Firefighters? Anyone?

[Smiling JOe]

Again;

Each of these candidates did their own research and answered the questions to the best of their ability. This is how we have always done it. It would not be fair to provide "questionnaire aid" to any individual candidate.

Asking for clarification did not disqualify a person for participating. Not submitting the completed questionnaire did. This was not a "public candidate's forum?. Our meetings are not public. One must be a member or be invited. To be invited this particular meeting one must first complete the questionnaire and submit it. Every other candidate did this....

We gave a questionnaire to every candidate who asked for our support.

This is confusing and sounds contradictory, but I'm not surprised given the other contradictions I've read.

 

[SoWalProfire]

First, let me say that I fully support anyone's, and group's, and even any union's decision to vote and campaign for candidates. One of the issues of concern, per the firefighter's post, dealt with an individual's right to campaign as he or she sees fit. The law is the law, and the candidates running in this local election cannot change it, whether or not it is right or wrong. Personally, I have no concern in their choice to support one person over the other. I will add that I could care less which Sheriff candidate your union supports, unlike someone said.

Second, I stand by my statement that by belonging to an organization doesn't mean that one agrees with the group. My example of ECAR shows that. ECAR will endorse candidates, and I am a member of ECAR, but that doesn't mean that I support the same candidates.

Thirdly, your website details how the union determines which candidates you endorse, but that is obviously not correct, and that is why I posed the question, which remains unanswered. Holding a note card questionnaire with a candidate's responses, according to your website, is not how you determine your candidate of choice, yet it is how you say you determined the candidates whom you endorse. Select your choice as you see fit, but don't try to tell us one thing, while your website says something to the contrary.

Lastly, it is my understanding that you wouldn't allow Alan the follow-up questions to best answer your questionnaire. You may find that he would have been the most supportive of the emergency/rescue services, yet rather than give him the chance, you have chosen to support another candidate, who may not be as supportive. That seems rather crazy, IMO. On a similar note, do I correctly understand that you never even delivered a questionnaire to candidate Bob Hudson (BCC, District 5)? I understand that you had candidates sign for the questionnaires, and that would mean that if he signed, you have proof that he received the questions and was given the opportunity to reply. My information is second-hand, and may be incorrect. Will you please set that record straight?

First - Thank you for supporting "even any union's" rights. (makes me wonder how you feel about ethnic groups)

Second - The difference between your groups and mine is that my "group" is called a "Union". The members of my group act as one (a unit, unified, together, Union) on any issue that you will ever be aware of. We thought so much of this ideal that we put it in our by-laws. We are more than just a business consort. We are not a social club. We are a brotherhood who trust each other with our lives. Our profession demands this. It's a firefighter thing. I don't expect you to understand.

Thirdly - I copied and pasted the text from our website to this board.

Lastly - (and I have answered this question at least once) We are not against Mr. Osborne. You may be entirely right. We may well have found that he would be more supportive of us. However, the reason he did not get our endorsement is that he would not complete the questionnaire as all the other candidates did without special treatment in the form us helping them answer the questions on our questionnaire. We have nothing against Mr. Osborne. If the majority of the voters put their faith in him, then he will have proven himself to be the best candidate for the position. Firefighters are Americans. We believe in the process.

And let's be clear. We are not hassling you about your choice. (I guess all the candidates you are backing completed your selection process to your satisfaction). So don't try to make our selection process seem invalid.

I am beginning to wonder what your real interest in this is. You seem awfully intent on diminishing any support for any candidate other than your own.

Do you own property in Driftwood Estates?

 

[seagrovegirl]

Sounds straight forward to me....I don't understand why you don't get it, SJ. What is confusing you?

Candidates that asked for support, were invited to the private forum, after completing and returning a questionaire. Those candidates were asked further questions at the forum by the union members. The union then decided on a candidate that would support them on issues that concern them. They were given a certificate of support from the union.

 

[rapunzel]

Despite implications to the contrary, I am not a Negative Nancy. I prefer to be known as Punzy Positive. I actually was hoping for some more information on what prompted the endorsement. Trust me, I didn't realize this was such a messy process. Bygones...

Anyone know which candidates the union has endorsed in the past? Do they have a history of endorsing quality candidates? Was I wrong to assume the endorsements would carry a lot of weight?

 

[rapunzel]

First - Thank you for supporting "even any union's" rights. (makes me wonder how you feel about ethnic groups)

Second - The difference between your groups and mine is that my "group" is called a "Union". The members of my group act as one (a unit, unified, together, Union) on any issue that you will ever be aware of. We thought so much of this ideal that we put it in our by-laws. We are more than just a business consort. We are not a social club. We are a brotherhood who trust each other with our lives. Our profession demands this. It's a firefighter thing. I don't expect you to understand.

Thirdly - I copied and pasted the text from our website to this board.

Lastly - (and I have answered this question at least once) We are not against Mr. Osborne. You may be entirely right. We may well have found that he would be more supportive of us. However, the reason he did not get our endorsement is that he would not complete the questionnaire as all the other candidates did without special treatment in the form us helping them answer the questions on our questionnaire. We have nothing against Mr. Osborne. If the majority of the voters put their faith in him, then he will have proven himself to be the best candidate for the position. Firefighters are Americans. We believe in the process.

And let's be clear. We are not hassling you about your choice. (I guess all the candidates you are backing completed your selection process to your satisfaction). So don't try to make our selection process seem invalid.

I am beginning to wonder what your real interest in this is. You seem awfully intent on diminishing any support for any candidate other than your own.

Do you own property in Driftwood Estates?

We all want the same thing.
1. An understanding of the issues you based your endorsement upon.
2. A statement regarding why you feel the candidates you endorsed would be the best people to represent your members and, one would hope, the people of Walton County.
That is all anyone ever asked for....

Unfortunately, I think this thread has raised a lot of questions rather than shed any light. I thank you for posting, but urge you to realize that the people posting are not attacking, but trying to redirect back to the two questions above. If the criteria the union uses to endorse is confidential and you do not wish to disclose it, then it might be better to just state that. I may have made up my mind regarding a candidate, but I assure you that a great many more have not, and this thread is an opportunity to reach them.

Just look at the number of views to get an idea how many are reading this, but not posting.

 

[scooterbug44]

I asked several times what the specific issues I should support for this election were and didn't ever get an answer so............

Way to reach the undecided voters and make your voice heard!

 

[SoWalProfire]

Punzy Positive,

I don't think you have been negative at all. I rather enjoy most of your posts. But, I will have to respectfully dissagree that what I am about to post here is "all that anyone asked for".

Anyway, thanks for being you.

------------------------------------------------------
Why we endorse Sid Braunstien for Walton County Commissioner, District 5:
Mr. Braunstien was instrumental in working with former Fire Chief Les Hallman to maintain the Certificate of Need in South Walton Fire District. We believe he will continue to support the Fire District in keeping the CON in South Walton. Sid also has a history of positive community involvement. He has a sound knowledge of South Walton Fire District. He also understands how important minimum staffing issues are to a fire department as well as proper and updated equipment. Sid believes, as we do, that collective bargaining is necessary because the process demands that the parties justify what they are asking for. This prevents status quo increases in expenditures.


Why we endorse Tom Cooper for Walton County Sheriff:
The Firefighters support Mr. Cooper because of his exemplary record of serving South Walton Fire District as a fire commissioner for six years. This gave us the opportunity to get to know him well. He has not only stated his support of our issues, but has proven his support while in office. In his twenty years in law enforcement he has shown much dedication to the service of public servants as well as the citizens. All of this combined with Tom’s management performance and his experience in law enforcement make him the right man for this job.


Why we endorse Maurice Gilbert for South Walton Fire Commission, Seat 1:
Maurice Gilbert has served on the Fire Board for 12 years, currently as Chairman and has been instrumental in working with South Walton Professional Firefighters toward the common goal of improving service to our Citizens. He has a sound knowledge of South Walton Fire District. He also understands how important minimum staffing issues are to a fire department as well as proper and updated equipment. Maurice also believes that collective bargaining is necessary. He has maintained an outstanding record of care and responsibility for the Fire District as well as the community of South Walton.


Why we endorse Scott Thurston for South Walton Fire Commission, Seat 3:
Scott Thurston has invested in the community as a home and business owner of South Walton. Wanting to increase his involvement in the community, He has a sound knowledge of South Walton Fire District. He also understands how important minimum staffing issues are to a fire department as well as proper and updated equipment. Scott also believes that collective bargaining is necessary because the process demands that the parties justify what they are asking for. He too approached the firefighters in support of his goal to help improve the community of South Walton through participation as a SWFD fireboard member.


Why we endorse Jon Kazek for South Walton Fire Commission, Seat 5 :
Jon Kazek has invested in this community not only as a citizen, but a business owner. He has received an SWFD Life Saving Award, and has been a friend to our firefighters for quite some time. He has a sound knowledge of South Walton Fire District. He also understands how important minimum staffing issues are to a fire department as well as proper and updated equipment. Jon also believes that collective bargaining is necessary because the process demands that the parties justify what they are asking for. Jon approached the Firefighters because he wanted to more involvement in the community

 

[SoWalProfire]

To all posters in this thread,

No matter your viewpoint, I am glad that you all contribute. Without folks like you our community would suffer greatly. I am happy to be associated (in what ever small way) to each of you through this message board and in our community. Your passion is obvious and your determination impressive. Keep standing up for what you believe in. The courage to act upon your convictions is what separates the doers from the talkers.

Thanks for letting me be a part of this.

Mark Youngblood, President
South Walton Professional Firefighters Assoc.

 

[Smiling JOe]

I am beginning to wonder what your real interest in this is. You seem awfully intent on diminishing any support for any candidate other than your own.

Do you own property in Driftwood Estates?

Other than trying to understand why you support who you choose to support, I have little interest. Where my interest lies is with my understanding that your union may have left out at least two of the best candidates from your process, based on the incorrect criteria found on your website. That criteria contradicts your justifications on this thread. You've posted it once, and I've questioned it twice, so I'll refrain from continuing to expect an answer which backs it up with the way in which you really choose your candidates of choice. Again, I question why a group of concerned people wouldn't want to include all of the possible candidates, so that they could have better knowledge of the best candidate to suit their purpose and agenda. I haven't bothered to look at your candidates of choice, but I did see the BCC Distr 5 choice of your union while looking through the contributions of each candidates. So, whom I support has nothing to do with my questioning.

No, I don't own property in Driftwood Estates, and have never owned, nor sold as a Realtor, property in Driftwood Estates. I have no personal, nor business connection with any of the candidates in the race. I've never even shared a cup of coffee with any of them. To correct your statement about me, I have defended candidates, other than my personal choice, right here on SoWal.com/bb, so I am not trying to suppress all candidates other than my choices. I have based my choices on listening to all of the candidates who have spoken, and on their bios which they have posted, as well as their responses given, and what I've actually seen in person at public gov't meetings.

Vote for whomever you choose as the best candidates, but I would encourage anyone to hear from ALL of the candidates before deciding on whom is the best choice.

 

[Smiling JOe]

Wow! Was it that difficult to communicate your reasons for supporting your choices? I feel like I just had my wisdom teeth yanked, for no reason. If you had posted that in your first post, we would have likely moved right along. Thanks for sharing.