is best for the community. The method of the plan is the real issue, and again most symbolic of the issues facing our town. Had the process been followed, correctly and transparently with RFP / RFQ, etc., our group may well not be in existence. An RFP / RFQ was clearly in the works and abandoned. The process in our town is broken. No bid contracts, intimidation by Town Legal, grand plans while basic services fail or remain underfunded. Broken promises by elected officials, vendors “wagging the dog.” Those are real issues.

The initiatives worked within the confines of the rules to start to repair the process. We apparently disagree on the value of the initiatives, but I trust we can agree that the process, in this case Citizen’s voting on the root funding issue, is a good start? I also trust that most value democracy and their ability to have input into the process.

I look forward to meeting you at some point, you are clearly bright, engaging and informed. I appreciate your input and concerns.

Jeffrey Aal

We encourage that you look at the full discussion. Again, it may be found here.

Real Issues