Dear Editor:
I must take great issue with your Wednesday editorial.
There is a reason why we require our councilmen to hold dual roles, and it's not just so that we don't have to pay them a full salary. No, it's because we want them invested in the community, to take part in its ups, downs, strengths and pitfalls like the rest of us. It is largely for this reason that your talk of "conflict of interest" is foolish.
The people of Carbondale knew full well that Mr. Wissmann was editor and part owner of the Nightlife when we elected him. We expected that he would use the viewpoint that that gives him when voting on issues. He has campaigned for a saner Halloween policy in his paper for years. Now, should he abstain from a vote on the subject because his paper would stand to benefit from the extra entertainment possibilities such a policy would entail?
Several councilmen are business owners or managers. Should they abstain from voting on issues that would tend to affect the economic health of Carbondale and therefore of their businesses? Of course not! In fact, that is one reason we like business owners on the council - they are intimately connected with and affected by the community's economic situation.
Mr. Haynes was wrong to abstain from voting on the smoking resolution merely because his store sold cigarettes. Even if he had owned a bar, he should not have abstained - far from it! If we had elected a bar owner, we would expect him to promote the interests of bars (though hopefully not to the detriment of other interests). So, no, Wissmann should not "recuse" himself (a term generally reserved for judges).
There is an exception to this general rule: When an issue before the council deals specifically with their holdings or business dealings. "Shall we use Thomas Publishing to publish the Carbondale Communique?" is certainly a vote Wissmann should abstain from.
"Should we rezone a section of property for the benefit of Kroger West?" is certainly an issue Haynes should not vote on. Unless the conflict of interest is that blatant and specific, abstention just because your employment might secondarily benefit or be harmed by an issue is simply foolish and not in keeping with the spirit of a council deliberately organized such that most of its members must hold real jobs in the community.
Jim Syler senior from Carbondale studying philosophy and economics
