April 10, 2010
Saturday

Dear Sitnews Editor:

Will the Ketchikan City Council have the courage to recognize that last Tuesday's special election was not a clear mandate from city voters to sell KPU Telecommunications? Major questions about this issue remain.

1. Why was it necessary to have a "special election" on this matter and force taxpayers to cover the additional costs? What was "so urgent" that it could not wait until the regular city/borough election in October? Could it be that those leaders in city government trying to shape the outcome found it easier to accomplish their scheme in a special election when fewer voters make it to the polls?

2. Why was the city's pre-election propaganda on this matter also funded at taxpayers expense, but did not allow space for the opposition to express their views?

3. The issue of excluding many KPU rate payers from this vote is very complicated, but should have been addressed to make an election as democratic and as fair as possible. Was anything ever said about this issue?
4. With the close outcome of this election and so few citizens voting, the process for calling "special" elections needs reform. Citizens and taxpayers need better controls over city management and elected officials.

5. Are Ketchikan citizens prepared to pay major increases for their telecommunications services if the KPU system is sold and privatized? How is the Ketchikan City Council going to continue its control over rate increases?

Perhaps the idea of mandating a 55% yes vote and a minimum percentage of voter turn-out to approve "special" election issues would help protect the community from whimsical decisions.

Robert D. Warner
Ketchikan, AK

Received April 08, 2010 - Published April 10, 2010

Viewpoints - Opinion Letters:

Webmail Your Opinion Letter to the Editor

SitNews ©2010
Stories In The News
Ketchikan, Alaska