Editor:

“Are senior citizens fit for public office?” This seems to be the question that Mike Odom and the Fairhope Courier are raising in their Sept. 13, 2009 article, “Corte gets opponent’s endorsement for runoff.”

Ostensibly, the Courier published this front-page article to provide voters with information for the upcoming city council run-off. I finished third in the race for Place 2 but captured sufficient votes to force a run-off. My endorsement became a factor for the two men in the run-off, which made my endorsement of Danny Corte somewhat significant.

The Courier’s front-page article, was not however to report on my decision and the reasoning behind it. The clear purpose of the article was to disparage me and to undercut my endorsement. The references to my age and use of medication (for a heart condition) were intended as sly disqualifiers for my decision. I had the audacity to support Corte after all, rather than the establishment candidate “Stankoski.” Once again, the media was using its power, not to inform, but to tell us what we should do, and in this case, how we should cast our vote.

To be a bit immodest (a requirement when running for office), I’m a 39-year resident of Fairhope. With my wife, Mary (now deceased), I raised seven wonderful children, contributed to all manner of civic projects, from the library to supporting the poor and disadvantaged, and helped many in Fairhope, who may have gone in a different direction, become productive contributors to our community. I’m a member of what has been called the “greatest generation,” with the military decorations to prove it. In my campaign, my platform was built on cleaning-up city government and reducing costs to residents. I believe any “clean-up” should start with an objective assessment of current city programs and expenditures (rather than tax increases).

On this clear-eyed basis, we could end wasteful and inefficient programs, improve government and reduce taxes. In the Courier interview, I pointed out that one program that needed review is the current spending and practices of the Fairhope police. I believe that in this period of inexpensive communication technology (enabling police departments to communicate with other municipal, county, and state bureaus) and sky-high fuel and transportation cost, the use of large high-powered police cruisers makes no sense. Additionally, I strongly believe that “police chases” that might involve speeds upwards of 100 mph unnecessarily endanger the police, other drivers, not to mention the “suspects,” and the community at-large … and just no longer make sense.

The Courier’s “reporter” reduced and misrepresented this reasonable and enlightened view on good government to a sarcastic paragraph claiming that my “major issue was prohibiting high-speed car chases.” Further, the Courier reporter claimed that my focus was a chase a number of years ago that resulted in the death of some people. In fact, I did cite an example of a police chase that resulted in the death of five people, including three small children all for a traffic violation. The end result was a lawsuit, which cost (a rumored amount of $300,000) the city of Fairhope. This lack in judgment, as well as unnecessary and flawed procedures, resulted in the death of Fairhope citizens for a minor crime. This only meant more expenditures and higher taxes for the residents of the city. The judgment would have been millions possibly hundreds of millions in many jurisdictions. The reporter seemed to think that the death of this family due to police bad judgement was of no concern.

How did the Courier get my views so wrong? I believe it is a classic case of “ambush journalism,” and a reporter with an agenda. This is the same reporter who misquoted me after the “Rock Creek” debate concerning traffic cameras in relation to the size of the police force.

Odom conducted a phone interview with me regarding his city council endorsement. When I said I would endorse Danny Corte, Odom began to press me for reasons. Nothing wrong with this, you say. However, in questioning my choice, Odom suggested that I had “no good reason” and that I might not be competent to make this decision. Odom made it clear he didn’t agree with my endorsement and he began to question not only my choice but my right to choose who I felt was best.” After repeated efforts to explain my rationale, I concluded that it would do no further good and told the reporter I had made my endorsement and that was it. I do not suffer fools lightly and may have used indelicate language, for which I apologize. For the language not the idea

Evidently, The Courier’s reporter was not satisfied and called one of my daughters. Again, employing ambush techniques, he confronted my daughter with an outlandish version of my interview and then pushed her hard for an explanation. Presented with this false story and no other details, she suggested that possibly the reporter had called when, while on hypertension medication I was bit feisty, many of us have been there, right? Here again, the Courier’s distain for those of us who now need medication to deal with health problems after decades of serving our community and the wisdom that we’ve gained from these experiences is crystal clear. My doctors have assured me that the medicines I take will not cause problems if taken as prescribed. As they always are!

The Courier seems to be saying, thanks for the service, but now get out of the way — you’re not competent to make an endorsement for political office, let alone serve. Please! I may get confused by the theory of relativity, explanations of infinity, or Darwinism (without an original starter), but not much else. If the reporter would like to debate me on any number of subjects of his choosing I am at his service.

I looked at the candidates in the runoff and selected Corte. Of course, he does not share each plank of my platform, nor do I agree with each of his positions. In our current system, you just have to go with the best you’re offered. Do I believe I could do a better job than anyone still running, heck yes, that’s why I ran! Do I believe that Fairhope could use some smarter approaches to solving our community’s problems and a good deal of housecleaning in the current bureaus, heck yes! And do I believe that the Courier and their reporter, used the whole bag of sleazy political tricks now common in US journalism — in order to ensure that their view comes out on top — you damn well know I do. I may have made the fatal mistake of believing that my right to express my views in the public square is equal to that of the media elite, as it was at one time in our history. However, my doctors, all of them, have never said that I was confused with or without medication.

I said during the campaign that I could reduce the cost of policing by at least 50 percent, and have better and fairer service. I was never allowed to explain how this could be done. Give me a copy of the police department budget, and with in one year using modern methods and tools this would be done. By the way this isn’t something very new, many progressive cities have used these type of techniques for many years.

Fairhope resident

Editor’s Note: Mr. Taylor’s letter is considerably longer than the 350-word parameter we encourage writers to use, but we have printed his letter in its entirety. While we could rebut his statements regarding the Sept. 13, 2008 news article point by point — and we whole heartedly disagree with his viewpoint on the published story, its development and the motive and actions of the Fairhope Courier news reporter in question — we have decided not to do so, with one exception. Mr. Taylor states that the Fairhope Courier reporter misquoted a comment he made at the Rock Creek debate, held Tuesday, Aug. 19. The Fairhope Courier reporter did not attend nor report on the Rock Creek debate.