To date, 25 of the Freeholder candidates (Links below) with email addresses listed have responded to a greater or lesser degree.
I appreciate most of their efforts even if I may disagree with their positions.
As prospective elected officials, I am struck by the idea that when I, as a possible constituent, contact a prospective candidate, that they frequently substitute their judgement over mine for what is, and what is not "relevant," what they will and what they will not answer to.
Every question I asked is relevant to me and the others who developed them. Failing to respond to your positions shows a distrust of our judgment... and that you've got something to hide or positions you're ashamed of or fear may harm your chances of getting elected.
And you are likely right on those impacts, so my default position is that when you fail to respond to the questions concerning your political affiliation, then you're likely a democrat; when you fail to respond to the question of your position concerning your take on the CRC that you likely support it, and when you fail to respond to the question of the Cowlitz Casino scam, then you likely support that as well.
And that you believe those questions to lack relevance is quite relevant... to me.
The question of "relevance" is solely left up to the questioner.No candidate for elective office, IMHO, should ever make any response to any political question "off limits." No candidate for any elective office should require justification for the asking of a political question: we are not here to convince any candidate that our questions are worthy of their time - they allegedly work for us and if their arrogance precludes responding to questions from prospective constituents then that failure to answer precludes their election.
I am going out with the same questions for the 2nd and final time tonite. I'll keep you posted.