Things are heating up in the Gainesville Magisterial District over the attendance record of Peter Candland’s main claim to fame which is his service on Supervior John Stirrup’s budget committee.  Candidate Ann Wheeler has called in to question Candland’s attendance record.  Candland’s main  opponent in the Republican primary, Martha Hendley, was first to mention questionable attendance despite the  fact Candland claimed to have served on this committee for three years.  Several county folks have said his   attendance was sketchy as best.

Wheeler admonished  Candland for missing the last Wednesday night’s Haymarket Meet and Greet the Candidates.   Candland told the News and Messenger that he had notified the Haymarket town manager  that he would be unable to attend because of a business commitment.  News and Messenger reported:

 Wheeler sent out a press release after the forum, saying it’s “a disservice to the voters and the community to not show up to forums such as these.”

In the same breadth, Wheeler’s campaign staff released a Freedom of Information Act request of Candland’s three-year attendance record for the budget committee.

 

 The real issue that stuck in both Hendley and Wheeler’s craw seems to be that Candland cited that he served on Supervisor Stirrup’s advisory budget committee for three years.  According to the News and Messenger:

A News & Messenger study of e-mails sent by Candland to budget committee staff suggested that he didn’t attend at least two of the four meetings in 2011. He also appeared to miss at least two meetings early in 2010 and then sent a letter on Feb. 26 of that year hinting that he didn’t have time to serve anymore the rest of the year.

“As you’ve seen the last couple of months, my schedule has become more inflexible than the one I had last year. …At this point, it looks like I will need to step down and make room for someone else,” wrote Candland in his email to fellow committee staff Scott Chambers and Bob Pugh.

However, on his campaign website, Candland said he has been a member of the committee for the last three years.

Candland stated the following in an email sent to the News & Messenger on Friday: “I can’t really comment on my opponent’s fabrications and misrepresentations, but this is nothing more than Ann Wheeler trying to hide her support of Obama-style economic policies and government ‘stimulus’ spending from the voters.”

Pugh, the former chair of the committee,  said Candland was a well-liked member and regretted that his colleague couldn’t participate for most of 2010.

“He attended but several other members were more active,” Pugh said.

According to Pugh, the committee was comprised of some six individuals at any one time and that formal attendance and minutes were not taken at the meetings.

Ann Wheeler continued to question Candland’s sporadic attendance issues:  “whether that be tackling traffic congestion, reducing classroom sizes, or recruiting jobs, voters want a supervisor who will show up.”

Local Republicans, speaking on condition of anonymity,  have suggested that if Candland had more experienced campaign managers, he could have been steered away from hanging his hat on the budget committee, as a main reference,  especially with attendance being a problem as well as a couple of other strategic missteps. 

The attendance problem was brought to a head because Candland stated that he served three years on John Stirrup’s advisory budget committee and this issue   doesn’t seem to want to go away.  

65 Thoughts to “Gainesville candidates for supervisor spar over Candland’s attendance record”

  1. Steve Thomas

    Elena :Thanks for sharing Steve. I appreciate your candor. I understand the premise of being a party member and I guess that is why I am not one. Having had fundraisers for both R’s and D’s, that pretty much disqualifies me I guess No one would probably want me in their party!

    Elena,
    I wouldn’t say that. If as a publically declared independent you have supported members of different parties for various offices in the past, that shouldn’t matter. What matters is if you pledge your support for a particular party, you don’t support a candidate other than you party nominee going forward.

  2. Steve Thomas

    @Moon-howler
    “You can also go vote for quietly for someone else. Who would know?”

    Moon,
    You know the answer to that question…call me many things, and I will have to plead “guilty as charged”. Call me “unprincipled” and I will plead “not guilty”.

  3. @Steve, I don’t think it is unprincipled to refuse to vote for a candidate you don’t feel best serves the community, state or country.

    I have gone in the voting booth as a party member and voted for someone else. I didn’t trash the candidate, I didn’t do anything public. I just didn’t vote for the candidate. I felt I was acting on principle rather than the converse.

    That’s when I decided I might be better off as an independent.

    I actually found it more unprincipled, in my mind, to vote for someone I felt was a bad candidate simply because of party.

    Maybe the R rules are different than the D rules. In the world of D, what you do in the privacy of the voting booth is your own business.

  4. @Steve, when I was an R many years ago I didn’t sit on committee. I just claimed to be one and voted that way. It was in a day when things were cleaner and the worst you had to worry about was a third rate burglary, lying to Congress about troop kill and that kinda stuff. Things got too dirty for me with the political parties.

  5. So sports fans, how did it go last night at the Committee of 100? Preliminary reports in say there were clear winners. Who was there? Report in please.

  6. Steve Thomas

    @Moon-howler
    Moon,the rules are the same for “R”s. You can do whatever you want in the booth. No one will know except you. That is where principle comes in. I suppose you could cast no vote at all, so you wouldn’t be violating any principle, as you aren’t voting for someone else over your party’s candidate. To me, if I am a serving member of the local committee, and I vote for a “D” or and “I” when there’s and “R” on the ballot, that’s like Pete Rose betting on baseball.

  7. Need to Know

    @Steve Thomas

    Steve, I’m with you up to a point. In 1991, former KKK leader David Duke was the Republican nominee for governor in Louisiana. Would you have supported him or joined the many Republicans who publicly repudiated him and endorsed the Democrat?

  8. Steve Thomas

    @Need to Know
    I would have resigned from the Republican party, and became an “Independent” who mostly votes Republican. This way, I could vote my principles, without violating my principles. But, I would no longer claim to be a “Republican”.

  9. Need to Know

    @Steve Thomas

    I think the people who repudiated Duke were the true Republicans. If they had left, the party would then belong to people like Duke. Political parties, Republican or Democratic, must be based on values, beliefs, history, tradition, etc. Sometimes, people antithetical to what the party stands for are able to wrest control away from its true adherents. I don’t think they should resign or walk away when something like happens.

    One of the biggest problems in both parties, and the reason so many people are leaving the parties, are the facts that the parties demand such obedience, and that so many people put partisanship and victory ahead of what’s best for the nation or local community. If those who controlled the parties allowed for more free thought and opinion to prevail, along with general adherence to the party’s philosophy, they would be stronger and we’d have candidates more committed to serving the voters’ interests rather than partisan politics.

  10. Steve Thomas

    @Need to Know
    NTK,

    You make a great point. I think David Duke would represent the extreme, at least from my perspective. It would take something this extreme for me to go nuclear, and leave. But, I still contend those who [proudly stated]”couldn’t bring themselves to vote for McCain, because he’s not conservative” and wrote in “mickey mouse” (an actual case, from an actual member of the MGOP, who admitted this to me), yet still holds a membership in the MGOP, really isn’t in accord with the party principles. Look, if someone wants to be free to “vote the candidate, not the party” fine. We have a name for these folks. They are called “Independents”. Go be an independent. No shame in that. Just don’t pretend to be a loyal Republican.

  11. @Steve Thomas
    Does this change, in your mind, if the R candidate is simply not a good candidate?

  12. Lafayette

    If there’s an R behind the candidate’s name, then that makes them good enough for the loyalists of the Republican party. 🙂

Comments are closed.