2012 senior class photos
2012 West Carrollton graduation
Home of the Week
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2010 > February > 25 > Entry
Editorial: Councilman can’t serve Huber in Iraq
For someone who isn’t actually here, Huber Heights City Councilman Brian Walton just won’t go away.
Mr. Walton, who works for a private company that supports the Air Force, is interested in working overseas. He also wants to serve on city council in Huber Heights. The two are mutually exclusive. He is in denial when he insists he can do both.
Mr. Walton was first appointed to council in January of 2009, filling a seat vacated when Seth Morgan was elected to the state legislature. A short time later, Mr. Walton made it known that his job would require him to relocate to Iraq for a year, beginning in June 2009. When he left, council stripped him of his seat under a rule that kicks in after three unexcused absences. Mr. Walton is still in Iraq, currently just more than halfway through his assignment that ends this June.
But there’s a twist that has brought the issue around again. In November, Mr. Walton ran for, and was actually elected to, the seat he was removed from, and he was sworn in as a city councilman while still in Iraq last month. He was elected easily over the man council appointed to replace him — attorney Tyler Starline — with 75 percent of the vote. (Mr. Starline was handicapped because he was a write-in candidate.)
On Monday, city council voted again to remove Mr. Walton for unexcused absences. Mr. Walton argues that he is being treated unfairly because, while not in uniform, he is serving his country in a civilian support role at a time of war. If he were a uniformed soldier, he says, nobody would push for his removal. His election strengthens his argument, since presumably such a large percentage of voters who picked him included a fair number who knew the situation and voted for him anyway.
But there is a nagging disconnect in Mr. Walton’s actions. The decision to seek public office necessarily should require a serious self-appraisal and blunt questions to oneself about what is most important in life.
Every potential candidate for public office wrestles with these issues. Choosing to run for a city council seat, by its nature, means also choosing to spend less time and effort elsewhere, whether it be with family, on hobbies or at a job.
It’s honorable that Mr. Walton genuinely wants to serve on council, just as his commitment to his work in support of the U.S. military is to be commended. But he simply cannot be in two places at once.
The people Mr. Walton was elected to represent deserve just that — representation. If he cannot provide that service at this time, he shouldn’t be on council.
A day presumably will come when Mr. Walton’s professional commitments will no longer require long stretches outside the country, Mr. Walton can always re-engage at that time. In the meantime, he should let others better positioned to help manage the city fill the post.
Permalink | Comments (15) | Post your comment | Categories: Editorials, Miami Valley Politics, Scott Elliott, Suburban Communities
Comments
By i AM JUST SAYING
February 25, 2010 6:54 AM | Link to this
I think the best people to decide whether the councilman can serve/represent the city are the VOTERS of the city, not the council. If the voters want him, then he IS their Rep.
By i AM JUST SAYING
February 25, 2010 6:56 AM | Link to this
I think the best people to decide whether the councilman can serve/represent the city are the VOTERS of the city, not the council. If the voters want him, then he IS their Rep.
By rabbit
February 25, 2010 7:28 AM | Link to this
We voted for him he should stay! we knew he would be gone until June. so what?
By nothappy
February 25, 2010 7:39 AM | Link to this
Contrary to the editorial claim that the person appointed to fill Brian Walton’s seat on council was “handicapped” by not being on the ballot, he was promoted through articles in the local paper and had many sign posted in his ward. It may be his handicap was that people compared him to Mr. Walton and preferred an absentee councilman to what his replacement offered. There are two councilmen at large who could handle any problems that surface until Walton returns.
By joe_mamma
February 25, 2010 7:49 AM | Link to this
Geez Scott…are you a busybody or did you just have nothing to write about?
By d
February 25, 2010 8:59 AM | Link to this
Let me ask a question and would like to see responses. For those that support Mr. Walton staying on the council, how many issues have you had to bring up with him since he has been in Iraq? For those that have, are you satisfied with the resolution? If so, that should be a sign that Mr. Walton can perform as a rep while overseas. One beef I have with Mr. Walton is his comparing his situation to those in the military. While he might be in the same area, it is normally on a voluntary basis for civilians unlike military personnel that are ordered to serve in the area. Not to mention the nice tax breaks he is receiving while there.
By fortressdayton
February 25, 2010 9:23 AM | Link to this
Skype and video-conferencing are well and good, but they don’t replace presence. Ask any parent serving in the military overseas if Skype makes raising a child easier. That’s why the generals running the war are on the ground in Afghanistan and not in Tonganoxie, Kansas. It does make a difference.
By fortressdayton
February 25, 2010 9:30 AM | Link to this
Additionally, Mr. Walton’s comment about not being a uniformed soldier, but still serving his country, is not germane. Uniformed members of the Armed Forces are prohibited from serving in elected public office because of the conflict of interest issues that may arise. Are you listening, citizen Walton?
By DK
February 25, 2010 11:21 AM | Link to this
I would bet most of the 75% who voted for Mr. Walton only did so because he was the incumbent, and had no idea he was in Iraq and would be until June 2010. Mr. Walton’s continued attempts at trying to represent Huber Hts while he is overseas simply shows me a person with little regard for the constituents and the area he represents and concern only for furthering his own interests.
By Beth
February 25, 2010 8:55 PM | Link to this
Both sides are right of course, realy they are. But the June date puts a different spin on things. Should he have run? No but like many in politics he thinks of himself first. He isn’t the only one. But many - indeed most - people would not have run and waited until the next time. I don’t really like his behavior. He created a stupid situation. Shame on him.
By It's Great in Dayton!!
February 26, 2010 10:33 AM | Link to this
Is there any way we can send Dayton’s entire city council to Iraq? I think the folks in Huber might be on to something. —-Dayton’s Dying—-
By Megan
February 27, 2010 6:10 PM | Link to this
Both sides have a good argument, but at the end of the day, Mr. Walton ran for re-election because he put his own ambition before his constituents. He knew he would be gone for 6 months out of his 4-year term, but he chose to run anyway. It was selfish of him to knowingly leave his constituents without a representative for 1/8th of his term. A Councilman should make his constituents his FIRST priority, not second or third priority. If Mr. Walton wants to run for the City Council four years from now, that is his right, but for now he needs to do what is best for his constituents and let them be represented by a Councilman who is actually PRESENT.
By Megan
February 27, 2010 6:11 PM | Link to this
Both sides have a good argument, but at the end of the day, Mr. Walton ran for re-election because he put his own ambition before his constituents. He knew he would be gone for 6 months out of his 4-year term, but he chose to run anyway. It was selfish of him to knowingly leave his constituents without a representative for 1/8th of his term. A Councilman should make his constituents his FIRST priority, not second or third priority. If Mr. Walton wants to run for the City Council four years from now, that is his right, but for now he needs to do what is best for his constituents and let them be represented by a Councilman who is actually PRESENT.
By Megan
February 27, 2010 6:11 PM | Link to this
Both sides have a good argument, but at the end of the day, Mr. Walton ran for re-election because he put his own ambition before his constituents. He knew he would be gone for 6 months out of his 4-year term, but he chose to run anyway. It was selfish of him to knowingly leave his constituents without a representative for 1/8th of his term. A Councilman should make his constituents his FIRST priority, not second or third priority. If Mr. Walton wants to run for the City Council four years from now, that is his right, but for now he needs to do what is best for his constituents and let them be represented by a Councilman who is actually PRESENT.
By bj7600
March 1, 2010 10:23 PM | Link to this
Just curious as to how Mayor Ron Fisher, city counsel, and the Huber Heights School Board will handle the situation when his brother Carl misses meetings to attend “meet and greets” during his run for the seat of representive that was vacated by Seth Morgan. Good for the goose… good for the gander?