Dear Editor:
Regarding Fred Swift’s article on Jan. 5 titled “Schwartz Elected President in split vote”, I would like to state in my opinion this was a philosophical disagreement and not one of revenge or adversary.
By way of explanation: There are those on the council that feel the election of our officers should be one of competition rather than one of rotation. I believe the thinking of those wanting open election is: If I as a counselor think I’m best suited for the presidency I should be able to run for it. I don’t think that was necessarily Councilor Beaver’s motivation. I think he was more interested in establishing a new system. My reasoning for voting for the status quo is; if we continue this pattern of rotation, or one like it no single person or persons will have a monopoly on the office.
I voted to abstain when Councilor Beaver was nominated. I did this as there is no way I could vote against Brad. Whether one likes him and the way he votes, or think he needs to lighten up, I can tell you without reservation there is no other councilor more knowledgeable, hardworking or engaged than Brad. He and I have had many disagreements as have most members, but it’s a disagreement then it’s over. I think the entire council would agree Councilor Beaver is a taxpayer’s best friend.
I voted for Councilor Schwartz because he was next in the rotation, and he is well qualified and has many of the same attributes.
There ARE many and varied strong personalities on the council, but the claim that there is much animosity between we council members is quite simply not the case.
Respectfully,
Paul Ayers
Hamilton County Council
District 4