Wednesday, July 10, 2002

I would like to answer your questions and discuss them but first let's get something cleared up. I didn't say that your previous letter was a personal attack on me. I said that, when someone disagrees with you, you put a personal slant on it. I asked if this was necessary. What makes me say this?

Last year an issue was a four-way stop sign at Jenkins and Ellison roads. Commissioners and county staff put in a lot of effort on the issue. Our belief was that adding a four-way stop at this location might cause more trouble than it cured. Your comments were, "They just don't want to work with us," and, "It's that kind of arrogance that burns my tail."

This year, after a series of intense and serious discussions and negotiations about tax equity and the municipal prisoner agreement, you chose to call the county commission chairman "a liar."

In the letter I responded to, you said that because the newspaper editor questions annexation that he doesn't take the time to do any research, expresses his opinion based only on his perceptions, is confused or doesn't care enough to do his homework. And, you surely implied that his interest in this subject has some connection to mine.

Your latest letter contains more statements like this. I think I can take them as personal and as hostile.

All of these are comments you made against people who don't agree with you. In the first instance, there was no arrogance, there was no lack of desire to work with you; there was a difference of opinion. In the second, [Chairman Greg] Dunn represented to you the position that the commission, as a body, had asked him to make known to you. He brought back your position(s) to us.

That's what he's supposed to do. Nobody lied to you, least of all Greg Dunn. And, just because the newspaper editor or others don't agree with your position doesn't mean that they do not know what they are talking about nor does it mean that they are conspiring with someone else.

You said I asked for your support when I ran for the commission. That is true. You wanted me to agree with you on the Fairburn sewer issue, but I was not convinced that you were right. You had an issue that was important to you; you wanted to support someone who did agree with you. I wasn't and I'm not angry because you chose not to support me. As you know, I had remained pleasant and cooperative with you. But, judging by your last letter, you are certainly angry about it.

Your last paragraph explains things. You declare that you will fight until your last day in office against attacks. That's great. The problem is that differences of opinion and disagreement on issues are NOT attacks.

If you keep personalizing differences on issues and you keep saying that anyone who disagrees with you is arrogant or a liar or hasn't bothered to do some work on the facts, then any issue we work on will be more of a shouting match instead of a discussion. It's up to you.

Peter Pfeifer

County Commission Post 3

Back to Opinion Home Page | Back to the top of the page