Should we all get to know the ethical positions of the people running for Chattanooga city offices? History shows citizens often do not know where officials stand on ethical matters. Since all the incumbents are running again, perhaps we should ask questions to avoid more confusion and mayhem.
Be prepared. Here are a few questions for the people running for office:
Do you think the city needs to spend more time discussing lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transsexual privileges and rights?
Would you like to see a hiring quota based on gender identification?
Would you like to use tax dollars to build some special gender public bathrooms?
Is it okay for elected officials to use encrypted self deleting emails for public business?
If the city attorney and the mayor have a history of using encrypted self deleting text messages to conduct public business, should the city attorney use more city tax dollars to pay his old law firm for legal opinions on public records?
The city attorney is hired and fired by the mayor. The city attorney is also the city's ethics officer. Is it likely the city attorney would strongly oppose the mayor's personal agenda if it conflicted with anyone else?
Should the city's ethics officer be an ethical person with a basic working knowledge of conflicts of interest?
Should the city's ethics officer be a political appointee?
Should City Council members stifle public debate, by rushing the vote to approve the addition of potentially conflicted law firms for city business? According to press reports of the city council's public meeting, Councilman Chris Anderson wanted a quick vote and made moves to shut down discussion about law firm selection. Councilman Freeman indicated he already knew Councilman Grohn's concerns and communicated he "did not want to hear it again" in the public meeting. Councilman Ken Smith and Larry Grohn voted not to approve the action.
Are elected officials trying to keep citizens in the dark, or are they just stingy with their personal time in the public forum?
Please vote your conscience, because corruption and lazy politicians are elected when ethical people stay home on election day.
* * *
The first three questions pondered by Ms. Scott are irrelevant. Is she attempting to suggest that supporting those issues are unethical? Her views on ethics are not those of the majority of others. She can have her own personal ethics questions, but to seem like she is relegating a minority, such as the LGBTQ community, to an ethics question for those running for office is ignorant. It has nothing to do with the ability to govern on how someone views a minority unless their view is derogatory and they plan to repress said minority.
Maybe she should concentrate on how to help instead of hinder the LGBTQ community. Our "privileges and rights" she is so worried about are basic human rights and deserved. Candidates views on gender identity as a hiring quota are preposterous and again have nothing to do with ability to govern. Who is concerned about special gender public bathrooms? People just need to pee. Get over it.
Nobody has a right to force their views of ethics on others. Sounds like there is an underlying personal vendetta or feeling of bigotry. Just let it go.
Richard Hendricks Smith