Allie Pfeiffer, Moscow
The Moscow-Pullman Daily News 4/21/12
I just read Dan Carscallen’s letter to the editor this morning (Opinion, April 20), and while I was not surprised he felt the need to save his own skin, I thought he did it with rather poor form.
My first impression of his letter was not that he felt the need to present a dissenting opinion, but that he saw a golden opportunity to further his own agenda against Mayor Nancy Chaney. If his sole desire was to express another opinion or “clear his name,” he could have done so without mentioning Chaney at all.
Instead, he chose to make this a personal attack. I was at that meeting; I heard Chaney take responsibility for the giving of the award. His bored looks and obvious disinterest in the proceedings made it clear that he was not a supporter of this award. If he felt the need to make his opinion heard on this issue, would it not have been more professional to ask Chaney to reconsider the award or make clear that he was not in support of it?
As a high school government student, I have to say his behavior is a little unnerving. Though I know government bodies don’t often see eye-to-eye in every way, as part of a government body, he is still responsible to the higher authority: in this case, Chaney. His lack of unity with the council and his obvious agenda against Chaney does not bode well for the city of Moscow.
I respect his difference of opinion, but I cannot support such a childish way of expressing it.