Dear Editor:
|
|
In my opinion, there is but one reason why someone should write anonymously; that is, when there is a truth to be told in the public interest, but the teller risks being undeservedly retaliated against by someone who has the power (not the authority) to do so.
Also, be aware of some who say they have documentation when they don’t; and those who promise to report what they find, but when they find nothing with which to be able to assassinate someone’s character, they don’t report they have found nothing! We have seen some public officials become defensive when questioned. We have seen responses to questioning which are personal attacks upon reputation and character, innuendos, vague charges with no basis in fact—anything but a reasonable explanation, probably because there is no reasonable explanation for the unjustifiable! They refuse to explain why they believe they have done nothing wrong! Instead, personal attacks upon the questioners are made to take public attention from themselves. One wonders what more there is they want to hide from the public.
I recognized early-on in my teaching career that there were situations in which I must speak out to help my fellow school employees who were being wronged by some few elected and/or appointed officials. I became an advocate. In using my awareness, experience, training, ability, education, values, up-bringing and intelligence, I have become an advocate not only for students and school employees, but also for our community in the public interest. I learned to concentrate on issues, not use personal attacks.
There was and continues to be personal risk in doing so, but I was able to continue my teaching career for 40 successful years of devotion to our community’s students over two generations and honorably retire after that long period of dedication and personal sacrifice.
When I identify an action by an elected or appointed city or school official which I question as being against the public interest, I carefully research based upon many documents; I contact lawyers; I attend meetings. I re-write many times so what I write is clear. I state facts; some anonymous writers say nothing to disprove the facts about which they complain—they only use personal attacks! When I state facts, and fact-based and well-thought-out opinions to individuals and the public, I sign my name.
I voluntarily fulfill a needed and valued role in our democratic society.
I am, of course, defending myself. But I am also defending those in our community who have been the victims of anonymous personal attacks, such as in the harmful Hoyack/Pettit controversy; and now such attacks are beginning on candidates for city offices.
I do not deliberately lie, as some anonymous writers do-either out of ignorance or deliberately to mislead the public. If I have unknowingly written an untruth, please challenge me. But if you feel so strongly to make the effort to write, (1) specifically identify that which you think is untrue, (2) citing facts, thoroughly explain why you think it is untrue, (3) have the documentation to prove you point, and (4) have the moral courage, honesty, integrity and responsibility to SIGN YOU NAME. I certainly have no position from which to retaliate, no power and no authority.
I also help others to express their opinions if they have a reluctance because they may not think they express themselves well enough to the public, and they are free to take or reject anything which I may suggest so it becomes their own. This was helpful in grievance writing, and I first did this for the public as a member of the new defunct The Issues Group in 2002 “to promote effective political action”. I continue to help.
If the few public officials whose actions are questioned, and their anonymous apologists, feel a need to respond, let them do so openly, citing facts with documentation and signing their names—not try to take public attention from their questionable actions by using personal attacks!
Sincerely, Michael F. Nava, Douglas Resident
Comments
Nava honest wrote on Feb 9, 2012 9:12 AM:
the problem is ... wrote on Feb 8, 2012 7:50 AM:
Meanwhile he presents himself as 'rightous' and 'sqeaky clean' both are completely false notions and signs that he is delusional. "
Yes Mr. Nava wrote on Feb 5, 2012 7:59 PM:
If Mr. Nava weren't acting as an advocate for this community, then who would? He's the only one who presents himself knowledably and intelligently. What's more, if he, or anyone else, weren't questioning these practices, then who knows what would happen. As it is, the city government is already a circus and that's with Mr. Nava monitoring government practices.
It is so disheartening to see so many criticizing Mr. Nava for exercising his freedom of speech. This country was founded on that principle for the intent of keeping government in check. And now that he's exercising that right, people are wanting to censor him! If that's the case, then let's all revert to anarchy!
I can only imagine the potential for this community if its residents were as couageous, passionate, and as involved as Mr. Nava!
Yes, Mr. Nava, "Keep shining the light of truth...." "
Angie Rubacalva wrote on Feb 5, 2012 6:01 PM:
Mark Flores wrote on Feb 5, 2012 9:23 AM:
Concerned wrote on Feb 2, 2012 6:07 AM:
Get Real wrote on Feb 1, 2012 8:33 PM:
Oh Nava wrote on Feb 1, 2012 12:19 PM:
If you're truly concerned about our community, pursue the deomocratic process and run for office! Instead of adousing fuel on the dramatic "fires" around town, be part of the solution! It sure seems like you're all talk & wrighting and NO action! "
Aquiles wrote on Jan 31, 2012 10:56 PM:
please explain wrote on Jan 29, 2012 7:27 PM:
Veritas wrote on Jan 28, 2012 9:54 AM:
HalfTruths wrote on Jan 27, 2012 8:03 PM:
Pay For Space wrote on Jan 26, 2012 5:28 AM:
Jeepers wrote on Jan 25, 2012 3:56 PM:
Its really comical how he weaves his righteous indignation throughout and claims to be the sole owner of the truth and of course he alone is the defender of the people. "