Wheels wobbling on Shoemaker's cart

   In commissioner Haven Shoemaker's letter to the editor in Monday's Times, the squeaking (squawking?) sound you hear is of wheels wobbling, about to fall off the cart, just shy of two months in office.
   Understandably, the new commish is unhappy with criticism of the board's decision to disassociate itself with an admittedly obscure and misunderstood United Nations subgroup called ICLEI, which stands for International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. More specifically, the board took some heat for voting to quit the county's participation without putting the item on the agenda, let alone having a public hearing on the merits of the program.
    Much has been made -- too much -- of the fact that the United Nations initiative pledges efforts to cooperate with rest of the world on the ideals of preserving natural resources and cleaning the environment.
     While some people see participation in such programs a logical extension of the hope and idealism that defines America's root values, others see it all as a socialist plot to take over America and destroy the Constitutional right of Americans. Shoemakers was one of the first local candidates for office to see the potential in that divide, and he capitalized on it. He won votes for his "we the people" promises, but perhaps he forgot that the job requires consideration for all the people, and their disparate views.
     He writes -- petulantly -- that the board will not be swayed by "governance by plebiscite or editorial petulance." I'm not quite sure of how Shoemaker defines "plebiscite,"  but my dictionary pulls it from the adjective "plebeian," or a member of the common people. But this is the same Haven Shoemaker who ran for office as a voice for The People.
     He asks why anyone should be surprised at what some see as an abrupt dismissal of an ideal when he made it clear during the election campaign that he was coming to change things, to take swift and definitive action. But he also said, again in response to critics' fears of knee-jerk actions, that he had no set agenda, that all decisions for changes would be open, well-considered, and reasonable.
    He promised transparency and participation as a candidate. Now, he writes that the recent actions of the board are, "not the first executive decision made by the board, nor will it be the last."
     While promising transparency as a candidate, and respect for personal property rights, he was pushing hard more or less behind the scenes (he had already decided to run for commissioner) as mayor Hampstead to sue an owner of private property for the takeover by eminent domain of a well, to serve the greater good of the community at large. It did not escape the attention of more astute observers that he remained relatively quiet about his role in the effort for taking of private property.
    Now, Shoemaker decries editorial criticism "from the comfort of the newsroom ... behind the editorial curtain."
    Comfort? Editorial curtain?  Editorials are out there, open; right, wrong, or a little of both, they at least are not secret. Nor, for the most part, are they self-serving. They just make the people who want to be more comfortable work for the privilege.
     Perhaps Shoemaker expected some editorial praise for following through on campaign promises; the problem is, he and the rest of the board violated one promise while holding firm to another. Inconsistency -- and disingenuousness -- will make those cart wheels wobble.