Bill Strom resigning!

As reported by Kirk Ross of the Carrboro Citizen on OP and on the CC site, Chapel Hill Town Councilmember Bill Strom has announced that he will be resigning as of August 1, and will be leaving the area.

The interesting political implication is that I think the Council will now be expected to appoint a replacement since this resignation did not happen within the 40-day window before an election candidate filing period which would have led to an automatic appointment of the 5th vote-getter. Am I getting this right? Help us out Gerry... (Thanks for the correction, Fred and Mark.)

There had been some rumbling about this for weeks when Bill failed to step in to the mayor's race after having made no secret of his ambitions for several years.  Anyone know what he's doing next?  I wonder if his wife Jen Strom will also be leaving her position at the Independent Weekly? (I know this is verging on gossip, but this wil have a big impact on our community.)

Here is Bill's statement as published on the Carrboro Citizen web site:

After a decade of service on the Chapel Hill Town Council, the time has come for me to move on in my life’s commitments and challenges. I am resigning my council position as of Aug. 1, 2009, to pursue other personal and professional opportunities outside the community.

Serving as a council member in Chapel Hill has been a great honor, and I am deeply thankful for my fellow citizens’ trust and confidence in electing me three times.

Over the past 10 years, we have made much progress in addressing the goals I set out when I first sought elected office in 1999, after many years as a grassroots activist in Chapel Hill and Orange County.

My council colleagues and I have made decisions that consistently consider the entire community and protect the environment, support community based commerce and advocate for the interests of our friends and neighbors who are in need of economic support. We have assumed a national leadership position on environmental planning and land use policy. Investments we’ve made in public transportation have paid dividends in the town’s livability. We have expanded public infrastructure from recreation facilities to cutting-edge town operations. We have integrated comprehensive energy consumption reforms, emissions reductions and green building practices throughout town government. Relations with the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill and the local business community have evolved from often-contentious to more collaborative efforts.

We have transformed our policies on both public and affordable housing, setting Chapel Hill up as a national model of which we can be proud. Our acquisition of open space ensures us a sustainable future and creates certainty that we will continue to embrace the environment. Public investments in downtown assure a bright future for the heart of our community, and encourage private dollars to flow toward its revitalization. Our town finances have been carefully managed, with no tax increases in four of the last six years, low debt ratios and more than adequate reserves. Community support for our bonds and public investments has been central to many of our approaches to public policy, and I wish to thank the community for embracing the importance of investing in our future together.

Chapel Hill’s current leaders are in a great position to continue moving our community forward in a progressive manner, and I wish them much success.

I will miss BIll's hard work on a wide range of issues including public transportation, affordable housing, and UNC growth. He has left quite a stamp on Chapel Hill in the past 10 years.



Even if you restrict the choice to applicants who were candidates in the election, there is no reason to necessarily choose the fifth highest vote-getter.This is a four-way race; the remaining candidates will not have "places." The person who receives the fifth highest number of votes is not necessarily or even likely to be the person who would have placed fifth in a five-way race. If the council members decide to restrict their choices to those who campaigned, it would make just as much sense (more so, perhaps) for them to choose the person who, in their judgment, would have been more likely to place fifth if there were such a thing as fifth place.

it is like the Supreme Court choosing our president instead of the voters in 2000.....   There's no VALID reason for the council to choose someone who received fewer votes for the seat.  And I would include someone who chose not to run and received zero votes in that assessment, but it isn't my call to make.  

Is this another post on behalf of the Carroboro Citizen, which you work for?  Or was this posted on your own behalf?  And how are we to tell the difference? And when you do post on behalf of the Carrboro Citizen, how can we tell whether what you're posting is on behalf of the part of the Carrboro Citizen that is being funded by the $50,000 loan at a 2% rate provided by the town of Carrboro, whose mayor coincidentally (?) is on this very same site taking the very same position as you?  Don't blame me, I couldn't point this stuff out if you didn't do it in the first place. It is dawning on me that due to the apathy of majority in the community, the interested and active minority can pretty much do whatever they want without challenge.  Acton was right.

First, a few clarifications: (1) I don't work for the Carrboro Citizen. (2) All of my statements here are my own. (3) You can tell because I have attached my real name to every one.But enough about me. I'm not nearly as interesting (or powerful, or corrupt) as you make me out to be.Now, back to the substance: As I have tried to express here and in the Citizen op-ed (perhaps not successfully), I am not necessarily opposed to the appointment of the person who receives the fifth highest number of votes. I'm just opposed to appointing that person simply because he or she received the fifth highest number of votes. In many of the possible outcomes of a pick-four election, it will be difficult to determine which candidate is truly the fifth most preferred. As others have suggested, that's why it would be nice to have a preferential voting system like instant-runoff voting. Instead, we can only infer the voters' preferences using painfully limited information.

I mean, I think she is going to do better than that, but if I recall correctly she does not plan on applying for appointment & is instead only seeking to be voted into office. So what if she's 5th?  For those who say automatically appoint the 5th on the assumption that people would not changing their voting behavior if things were different, what if that isn't an option?

so there is certainly greater than zero chance of occurring.

Hardly anyone tried to make this argument in 1997 when Richard Franck came in fifth (losing his incumbent seat on the CH Town Council) and the Council had to immediately fill an unrelated vacacny.  There seemed to be near universal opinion that Richard lost and should not be considered for appointment.  Flicka Bateman was chosen instead and ably served on the council for years.  I don't recall anyone objecting based on the fact that she had not even run in the 1997 election cycle?  Where were you all then? 

some in this thread would argue that Richard Franck did not lose, he was just the unfavored candidate.


I understand that you don't think the "5th place" argument has any merit and I always enjoy your humor, but note that I have already said that the Council will do what they will do; I accept that.But in you excellent grasp of our political history, has there ever been a resignation where a matter of days of the effective date one way or another determined whether or not the voters or seven elected members would choose the replacement?The Council will have to deal with this, or not, during a campaign that I think could end up being quite contentious.  For one of their former colleagues to put them in this predicament speaks volumes, but maybe Council members and others don't see it that way at all. Following the process according to the law is exactly what should happen, but there is no need to belittle those of us who see options within the law that say they care about what voters say more than what seven elected members want.

I apologize if it appears I was belittling anyone.When I ran for Mayor the second time in 1979, I sent a letter resigning from council, effective when the new council was sworn in (I think maybe that was December 3). My resignation letter was submitted well before the filing deadline.  The vacancy was filled at the first council meeting in December with Joe Herzenburg. (yes he finished fifth)I guess if I had made it effective immediately there would have been five seats up instead of four, but my decision on the December date was based on my situation at work, (and frankly, wanting to keep the council salary however meager it was, for another three months) it took me another five years to leave town.  :)During the three months I certainly participated fully on council.  I lost the mayoral race, but would not have refused that office if elected.  I was sick and tired of being on the council after six years. Between working 50 hours per week in Raleigh plus council duties I felt I had no life. If I was elected Mayor I planned to quit my job in Raleigh (same place I still work)My decision on when to resign had nothing to do with how the vacancy would be filled. I actually never even thoght about that issue until the start of this thread. We still do not know whether Bill Strom's decison was based on that.No one ever said a word back in 1979 about the issue that folks have validly raised in this thread.

I always learn more of our history from your posts (and our GA over on NC Bill Drafting). And yes, since 1979 our politics at the local, state, and national levels have changed a great deal.  It's not hard to see how and why.  Note that we couldn't do in 1979 what we now do on OP.Question: would you have responded to the media when asked about your resignation date?

The controversy in Carrboro over this issue certainly is fresh enough in Bill's mind to think that he had a basis for his decision (which appears to have backfired since several council members have already clearly stated they don't want to fill before the election).

I'll just check in with one of you all that have the gift of knowing without actually knowing.

I think there is an important difference in what you did in 1979 and what happened here. It sounds to me like you submitted your letter of resignation, essentially giving three months' notice. The council chose to fill the seat, as was their right and duty, upon he actual date you ceased to be a part of the council. Here's the thing: it sounds like as soon as you knew what was going on, you were as clear as your personal situation allowed you to be in your communication to your constituents and to your colleagues, thus giving everyone plenty of warning and the freedom to discuss options openly and in a timely manner. I don't question the man's intentions, his service or the difficult decisions he and we all face in our lives. He has shown time and again that he cares about this community. But he played a card to force a certain course of action. The timing is not right for so many reasons, not the least of which is that it falls on the heels of the recent vote on public financing of elections. I understand that the council has the right and duty to do what they will do. I just wish they would wait and see who comes in 5th.

No one is going to come in fifth. Chapel Hill does not have preferential voting in which voters express their preferences for all of the candidates. Instead, each voter will get to select up to four candidates. As a result, four candidates will win the available seats. The remaining four candidates will simply lose the election -- in no particular order.

The total votes tell us the order of everyone who ran.  Some are declared the winners but others have a status as unelected candidates and the significance of this is embedded in our Town Ordinance:First example:

Sec. 2.1.  Election and terms of members of the council and a mayor.(a)   The voters of the town shall elect in nonpartisan elections voting at large eight (8) members of the council and a mayor.(b)   The members of the council shall be elected for staggered terms of four (4) years each, four (4) members of the council to be elected at each biennial election . In addition, at the first biennial election following the ratification of this Charter, a fifth member of the council shall be elected for a two-year term only in order to increase the number of members of the council from six (6) to eight (8) and at such elections the candidate receiving the fifth highest number of votes is elected to the two-year term.

Second Example:

Sec. 2.3.  Vacancies in elected offices.(2)   A vacancy occurring on the council, which occurs during the period beginning with the first day of the four year term of office and ending on the fortieth day prior to the next regular biennial town election shall be filled by appointment of the town council only until the next general municipal election at which time a member shall be elected to the remainder of said unexpired term. The candidate receiving the fifth highest number of votes (and if necessary the 6th, 7th and 8th highest number) following those elected for full four-year terms, shall be declared elected for the remainder of the unexpired term. A vacancy occurring on the council, which occurs at any other time shall be filled by appointment of the town council for the remainder of the unexpired term

Fred has done some good research. Since I wrote about 35 years ago both of the passages he quotes from, I will note that in the first case, it was preordained that five were to be elected in 1975, thus I wrote it as an exception to the rule. In the second paragraph, the times when you go to the fifth, sixth, seventh, or eight place winnr is when there are 5, 6, 7, or 8 to be elected. If there were eight to be elected, we would all be discussing whether the 9th place finisher would get a seat. By the way, when I wrote "fortieth day" filing closed on the 32nd day prior to the election.

If I am reading them correctly, the passages you cite describe scenarios in which the voters are able to select the same number of candidates as there are available seats. That is not the case in the upcoming election, in which the voters will only be able to select four candidates.


Perhaps those who object to "the fifth highest vote getter" would feel more comfortable with the "next higher vote getter"? I'm having a hard time telling whether the objection is principle or semantics.

Honestly, I believe the objection, is a) a continuation of the Katrina Ryan debate; and b) a fear that with several "CRG" candidates in the mix, one of them will finish 5th and thus be a "very objectionable" choice for the previously-Strom-led bloc of the council. 

In the results Fred posted from the last election, the 5th place finisher got 98% as many votes as the 4th place finisher.  Even the 6th place finisher got 83% as many votes as the 4th place finisher. In the scenario you posted, the 5th place finisher got 4% as many votes as the 4th place finisher.  There is approximately as much chance of that happening as there is that the 2019 Super Bowl will be played on Carrboro.  Based on what we know so far, what do you think the chances are that Bill Strom purposely waited until after the deadline to add to the ballot before announcing his resignation? Even if someone did get voted onto town council with just 200 votes they will have received 193 more than someone voted onto town council with just 7 votes.  

193 people though.  Those 7 would have been elected by a lot more people than that.  And that isn't some kind of foreign idea in the middle of our representative democracy.

Yes, but keep in mind that the only reason this is under debate is that it appears that the person resigning from council pulled shennanigans.  Nobody is saying that every council resignation from here on out should be filled by taking the 5th place person in an election where voters can only vote for four people.  Instead, the idea is that in this particular case, it appears that the resigning council member tried to manipulate how his successor was chosen.  If Strom thought that adding a 5th place to the ballot in November would result in the election of whoever he wanted elected then he'd have resigned before the deadline.  But the larger point is, why is the resigning council member even thinking about whether his replacement on council will be determined by council or by the voters?  If he's leaving, then just leave.  The voters in 2007 elected Strom to serve on council, not to personally decide how is replacement would be selected.

Raleigh elects its entire council for two year terms and does not have to worry about fifth place finishers. Wake County fills school board vacancies by appointment for the remainder of the unexpired term whether it is one month left or 47 months. 

We trust the few, who are elected by the many, to make decisions on our behalf all the time at many levels of government. I certainly feel that at the very least we should see who the new council is after the election, and see what this newly elected representative body thinks about the issue.  Assuming we trust who we will have just elected, then we can see what they say, and let that help us inform our opinions.  On the same token, how people did in the election should help inform the council & us as Chapel Hill voters on opinions on who should get the seat, but I think there maybe some injustice done if we decide this now before giving the soon to be elected council a chance to weigh in & add their input.

There are valid reasons to choose someone other than those who ran -- diversity, someone who has served the community a long time but doesn't want to make a 4 year commitment, maybe even a student.  All are perhaps valid factors to include in the decision, but we won't know until we see who applies for the position.   If there are no other "weighting factors", # of votes in the previous election ought to carry a ton of weght.  Whether the person "fills Bill's slot" well idologically is not a good factor IMHO, because Bill has chosen to leave.  I also don't care for the idea that the person should "get along" with current council members -- diversity is a good thing in life and on the council.

The take away point for me is that performance in this type of election can be taken to mean just about anything that the person describing it wants to say.  Had Bill resigned four years ago instead, and we used the appoint-the-fifth method, Will Raymond would have been appointed to his seat.  But Will came in last when he ran two years later.  Does this mean the voters wish we had been electing five council members so that he could have been elected, or does it mean that he is the voter’s least favorite person?  Probably neither.  It's entirely up to the dynamics of who is running in a particular year.  My guess is that if voters could have voted for five two years ago, that Cam and Penny would have both been elected rather than splitting votes and Matt would have finished sixth, but there is absolutely no way to test this hypothesis.I also like to think that if I had decided to run this time around, that I would have done better than I did four years ago.  But again, it's just a theory, and as much as my ego might like it to be true, I don’t know that it is true.  I might have gotten no votes at all.  Along the same lines, if we were electing five instead of four, I might have chosen to file, because I would have thought I would have a better chance of winning.  But other people might have thought the same thing.  We'll never know: another untestable hypothesis.The problem is that we're all playing a big game of "what would have happened if..."  Appointing the fifth place finisher is making an assumption that that person would have won had five seats been on the ballot.  But we don't have the option of testing that.  It's just as likely to be wrong as it is to be right.  Playing "what if" games are a lot of fun, particularly if you’re as much of a political junkie as some of the folks who visit here regularly, myself included.  But it’s not a very effective way to decide who is the most qualified person to serve in an office.I, for one, am just happy not to be the one saddled with this decision.  I do NOT envy our sitting Council members for getting stuck with the burden of dealing with a vacancy in an election year.

By the way, one thing I notice is that the debate seems to be between (a) taking the 5th place candidate in November and (b) having the current council elect a replacement that will stay on until 2011.  Nobody (except myself) seems to be mentioning a solution of a temporary replacement for now and then the permanent two year replacement being chosen by the new council elected in November.  If council is going to elect a permanent replacement then wouldn't it make sense to have it be a council that is representative of the current will of the people as expressed in the November elections?

All this hypothesizing seems beside the point.  The Town Council will appoint a successor, as per the statute.  They can pick whomever they choose, by whatever criteria they choose.  Fifth has nothing to do with it.  The remaining Town Council members were elected, after all, and one thing they were elected to do was to take care of matters such of this.  They'll do OK with this, and are unlikely to nominate somebody's dog, or even me, for that matter. However, they don't have to choose the fill-in by unanimous vote.  But I predict they will, on the theory that the one they choose will already have garnered sufficient support at the time of voting, and those who might want someone else will figure they ought to be unanimous so the newby will come in as a full member of the team.


This is Cam Hill. I can't remember how to sign in. It is interesting that ya'll are more vocal about your opinions of a council member as he leaves than anything else that goes on or has gone on in some time. Maybe, Bill didn't know what he was going to do until the last minute. Maybe he thought it would take forever to sell his house and it sold very quickly, maybe he found a new residence elsewhere much quicker than he expected, maybe his wife found a job, maybe he found a job. He DID rent an apartment in CH after he sold his house until he resigned. "Gaming the system" is a really large name for a pretty small deed that appears to be benefiting no one.It seems to me that the bigger issue is the loss of experience and energy that Bill and Kevin leaving at the same time will bring about. These two were the main drivers of the progressive agenda on the council for the last ten years (or so). and who will replace them? Bill spent more time doing council work than any three remaining council people put together did. I think that there is a real deficit of experience looming.Cam 

I don't know why Bill resigned.  I don't know why he timed his resignation as he did, so I won't speculate on that.  I will speculate that if Bill is reading all this speculation that he is simply laughing.  Any link between Bill's resignation date and the VOE option is just heaping speculation on speculation.Like Mark, I remember the appointment of Flicka Bateman, and she did indeed serve us well for one and one-half terms.  The voters must have thought so too, because they easily elected her to serve again at her two-year mark.  By contrast,  Richard Franck ran once and finished 5th, then was appointed to fill a vacancy.  When he ran for the second time, now as an appointed incumbent, he finished 5th again.  Soon after his second loss, the 1997 vacancy occurred, and Richard told me that he would not apply, since the voters obviously did not favor him.I agree with Mark Chilton above that being a 5th place finisher is not a necessary step to being appointed.  And, to be redundant, I think the council should fill the current vacancy ASAP.  

I would doubt Bill Strom is laughing if he's reading this blog. On the contrary, I think he's regretting very much leaving under such messy and less-than-aboveboard circumstances.

on why someone who was always willing to speak to the media now refuses to comment on his actions?  When behaviors change people will speculate because in the absence of information, people fill the void.  Remember when people were criticizing UNC for this "sin?"

Since no-one knows the truthful answer to that question, how does encouraging speculation about it help to clarify the issue? (Or is the goal here to muddy the issue...)

Does that mean in the future that we'll not see you offer any opinions on issues that you don't know the answer to with certainty?  Because it would pretty much mean the end of all discussion on this board.  There's another thread on here right now on VOE elections.  How can anyone say that VOE elections are better?  After all, we don't _know_ what motivates council members to vote a certain way, right?  Unless we're psychic. Sure, we can offer reasoned arguments based on evidence, but apparently that isn't good enough anymore and instead we have to know things with 100% certainty.  After all, we can't even conclude that someone that closed a sale on his house on June 10 and didn't buy another one even decided to leave town until seven weeks later.  I guess he sold his house and then lived in a rental unit or the homeless shelter for the next seven weeks with full intent of staying in CH permanently, and then only after seven weeks of that did he decide to move out of CH.  And then after that he stopped answering his cell phone when the media called and avoided offering any explanation despite being an elected public official.  It all makes perfect sense.  After all, people behave like that all the time.  And anyone that questions it is trying to muddy the issue instead of clarifying it.

You can question all you want. But when you provide answers without proof, you are not being disciplined in your argument.

I think he's laughing too, but not for the same reasons as you.  I think he's laughing at how he played the people of CH as suckers.  It reminds me of some lines from an 80s Billy Bragg song named Ideology that go like this: God  bless the civil service /Our nation's saving grace /While we expect democracy /They're laughing in our face.

Single-shot voting is way overrated if the goal is to actually accomplish anything.  Indeed if you love one candidate, by voting for only him/her, you maximize the chances that (s)he'll be elected.  Of course you forfeit your input into the choice of the other three.  Both of those comments are obvious.  But here, in my opinion, is the most important one:The system is designed so that no one person is that powerful.  It takes five votes for the CH council to take any action.  It does no good to elect your perfect councilmember  who is at the losing end of a lot of 8-1 votes.  It is actually harmful, for soon he/she is regarded as a flake (or something similar) and is marginalized.  If you want to accompllish something, to establilsh some policy, it is better to have five acceptable people on the council than the one perfect one.That's why we hear councilmembers who have been elected talk about counting to five.  It isn't who gets fifth place; it is who can get five votes.

since Kevin has been Mayor, do you know how many 8-1 votes there have been?  My data says not as many as some may think, but there were some in this term when Matt joined the Council.  I think on some of the issues where he was the "1," many would not accept your characterization: "actually harmful, for soon he/she is regarded as a flake (or something similar) and is marginalized."Since we elect half the Council every two years plus a mayor, and since we have high incumbency levels, I think you are underestimating the impact of a single-shot vote.  The data from 2007 that I posted above speaks to the number of citizens who fail to vote for all that they could.

you presume there are 4 "acceptable" candidates to vote for.  I often have not felt that way.  And folks I've voted for who ended up on council are often (it seems) on the wrong side of 8-1 votes.  I will often vote for 3 candidates I might find acceptable, but have a hard time justifying voting for folks who don't measure up to some minimum standards I think council members should have (willingness to think independently; to think through consequences of decisions instead of knee-jerk response are my 2 biggies).

I agree that single shot voting occurs more than you would think and only speaking for myself, it's sometimes the only way to get diversity of opinion on the council. It's an incremental approach that takes the long view, only used as a last resort.  The council probably doesn't really read this blog and if they do, it still isn't likely to change their opinions on the matter. I accept that. The council will probably go ahead and appoint someone, even though I would wish they would wait until after the elections to consider the "next highest vote getter." So I'll  only be voting for those incumbents who vote to wait. Am I jousting at windmills? Undoubtedly.I am quite taken with the expression of a vote "favoring" a candidate. I think it expresses a more nuanced view of what is going on. And finally, I've never participated in a OP discussion before and I appreciate the folks who have made this possible, and those who have expressed their views.

I would like to see at least one of the applicants for appointment by council make their platform in their application letter be that they'd resign after the election and let the new council (which will be more representative of current voter will) appoint their replacement.  If that happened then the members of the council will be implicitly put in the position of having to having to take a public position on this issue.  I know that at least one already has done so but taking a position on an issue doesn't matter much unless someone else takes an opposite position.  An issue isn't really an issue until there are candidates on both sides of it.

a reasoned suggestion

Barbara writes  "I would wish they would wait until after the elections to consider the "next highest vote getter." So I'll  only be voting for those incumbents who vote to wait. Am I jousting at windmills?"No, you're not Quixotic, but you are applying one litmus test to a candidate.  David Price expressed it beautifully:  There are people who don't care if I vote for World War Three, as long as I don't touch their Medicare.This council appointment is hardly the most important thing on the town council agenda, measuring importance by the number of people it impacts.

From Mark Schultz at the CHN:

According to a memo from Mayor Kevin Foy, the council would set a deadline of Oct. 2 for applications to finish Strom's term. The veteran council member resigned too late for his seat to be filled by the coming election.    Here is the schedule the mayor proposes: Sept. 4: vacancy officially announced and applications accepted Oct. 2: deadline for applications to be filed Oct. 12: Council Business Meeting to review applications and make nominations. Nov. 9: Applicants will have an opportunity to make brief remarks regarding their interests in serving on the Town Council and Council may make an appointment that evening.

So with the election 3 Nov, unless a candidate applies, the one who comes in 5th can't be appointed.  Creates somewhat of a dilemma for some of the candidates, given what they have already stated.

According to the N&O's Jesse DeConto (who cites NYC property records), Bill and Jennifer Strom purchased a Manhattan apartment on August 5.


"Today I submitted my application for the recently vacated Chapel Hill Town Council seat. The current Council has indicated that
they would like the option to select a replacement from the pool of
candidates who are running for Town Council in November, and have
encouraged all candidates to submit their names.  I invite my
colleagues and any other citizens interested in the seat to join me in
applying for the vacancy."

Good for Penny!  I think any of the candidates that keep saying the Council should appoint the 5th vote-getter are just whining unless they put their own hats in the ring.  No-one can know who will be 5th and it's presumputous for any candidate to assume they'll be in the top 4.

Yesterday, I turned in an application for the Strom vacancy.  I want to thank Fred Black and Art Werner in particular and several others who encouraged me to apply.  Here's the application letter: Dear Mayor Foy and Members of the Town Council,  Please consider me for the current vacancy on the Chapel Hill Town Council.  I served on the Town Council from 1991 through 1999, including two years as Mayor Pro Tem.  Since that time I have kept abreast of community issues.  As a consequence, I can be an effective councilmember immediately and can offer further institutional memory to the council.  I have no plans to run for election again, nor do I have higher political ambitions.  My only desire is to serve the people of Chapel Hill.  A frequent objection to a political appointment is that the appointee has not faced the citizens in an election.   I have successfully done so -- twice.  Indeed I still hold the second highest vote total ever achieved by a town council candidate.  For this I credit two superb campaign managers and advisory committees.  I recognize that reaching goals follows from collaboration with others.  I would be pleased to make a presentation at a council meeting or fulfill any other requirements that you might ask of applicants for this vacancy.  Also, feel free to contact me should you wish to discuss my application in more detail.  With my thanks for your service to our town citizens,



Community Guidelines

By using this site, you agree to our community guidelines. Inappropriate or disruptive behavior will result in moderation or eviction.


Content license

By contributing to OrangePolitics, you agree to license your contributions under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License.

Creative Commons License

Zircon - This is a contributing Drupal Theme
Design by WeebPal.