By Jack Hurley
Honesty is essential to good government. Last week, in a 6-3 vote, the Claremont City Council did not uphold that basic standard.
I am deeply disappointed in the council’s failure at its Aug. 12 meeting to censure Councilor Jon Stone for lying to Claremont residents about a council decision. The vote not to censure him was a vote against the integrity of the council itself.
The reasons for the council’s non-censure decision are flimsy, at best.
‘More important things to deal with’
What could be more important than maintaining citizens’ trust in their city council? We should be able to believe and rely upon our representatives’ statements about council votes, especially when they concern life and death decisions, such as recommending masks to stop the spread of a new and deadly virus.
First Amendment rights
The First Amendment does not protect the right to lie. Stone was not expressing an opinion. He was simply lying.
Legal opinions
The legal opinion upon which some councilors relied was written in January 2019 in response to Stone’s abusive Facebook posts regarding a Claremont citizen (a First Amendment issue) and was not written in response to Stone’s recent lie about the resolution on mask-wearing.
In addition, the 2019 opinion claiming that a censure creates “hurt feelings” is not a legal opinion. With or without a vote to censure Stone, his lying has affected councilors’ ability to “work together effectively” and to govern effectively. Therefore, better to call out and stop the liar, rather than let him continue undermining the council’s work with dangerous misrepresentations of resolutions.
Also, Stone was apparently able to vote on whether or not he should be censured. Now, that is a legal issue! Even though it would not have affected the outcome, he should not have been allowed to vote on his own behalf. It was a clear conflict of interest.
Running against Stone in the next election
Fine, I hope someone with a moral compass does. But, Claremont residents should not have to wait until the next election to select an ethical councilor. Stone should be disciplined now and held to the high standard of honesty.
Besides, I understand qualified, committed Claremont residents of Ward III have chosen in the past not to run against Stone because they did not want to be subjected to his hateful, expletive-laced attacks, which he has done against those with whom he disagrees.
Putting the issue to rest
The city council did not put the issue of Stone’s lying to rest. Ignoring, instead of resolving, it does not make it disappear; it simmers and diminishes everyone involved, and makes way for future transgressions. Actually, a vote to censure Stone is the valid means to put the lying issue to rest, by stopping the dishonesty. Ultimately, what cannot be put to rest is the larger issue of councilors’ duty to their constituents to honestly and effectively convey decisions made by the council. This obligation must remain active. By its vote not to censure Stone, the council broke its trust with citizens, implying that councilors can tell us anything, including lies — an implication that renders them less effective.
Councilors should have the strength of character to be honest, and to hold everyone to the same standard, the only respectful way to serve Claremont. Six members, as shown by their votes, apparently, do not have the moral courage to defend that value.
Perhaps, the council should ask Stone to publicly retract his false statements about the council’s non-binding mask-resolution. If he refuses, then censure him.
Jack Hurley has been a Claremont resident for five years.
As your daily newspaper, we are committed to providing you with important local news coverage for Sullivan County and the surrounding areas.