Earlier this week, I wrote an opinion piece suggesting that there is no positive outcome to be had by commissioners using their personal money to fund a lawsuit against themselves and then spending your taxpayer money to defend against that suit. I walked through my logic as to why this is true regardless of whether you 100% support solar, 100% oppose solar, or fall somewhere in between. I maintain that there is no possible positive outcome (regardless of how you feel about solar) where the commissioners continuing to sue themselves is beneficial to the county. This is true regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit. Based on this, I called for the commissioners to drop their role as plaintiffs on the lawsuit.
At first, I was delighted to see that Mary Pemberton wrote a response and looked forward to reading what part of my logic she disagreed with. However, after working through her 1,100+ word submission, I was disappointed. While she definitely articulates her anger at a number of things and is clearly upset that anyone would suggest the commissioners’ lawsuit isn’t in the best interest of the county,at no point does she address the concerns I raised in my argument. She doesn’t point to any possible outcome where the county benefits by the commissioners maintaining their position as plaintiffs on a lawsuit they started before they were elected.
She mentions a number of grievances with how decisions have been made in the past. She calls on people to join her in unsubscribing from the places that publish her opinion because…they publish people’s opinions. She expresses her fear of fires, claims that Halloween is a “scary date” for signing contracts, complains about the county being responsible for maintaining roads, and offers her insights the lifespan of power inverters. There is plenty to read on various subjects, but there is one thing missing. She doesn’t dispute my argument. There is no mention of a path forward where an overall positive state is achieved by the commissioners’ continued use of their own money to pay for a lawsuit against the county and use your taxpayer money to defend against their suit.
My original point still stands. No matter how you feel about what has happened in the past, we need to look at where we are today and think rationally about where different paths will take us in the future. Whether you share Mary’s outrage at past commissioners, whether you give any credence to her concerns about “scary dates,” whether you are indignant or indifferent about solar, the path forward is based on where we are today. It branches from here. One path has the commissioners continuing to join a few plaintiffs against the county and burn taxpayer money to defend against that suit. There are no possible good outcomes for the county on that path. But there is another path that has them drop off the suit and continue working to achieve the best results for everyone they represent.
Mark Shead
Note: FortScott.biz publishes opinion pieces with a variety of perspectives. If you would like to share your opinion, please send a letter to news@fortscott.biz.
I was simply expressing a differing opinion and pointing out reasons why everyone should be concerned about the contracts that the Former County Commissioners signed with the developers. Why it came to the point of having no choice but a lawsuit. I did make a statement about how there could be a positive outcome from the lawsuit, that being that our “Leaders” as well as residents in the county stop allowing the “Good Old Boy system” – mismanagement and poor leadership, contracts and “deals” that are detrimental to the taxpayers (even though they may benefit certain individuals) etc.. “Sometimes progress is difficult”
Mary – I appreciate that you took the time to write a letter to articulate your position. I hope it encourages others to do the same.
If the goal of the lawsuit is to stop a “Good Old Boy system” then I see no way it will accomplish that if it is being moved forward by the current commission against the current commission. If things were done wrong as you claim, then it needs to be aimed at the individuals who did those things, not the position they no longer occupy.
Either way, thank you for sharing your thoughts.
The most logical. Responsible. Relevant action that should occur immediately is for Judge Fisher to gavel this case to the trash based on how defective the case is on the record. Suing themselves, others not parties allowed to record motions for discovery…stop wasting resources, end it and when you have been damaged and want to sue…sue!