By John R. Nay
Seeing that Page One(1) above-the-fold photo in last week’s Journal Era prompted a mix of emotions in me – all negative. The picture of the vandalism at the new park facilities left me unhappily surprised, saddened, disappointed, irritated, and even a little embarrassed (remembering stupid/mean/destructive things that I did as a kid). I felt feelings of revulsion at the senseless acts by young men (I’m assuming), maybe inebriated, who even now may be wondering “What a dumb thing to do! What the heck was I thinking?” When you saw that photo, what were your first thoughts?
I assume every reader remembers the old line that “A picture is worth a thousand words.” That saying, or something similar, has been used across centuries and cultures. There’s even an old Chinese adage that has been translated as “One showing is worth a hundred sayings.” There’s a reason that Pulitzer Prize categories include both “Breaking News Photography” and “Feature Photography.” Any readers “of a certain age” will remember a 1973 Pulitzer Prize-winning photo officially titled “The Terror of War,” but unofficially remembered as “Napalm Girl” that caused international feelings of revulsion that written words could not have caused. But I digress (apologies to other columnists for that!).
What next regarding the damage at the park? Maybe repairs are already completed, presumably at taxpayer expense. What do “we” do to prevent it from happening again? Would it help to put up signs saying something like “Help Keep Your Park Nice?” to help remind visitors that it belongs to them too? I suppose there could also be a sign outlining the penalty for public mischief. Perhaps a trail cam or two can be placed outside, in or on nearby trees, to take pictures of people or vehicles arriving or departing.
As for those who committed the vandalism, the accompanying article said that the police have a couple suspects – an adult and a youth – one of whom has confessed. I’m going to assume that they were out “on a lark, and probably aren’t bad at heart. Assuming this is a first offense, there’s no need, in my view, to “drop the hammer,” on them. I’d like to see them make a public statement of apology, agree to compensatory hours of community service (picking up trash in the park or along the roadside would be appropriate), and paying at least some of the financial cost of the repairs. Then perhaps they could be told: “learn from this and now we’ll put it behind us.” Fair enough?
Entirely separately, did you read the Page 2 article/editorial by Mike Wilcox in last week’s issue? If you didn’t, I recommend going back and reading it. After seeing the title “Why Good People No Longer Want to Serve in Local Government,” I confess that I was prepared not to like the article beneath it. Nevertheless, I decided to go ahead and read it, just like sometimes you “must eat your vegetables,” when you’d rather just eat cookies or cake. Also, I thought that if I found areas of disagreement, it might provide fodder for comment in my next article. The fact is, however, that I found myself mostly in agreement with Mr. Wilcox’s point. It was just the title that I didn’t like. The title uses too broad a brush, because if “Good People no longer want to serve”…well, who does that leave? The implication then would be that those left serving in local government can’t be counted on to be “good.” In fact, however, that wasn’t what Wilcox was saying. Some of the points he made are so important that I feel like I must repeat them.
Wilcox’s opening line was “Local government may be the most important level of government and the one most people understand the least.” My only disagreement is with the words “may be.” After 36 years working for the federal government followed by [some] years here, I am convinced that indeed: “Local government IS the most important level of government and the one most people understand the least.” Local officials certainly “make decisions that directly affect our daily lives,” much more so than state and federal officials.
A problem that Wilcox cited is that some localities have trouble finding “younger people willing to become candidates.” Actually, sometimes that may not be a real problem, if a local business owner retires after a lengthy period of running his/her business and decides to run for local office. It may be an asset that such a candidate has experience. Still, Wilcox’s point is valid in the sense that young people may dream of being a senator, governor, or even President, but very few consider being township clerk or county commissioner. Wilcox also noted that “many local offices are technically considered part-time positions, but the responsibilities can resemble those of a full-time job.” Absolutely true, especially complying “with an ever-growing list of state [and federal] requirements.” Maybe we need to review the pay of local officials? But of course we taxpayers look closely at pay, and often squeal about our taxes if pay raises are mentioned.
Wilcox also noted that “Public meetings have become more confrontational….but there is a difference between accountability and abuse….Questioning an election procedure is legitimate; accusing a local clerk of corruption without evidence is not.” I’m happy to say that in our neck of the woods, I think there isn’t as much of the nastiness, personal attacks, and “payback,” that have become a problem elsewhere and in Washington. Still, with elections less than six weeks away, we’re likely to track state and federal elections with more interest than we do local ones. We’re already stuck on the receiving end of a plethora of nasty mailings and TV commercials. I suggest carefully reviewing the actual statements of all candidates for office – not just the cherry-picked ads by his/her opponents – to see what candidates at all levels really stand for. Using the TV “Mute” button also is a good first step.
