I am perplexed by the inconsistency in three endorsements by the Herald. In the endorsement of Smith for sheriff (Oct. 15), the Herald states: “Smith will bring to the job a well-rounded résumé.” In the endorsement for county treasurer (Oct. 14), the Herald states: “Morrissey has an impressive résumé. … She is clearly a quick study, thorough and comfortable with big numbers.” And yet, the endorsement was for her opponent – not because of his qualifications, but because he has been voted into a previous county job. By stating this, the Herald is implying that unlike the sheriff, relevant experience does not matter for the treasurer’s job.
The comment that business experience is “cookie cutter” is absolutely incorrect. Every industry and every business has its own unique requirements, which easily translates to a government position. With respect to the county commissioner’s role, the inconsistency is also evident in that the Herald endorsed the person with no qualifications (Oct. 9).
The Herald has defined the ultimate Catch-22 – concluding that a candidate cannot be voted into a county job unless the candidate has previously been voted into a county job, and also implying that experience required for the job is irrelevant. How does this type of inconsistency in endorsements help our county?
Julie Engelken
Durango
