Speaking Personally -- A moot point?

Candidate questionnaires are commonplace for newspapers and elections.

 

So imagine my chagrin when a candidate for the Mountain View Board of Aldermen recently shared my newspaper's questionnaire without my permission or prior knowledge.

 

For the upcoming April 2 municipal elections, I submitted the questionnaires to all candidates in contested races as of March 8. The first response I received was from a candidate I had not included in the initial email, Judi Colter.

 

To my knowledge, she was running unopposed, so I did not include her. Unopposed candidates never appear in the election coverage I plan for the contested seats. Why would they?

 

I did not submit one to Mayor John Krasuski until his seat was contested last week. I did not submit them to any candidate in Willow Springs, all of whom are running unopposed. All their names, however, have appeared in our coverage of candidate filing and will be on the sample ballots you see in this issue.

 

Two phone calls after unexpectedly receiving Colter's answers, I learned a write-in candidate had appeared on the scene. Brigg Pierson is running for the same ward as Colter. According to Pierson, nobody leaked the questionnaire to him.

I sent it to him immediately.

 

Someone knew before I did that Colter had an opponent. Someone sent her the questionnaire.

 

And that someone was Vicki Carr. She told me so, in writing, when I asked her.

 

The information that appears in this newspaper and on its website is copyrighted material. The interviews and questionnaires I produce are proprietary work product that no one had the right to share.

 

This newspaper is a privately owned business, not a government agency. The work we do reports on public record, but it is not public record.

 

Carr defended her actions. "I did share it with Judi because she asked about it and did not have a copy," she said. "I saw no disclaimers nor did I sign any disclosures as to its privacy in any previous communication…As all candidates are being represented equally, isn't it now a moot point?"

 

No, it's far from a moot point.

 

Given the opportunity to ask me why Colter was excluded, or even to attack me for leaving her out, Carr instead chose to act in an underhanded way. She sent my questions to her friend, but not to her friend's opponent.

 

There was a chance for an integrity move, but she chose cronyism. She gave an unfair advantage to one candidate by sharing something that was not hers to distribute.

 

And she is seeking to represent the taxpayers of Mountain View.

 

On her own behalf, Colter called me to apologize. She said she didn't mean to be a smart-aleck and assumed it was a mistake or a maybe oversight on my part.

 

Carr, however, has never apologized. Her response is printed above. She dug in her heels and seemed to think she managed things rather neatly.

 

I disagree.

 

When you're headed to the polls on April 2, remember this candidate's actions. Reflect at length over what it might mean for her to have a one-in-four say over what happens in Mountain View and what happens with your tax dollars.

 

I don't know her opponent well enough to officially endorse him, but Carr's actions should give every voter pause. She does not seem fit for the responsibility of an alderwoman.

 

Think it over as you vote next week.

 

Or maybe it's a moot point.