We are terribly saddened, yet not too surprised, to read the news in Bill Hudson’s June 26 editorial.
Truly, we find it very disturbing that Mr. Hudson was personally and publicly attacked during a Council meeting in such a despicable and vile manner — for doing his job and for doing it so well. A job involving oversight and keeping local government accountable to laws and regulations.
Such an attack and ultimate removal from the Planning Commission is only an unsuccessful attempt at smearing Mr. Hudson’s solid character and clean, transparent reputation. We have no doubt that he has not taken such an attack personally. We are proud and thankful for his work, dedication, effort, time invested and incisive attention to what our local government does or neglects to do, as well as the methods utilized to reach its goals. We’re proud as well of his courage to speak up, write and fully inform taxpayers of any significant irregularities of legal or ethical nature that affects us, the taxpayers.
While reading his most recent 12-part editorial in the Pagosa Daily Post (please allow us to correct an error – the Daily Post is not a “website”; it is a daily newspaper or a news blog) we kept wondering what kind of “unethical” behavior he was accused of. As some may already know, “ethical” behavior is not one thing, one way of acting or behaving. When properly speaking of unethical behaviors, one must declare what specific code was allegedly breached. The fact that Mr. Hudson was removed from the Planning Commission “without cause”, implies no legal or unethical wrongdoing on his part.
Yet, other implications appear obvious.
A watchdog for taxpayers is simply not wanted as it interferes with the pursuit of, perhaps, personal interests that may not be shared by taxpayers. Such could be even understandable to some, and to some degree… What is not so understandable or acceptable is to publicly allow below-the-belt personal attacks to a volunteer member because he raises legitimate questions in the face of irregularities in the functioning of the particular commission. Such a dynamic has no place anywhere, and even less, in local government. Mr. Hudson’s excellent editorial series raises concerns at multiple levels.
Another concerning piece is the how these meetings have been conducted. To give barely 24 hours notice for an “emergency meeting” obviously eliminates structurally most public input. And to continue to hold these meetings via ZOOM while the entire town was encouraged a while back to reopen business, pretty much as usual, appears to achieve the same purpose of hiding from the public — the taxpayers. Autocracy and oversight have historically not made very good friends.
So, contrary to what was loudly spoken about Mr. Hudson, we will share a diametrically opposed opinion about his person: Mr. Hudson is actually, and objectively, an outstanding citizen. Ethical. Rule abiding. Honorable. Dutiful. Perceptive. Seeking the common good. Socially responsible. Hard working. Gifted with brilliance, intelligence and wit. An amazing writer and analytical thinker. Someone with stature and good will. A model citizen.
These qualities might be the real threat at work here.
Thank you to Mr. Hudson, for all he has enlightened us to, thus far, concerning our Town Council and government. He has our respect and undoubtedly, that of many.
Ana M. Sancho Sama & Jeffrey M. Heintzleman
Pagosa Springs. CO
The Pagosa Daily Post welcomes submissions, photos, letters and videos from people who love Pagosa Springs, Colorado. Call 970-903-2673 or email pagosadailypost@gmail.com