Yesterday, a Republican leader of which I respect immensely, (we just happen to disagree on a list of candidates this election cycle), asked me why I am so “hateful” towards Mayoral Candidate Doris Gentry.
I do not believe I’ve ever been hateful that is never my intent. I have pointed out concerns I have of the candidates integrity and in doing what is right for the citizens she wants to represent. There seem to be discrepancies in her past, her stories while based on fragments of truth, are embellished upon, to the point of not being believable. (Claiming to have jumped from a 3rd story window handcuffed and bounced onto a canvas head first then lightly landed on the ground, was able to pull handcuffed hands to her front and then run off completely unharmed and unscatthed.) (I had a physical trainer that was an Olympic trials qualifier and NCAA award winning coach try to recreate the scene. He demontrated that it is IMPOSSIBLE without harming one self)
Document 1 attached shows Doris attempting to temporarily supress Freedom of Information requests.
Note: she does not recommend a time to restart those requests, her suggestion is a temporary ban until life gets back to normal. Is life normal yet Doris? Would you still suggest an ongoing supresson of FOI request? My gut is yes at least until the election is over for obvious reasons. Per her email to the city manager “people are home bored and thinking” Well Vice Mayor Gentry, you are darned right people are home and yes I hope they are thinking. Photo 1 is the document suggesting suspension of FOI requests for documents or open government. Where I come from that is considered a temporary suspension on freedom of speech and freedom of access to govement. As one whom wraps themself in the flag, I certainly don’t get how suspension of FOI requests is patriotic and serves the people of the community she wants to lead?
Photos 3 and 4 refer to Mayoral Candidate Gentry’s postion as an owner of Adtech but then claiming so has no idea what they do or where they are located. A question of judgement.
The question for me here is she wants to be leader of the city however in a deposition when asked, “Did you participate in the business of Ad Tech? Her response was ” Oh, heavens NO.” When asked Do you have an understanding of what Ad Tech was? He response in a legal deposition was “ No I don’t know what it does.” When asked do you know where the business was located? Her response under the threat of perjury was, “No I don’t.” So I’ll provide her the benefit of the doubt and assume she testified truthfully. However additionally we have to question her judgement. How do you list yourself as a BUSINESS OWNER in a resume yet not know where the business is located? I am and have been a stockholder in many companies. Even companies I purchase stock in or have been gifted. I am well aware of where they are located, what their business is and of what they produce or do. Most of us as informed investors want to know what we are invested in or as OWNERS as there is owner liabilities laws. Now let’s assume she was just gifted this stock. Fair enough one might not pay attention to it but then why would one place on their resume that they were an owner. In doing so that implies active participation. One can’t have it both ways. It’s simply a a case of judgement. I’ve made mistakes and certain have exercised poor judgement. I have no issue with a mistake or error in judgement. Just own that mistake. Ethically speaking if she claimed yes she was an passive owner of stock in a small company Adtech then it would be authentic. I would suspect her and her husband have owned stock in 100s of companies over the years. Active owner or passive owner that is the question of applied ownership?
Are my questions mean spirited? Not in the least, that is not the intention. I like my cousin Doris.
What I don’t accept is when the public is being mislead or freedoms are being potentially supressed by those in power. Or when one exasurates a story to the point of being implausable.
Leadership of a city requires that we have a mayor that represents ALL of the people. The leader has to inspire confidence in the processes and the instituions of government.
The three examples above do not provide me with the level of confidence that she respects the institution, the public nor the city she is asking for the privilage to represent. I am happy to be proven wrong with a simple response to each issue outlined by the candidate.
Chris Edwards, Executive Operations Coach & Author