It is obvious to anyone paying attention that the rhetoric associated with the current Carefree Town Council election, has not been conducted without resorting to personalization, character assassination or massaging of facts. I was taught that it is ok to offer competing ideas, etc. without denigrating the source of those ideas or the people who hold them. Tolerance for competing viewpoints is healthy, broadens our horizons and makes us better human beings. Ultimately one may not agree with them but that does not lessen who they are as individuals or, in this case, as Carefree residents. Yet that has not been the case in coverage of the competing candidates for Carefree Town Council.
Carefree Town Council Politics and Elections have been characterized by several alarming trends going back for at least a couple of decades. Preferred incumbents are supported with an online barrage of reasons to reelect these individuals while denigrating anyone challenging for open council positions. One of the primary sources of what can only be characterized as de facto propaganda for the incumbents is the online publication ironically labed as “Carefree Truth”. This online publication exhorts residents to vote for preferred incumbents while enthusiastically lobbying against challengers with innuendos and negative comments.
It is time for a change. Carefree residents need and deserve Council members who see themselves as change agents , as representatives of Carefree residents who desire leadership which envisions a future which enhances, not limits the future of our tiny community. Without revisiting valid points made by others on both sides, leadership and service is not solely within the prerogative of the current Council and Administration. I will also point out that experience, (time spent in office) is not synonymous with good leadership or good policy. The current Administration has made some decisions that are not in the best interest of Carefree, either short term or long term. To turn a blind eye to that reality and continue to insist such is not the case, is not only foolhardy but also does not serve the interests of all Carefree residents.
Good stewardship requires a lack of ego, it demands an enlightened approach which allows for discourse, difference of opinion and an acknowledgement that sometimes another approach or another vision is the most appropriate.
John Nimsky
