Dear Editor:
I retired from the Drumheller/Stettler Wildrose Constituency Board of Directors in 2012, because I thought there was too much gray hair present. I recently rejoined the board, because of reservations about the direction it was taking. The Wildrose Constitution clearly calls for an open nomination process prior to each general election, in every constituency. A number of directors on the board are opposed to any challenge to the incumbent MLA.
Progress and improvement come with new ideas and continued effort. To deny either, through a Kremlinesque denial of well-intentioned individuals, does not serve the interests of the party. The purpose and aim of a Constituency Association is to serve the interests of the Wildrose Party, by building memberships, funds, and party awareness, and through this process, to successfully elect an MLA. The obstacles to these goals are disinterest and apathy.
A contest to determine the best person suited to win an election, answers the purpose of the Constituency Association, and at the same time overcomes disinterest and apathy, the twin obstacles to electoral success.
Opponents to the challenge of an incumbent see it as “divisive”, I see it as “inclusive” Opponents to a fair challenge demean a challenge as mean spirited and “frivolous”. I see it as the same noble and costly sacrifice that the incumbent made originally.
I much prefer to see our Wildrose Party as vibrant and determined, willing to put our faith in the hands of all the people in our constituency, rather than a small number on a board who are content to protect the incumbent. In conclusion, the only thing I see wrong with a challenge to the incumbent, is that there are not two challengers!
What is to fear?
Stan Solberg