Letters To the Editor
An apology but no changed opinions
Published on Thu, Aug 26, 2010Read More Letters
To The Eagle:
I apologize personally and publicly to Tom Doumit, Town Attorney and Ruth Doumit, Town Councilwoman, if I offended or harmed them or impugned their character by my opinion letter published by The Eagle, August 12, 2010 in regard to and in opposition of the almost $900,000 town amphitheater project and its ongoing maintenance costs.
While I did not name them, as I said in that letter, "The town attorney and councilwoman are both good people and I consider them to be my friends. I take no joy in writing this letter..." I have not changed any of my opinions expressed in that letter.
An "appearance" of a conflict of interest by a public official is sufficient to void a governmental action. Participation in the decision making process by a person who is potentially interested or biased is wrong. Participation need not be conversational, it can be "...a smile or frown, or a nod of the crown." Therefore, the official should excuse him or herself from the meeting prior to discussion of the matter and not return until the matter is concluded.
After over 40 years of public service, I try to avoid public meetings as do the majority of citizens. I get my information from The Eagle and my friends. I still believe that all of us, you and I, should be free and able to publicly express our opinions on public matters or officials.
George Hanigan
Cathlamet
I apologize personally and publicly to Tom Doumit, Town Attorney and Ruth Doumit, Town Councilwoman, if I offended or harmed them or impugned their character by my opinion letter published by The Eagle, August 12, 2010 in regard to and in opposition of the almost $900,000 town amphitheater project and its ongoing maintenance costs.
While I did not name them, as I said in that letter, "The town attorney and councilwoman are both good people and I consider them to be my friends. I take no joy in writing this letter..." I have not changed any of my opinions expressed in that letter.
An "appearance" of a conflict of interest by a public official is sufficient to void a governmental action. Participation in the decision making process by a person who is potentially interested or biased is wrong. Participation need not be conversational, it can be "...a smile or frown, or a nod of the crown." Therefore, the official should excuse him or herself from the meeting prior to discussion of the matter and not return until the matter is concluded.
After over 40 years of public service, I try to avoid public meetings as do the majority of citizens. I get my information from The Eagle and my friends. I still believe that all of us, you and I, should be free and able to publicly express our opinions on public matters or officials.
George Hanigan
Cathlamet