EDITOR:

Over the past three years nationally, and locally we have been subjected to countless examples of incomplete information, purposely attenuated to cause us to complete the thought. This is evidenced by such statements as “Trump is an existential threat to our country”, but you aren’t told why and left to wonder just what “existential” means. “CO2 will cause the end of life on earth in a few years” and locally a letter from Sheree Annear (1/5/23) stating (regarding campaign donations to Dave Moyle) “Was he promised this money if he voted a certain way?” and questions concerning the selection between Lauren Wickman and Scott Graham for legal advice referring to it as “chaos” (presented as a declarative statement, not an opinion). Notable among these and numerous others (limitations prevent me from including more), are the “suggestions” of wrong doing. If I/we say it’s “wrong” then it is… You figure out why!

It goes something like this (and has as long as politics itself). A political loser, or one seeking to unseat an incumbent, issues a declaration (not an “opinion”) such as “Firing so-and-so was not deliberated in public and was unethical.” Again, this is an opinion not verified by facts or the consideration that the action was entirely appropriate to the duties of the employer. Internal decisions are commonly made as a matter of official business and it is assumed the consequences are for the betterment of (in this case Delta County) the whole.

We are now left with questions for which we have to make up our own answers (and as the original question was posed, we need to insert negative reasons). Who was fired and why? Why was this inappropriate? Why unethical? Etc. If you can be convinced that something truly “wrong” happened, you will come up with your own reasons to support the “wrongness” of the decision, even if all actions were appropriate and in the mind of the decision makers were “right” for the county.

Something similar was proposed (suggested, without validity) that the commission member(s) acted in their own self-interests, which were never delineated, it is now up to you to come up with what “you” think they might be. “Well… maybe he did it because… Yeah! That’s probably why!” You have now fallen into the toxic blame/guilt trap set by the opposition. Ethical??

When this happens enough and goes on for long the “lie” or “perception” become reality because you have unwittingly believed your own rationale whether right or wrong.

Having taught courses in Managerial Ethics and using examples very similar to the ones festering here over the past two years (and are constantly being resurrected), in my opinion, the commissioners acted within the duties of their office. Disruptions to the functions of the county were not due to these firings or the results of other decisions, but rather from the imposition of extreme requests for information, disruption of meetings and letters filled with assumptions and innuendo.

Michael A. Glass

Nahma