Dear Editor, 

There were many recent election races where people were appalled at how “low, down and dirty” some campaigns got. Not all, by any means, but some. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth as well as concerns with whether this lower bar now sets the tone of civility going forward in our municipalities. 

Region-wide, the candidates for warden all ran old fashioned, dignified, clean campaigns befitting of a race at the highest level of political office in our MRC. Decency. Maturity. Proper form, I would say, and befitting of our region. Runners up audited their own campaigns, drew their conclusions and commented on how, if at all, they would approach another run at being warden. All perfectly normal. All very positive and forward looking leaving people of the Pontiac at ease knowing things have progressed as they normally would after an election. 

In a shocking display of viciousness Caleb Nickerson, representing the paper we have all loved and respected and that had a stellar reputation that was well earned over its multi-generational run, wrote an appalling, down-in-the-gutter attack of the newly re-elected warden. Your paper’s editorial was a disappointment. Nothing constructive. A lot of whining. It was like channeling the worst of the worst in people and it set the tone of aggression. There was a venomous tone like I had never seen before and this, after an above-board, non-aggressive, normal campaign. This attack is out of the norm. It sounds very personal. It definitely is like the anger fomenting we see from some of the ugliest of online social influencers. This is not who we are in the Pontiac. People always could trust that Charles would take a zoomed out critique and make some intelligent commentary about the thing he was challenging. Last week’s editorial had nothing to offer than mud slinging, even poking at the warden for having had a plan of action with priorities. How else do you responsibly run a $9-million MRC but with plans and priorities. That’s why the people voted in an experienced politician. I am calling that editorial out for what it is, as I see it. To create such an ascorbic tone is less journalism and more playing the social influencer and not at all a subtle one at that. If I want to hear the nastiest of nasty and the angriest of angry there are plenty of online groups to join for that. I do not accept the tone being set by the management of this paper. It is beneath the station of this beloved community paper.

Judith Spence, Clarendon