A Letter From a Taresa Hiatt for Payson City Council, 2017

Russian Thistle

I sent my letters off to Payson City Council candidates last week and have, so far, gotten only one response. (Update: Got another response. See: Interview with Scott Phillips) I could only find two email addresses out of the four candidates. This seems to be par for the course in Payson.

The responding candidate was Taresa Hiatt.

My letter was as follows:

I am a blogger looking to find out more about the candidates for the available City Council seats in Payson, so I am emailing all of the candidates to find out more about them.

What inspires you to seek a seat on the City Council of Payson?

How would you describe the job of a City Councillor?

What responsibility do you see individual citizens as having in promoting their own welfare, and the welfare of society, and what kinds of limitations you see to that responsibility?

If you are elected, how might you be able to act as a check against abuses perpetrated by other government officers?

    Sean Cox

Here is what Taresa Hiatt had to say:

I am seeking a seat on City Council because I have not seen any significant change in Payson for many years. I have been talking to many people about different issues and concerns. I feel that all citizens have a say in government and who runs their city. For too many years, there has been very little accountability to the citizens. Payson has not moved ahead. Why? That is a question everyone is asking. I personally feel that some people have had too much control in what happens in our city. I have heard the same concerns from many citizens. I think that all Payson residents need to stand up and say, "No more, start listening to our issues and concerns or we will vote you out." I am committed to the people. I know I don't have all the answers but that is why I am willing to listen to people and talk about their concerns and ideas. Five people on a city council do not have all the answers, and they are not the smartest people in the city. I will give of my time to investigate each issue that I am confronted with. I know that I will make a big difference because I work until I find a solution to the problem.

The Job of the City Council Member is to make the best decision, based on research, for the betterment of the city and its citizens. Accountability is a must and closed door policy needs to be limited. We answer to the public. The City Council needs to start realizing that their actions or inactions have an effect on the city, whether bad or good. These five people must put aside their differences and make decisions based on knowledge and not feelings.

I personally feel that all citizens should be involved in how their city is governed. Each person is responsible for finding out where each candidate stands on the issues. Everyone has a voice, but if they choose not to use it, then their concerns are never heard or expressed. All ideas presented should be for the betterment of all citizens and the city. Also, the citizens should do everything in their power to help make Payson successful.

If there are abuses being carried out by other government officers, I will find a way to take care of the problem. There is no reason that people should abuse their powers when they are supposed to be protecting and serving the citizens. This won't happen on my watch.

If there are any other questions I can answer, please do not hesitate to ask.

Thank you,

Taresa Hiatt

As is fairly usual, the response from the candidate reinforces what we can find out about the candidate elsewhere. (This is not trivial. It lends credence to the conclusions that we would draw from that evidence.)

From a practical sense, I like to score respondent's answers so that I can compare them to each other and get a somewhat objective representation of the candidate. However, we only have one respondent, so there isn't a lot to compare against. Nevertheless, I'll go through the exercise. I'll give up to 2 points per question. (Hence, candidate is scored out of 8.) One of the misconceptions from an exercise like this is that candidates should be getting something like 90% to get an A, or some nonsense like that. This is my own scale and my own scoring. Mentally, I would personally consider 50% or better to be a good candidate, but really, unless a candidate is horrible, the important point is how they compare against each other.

Question 1: 2 points (Respondent expresses an issue that she wants addressed and does not seem to be playing politics for her ego. ie. the position doesn't seem to be a trophy to put on her shelf, or a step on a career ladder.)
Question 2: 1 point (Respondent demonstrates some ideals regarding how the position "should" be executed, morally, but fails to demonstrate an active awareness of the nature or the position's authority.)
Question 3: 1 point (Respondent acknowledges freedom of speech, but not the right to any kind of nullification or disobedience in the face of abuse.)
Question 4: 1/2 point (Somewhat acknowledges the existence of the responsibility to act as a check against corruption. Shows no practical knowledge of how her authority would position her to practically address these issues or what kind of specific realms these issues might come up in.)

So, we have 4.5 points, a little better than 50%. That kind of matches my gut reaction to the letter as well. My feeling is that she would be a marginally good candidate, and, unfortunately, probably the best one this election cycle is offering.

Positives: She seems to generally care about the city, which is reflected both in her answer to question 1, and in the ideals that earned her the points she picked up on the other questions. This is consistent with both the effort she has put into the election, her involvement in the community, and the specific and actionable expressions of concern I found when doing the basic background research.

Negatives: Her view of ideal government seems to be that of a benevolent parent of children, which is a view that tragically fails to to acknowledge the dual nature of the beast. She wants to make it benevolent, but she acknowledges neither the limitations in her ability to make it so, nor the actual authority she has to influence that nature. Sadly, nothing I have read about her opponents suggests that they would be any better in this regard.

Unfortunately, I see a wildcard candidate, Bill Wright, being likely to be elected as mayor. (Wildcard because I can't find anywhere where he mentions any concrete priorities, agenda items, or espoused philosophies.) He has a background in the police force, which, while practical, can also present a conflict of interests, as I would be inclined to doubt his ability to objectively address any problems in the department culture.

The only evidence I am aware of that would suggest a problem is the accusations leveled by the parents of a girl allegedly sexually assaulted by a police officer's son. Bill Wright's handling of that situation was less than ideal and left me with questions I have not found answers to. Without vigilance and objectivity, problems will develop.

I don't trust any of the current candidates for City Council to help expose any problems that might exist either with Bill Wright, the police department itself, or with any other wing of the government. This is an important function of our representatives. It is a recipe that can foster abuse.

I say this, not because I feel disinclined to support Teresa's candidacy, (I'm inclined to support her) but because I feel that we need to be looking to find and be better candidates for the future. I also say this to highlight the weaknesses that will exist in the candidates that will likely end up governing Payson.