Dear Editor:
1) When I wrote, in response to The Dispatch editorial
assaulting Councilman Charles Morales, I said the comments were
”
vicious, mean-spirited, self-righteous, smug, sanctimonious and
completely myopic.
”
I thought, but didn’t say: it’s doubtful the editorial could
sink any lower.
I was wrong!
Dear Editor:
1) When I wrote, in response to The Dispatch editorial assaulting Councilman Charles Morales, I said the comments were “vicious, mean-spirited, self-righteous, smug, sanctimonious and completely myopic.” I thought, but didn’t say: it’s doubtful the editorial could sink any lower.
I was wrong!
The Our Voice diatribe (Elected to take a stand on tough issues – Aug. 6) is far lower. In savagely criticizing and condemning Councilman Craig Gartman for recusing himself on the Day Road annexation, the editorial board revealed the most despicable traits of smear journalism.
(For the readers – Craig Gartman is my stepson. He did not ask/suggest/order/demand I write this letter nor does he know/direct what I write on any issue.)
One basic tenet of ethical journalism: verify the facts. The editorial doesn’t seem interested in facts or truth – simply in ranting hysterically without knowledge nor understanding. Did the writer, review the Council meeting videotape when the vote was taken to hear specifically why Gartman recused himself? No! Did Gartman receive a call regarding why he recused himself? No! Were the specific state-mandaded statutes reviewed pointing out when an elected official must recuse him/herself because of conflict-of-interest? No! You just spewed out your ignorance and hatred because Gartman didn’t play by your concept of “ethical behavior.”
You showed your bias with your first sentence – “What is with the overblown and unfounded conflicts of interest charges floating around City Hall these days?” Geee, did you ever think to ask Mayor Tom Springer to point out exactly what they are and who’s guilty of voting when they’re in a conflict-of-interest? No! It’s easier to mindlessly insult, criticize and condemn rather than learn the truth.
You ignorantly rip into Gartman’s recusal as “… an excuse to duck voting on or even discussing one of the most important and controversial issues …” It was, after all, a “… nonexistent ethical lapses and conflict of interest ghosts” which are “… ridiculous – and reek of ulterior political motives.” Why then didn’t you indicate what specific “ulterior political motive” Gartman had in adhering to the law and his principles in recusing himself? Or is it more easy to simply degrade ethics when you have none?
You continually show your lack of understanding when you whine “The fact that Gartman sometimes substitute teaches for the Gilroy Unified School District is completely irrelevant …” Are you truly that ignorant of the state laws as to so cavalierly dismiss them?
You piously weep “Gartman should be embarrassed.” By what? Adhering to principle rather than yielding to hysterics such as yourself? You snarl that “In reaching for a paper tiger, Gartman did a disservice to the community and his fellow council members.” What hypocrisy you spout so self-righteously when it’s the bile-belching blather you bellow that does a massive disservice to the community.
If there’s been true “disservice to the community and to council members” it comes from those members who vote on specific issues towards benefiting their own community holdings.
You cry out “Expecting our elected city officials to demonstrate the courage of their convictions and take straightforward stands on important issues is basic.” Then why your nonsensical viciousness toward Gartman? He honored his convictions based on his knowledge of what conflict-of-interest means and represents. Unlike your views, it seems Mayor Springer and Craig Gartman may well be the only elected representatives in Gilroy adhering to ethics, principle, integrity and honesty.
2) How many readers noticed, in Eric Leins’ “Surpise mayoral candidate – Aug. 6,” the response of mayoral candidate Al Pinheiro? When announcing his candidacy Mr. Pinheiro praised himself highly, emphasizing his “leadership” skills. So how does this “leader” look upon his competition? Leins writes: “Pinheiro said Hohenbrink’s candidacy puts him in a different campaign mode and he will meet with his campaign committee in the next few days.”
That’s leadership? Is Gilroy being asked to vote for a “campaign committee candidate” or an individual able to make the hard decisions as a leader? Where does Mr. Pinheiro really stand … if he stands at all?
James Brescoll, Gilroy
Submitted Tuesday, Aug. 12
