As an incumbent being challenged by opponents without a voting record I am often in a difficult position. Opponents can say they would have done things differently but there is usually no way of knowing if those statements of fact or are simply campaign rhetoric until too late.

Fortunately for me, Mr. Smith’s response to The Citizen (June 28 edition) regarding rezonings makes such a determination possible. He wrote, “Any rezoning request should follow appropriate procedures which include review by professionals at the staff level and a recommendation by the planning and zoning commission ... While it is impossible to say they are inerrant, it would take a substantial preponderance of evidence to cause me to override their recommendations...”

Sounds great; however, in last week’s Kiwanis debate, he criticized my vote to allow a rezoning on Redwine Road which followed the very procedure he supposedly would not override.

The planning and zoning commission unanimously supported this rezoning, staff supported the rezoning because it followed the land use plan and the Board of Commissioners unanimously approved it.

Although he offers no “substantial preponderance of evidence to cause me to override their recommendations,” he told the crowd that he believed the rezoning did not follow the land use plan and that I should not have voted to approve it. Hmmm... campaign rhetoric?

In The Citizen (July 5 edition) Mr. Smith writes, “As a 30-plus-year CPA with extensive governmental training, I ask: Has any county auditor ever refused to issue an opinion, or issued an adverse opinion on the county’s financial report because of improprieties... I am told the answer is ‘no,’ so one would assume the sheriff’s procedures are reasonably adequate to safeguard the resources entrusted to his care.”

I don’t know who told him there have been no improprieties noted in the county audits, but the sheriff’s accounting procedures are regularly noted as a matter of concern. With such knowledge should one “assume the sheriff’s procedures are reasonably adequate” or should one ensure that they are more than adequate?

I’m not a CPA but as the guardian of your tax dollars, I would prefer to deal with real data not assumptions.

Do you want someone who embraces the land use plan? Then reelect me. Do you want someone who looks at every penny of your tax dollars? Then vote for Linda Wells. Promises made, promises kept — not campaign rhetoric.