How should one interpret the language of a recent letter to the editor, “Against Chapman” (Aug. 25 PDN), referring to Clallam County Commissioner Mike Chapman?
The writer refers to “the sirens of deceit and misrepresentation have become his guide posts” and “due to political pressure, he would rather deny all the children the easy and cost-effective way to get the benefits of fluoride.”
The letter continues with innuendos and allegations regarding Chapman’s “fiduciary” neglect and lack of personal integrity.
Does not following the surgeon general’s “support of fluoridation” imply this is federal law or mandate or a military order?’
Is one never to question federal guidelines (or even the Supreme Court’s rulings) in response to the expressed concerns of local voters?
I’ve always believed that healthy debate without slavish bowing to the status quo long held by entrenched political and bureaucratic authorities was the mark of equal representation of all the voters.
I support Mike Chapman for his openness, his willingness to listen to “ordinary” citizens and his record of compromise and conciliation in a sometimes contentious and polarized board of commissioners.
My impression of him is that he is a man of honest principles and decent conscience.
His abilities are needed in the state Legislature.
Sylvia Marshall Meyer,
Port Angeles
EDITOR’S NOTE: Chapman is a candidate for a 24th Legislative District Position 1 seat in the Nov. 8 general election.
