When I left the town of Dayton caucus last Jan. 27, I was really pleased. I remembered past caucuses when hardly more than a handful of people attended. I remembered a number of elections when most if not all positions were uncontested: No one wanted the jobs.
This year Dayton residents knew and cared enough about their town government to turn out and participate in the caucus, and in addition to those holding the offices, there were seven new people nominated. All seven are people with education, experience, interest and energy enough to commit themselves to serving with dedication should they be elected. It is a big commitment, and to my way of thinking, they are all to be commended.
I was also pleased to hear that the new candidates were so focused on hearing from all segments of the Dayton population, and in transparency and openness.
I have no doubt that all of these people are capable of learning the intricacies of town government in Wisconsin, just as those who currently hold office have learned.
I also have no doubt that all our candidates are inherently good people, current office holders as well as new candidates. I believe that they are all honorable, competent, dedicated and hard working. I see, however, that there are different competencies, different dedications, different goals, and different ways of doing things represented among them.
But I think it is unfortunate to suggest that because a person has held an elected office for two, six, 10 or 20 years, they own the office, or to suggest that anyone who runs against them is a charlatan. We don’t have to think ill of one person to vote for another.
I think Mr. Peglow said it very well, at the caucus, when he said to those present that if they were dissatisfied, or disagreed with decisions and actions of the current board, they should elect new people to the positions. If they were happy with the way things had been going, they should re-elect those in office.