Hello Ann Margarette Ferrante,
I am writing to you as a representative voice of over 4000 viewers on Greasypole Nation, an unknown amount of readers of the Cricket out in Manchester by the Sea, and myself as a concerned voter.
We sought to connect with you about having a local debate regarding the representative seat you currently hold with two other candidates. Since August 12 we have made attempts at reaching you at your State email address. A week later, we were addressed with what seemed like an interest in the debate. As you know, time was of the essence with election day in early September, however it is my feeling that three weeks would be plenty of time to prepare and respond to our invitation to debate.
After the initial letter of interest, it seems that a level of "questioning" emerged as to how legitimate both Greasypole Nation, the Cricket, and 1623 Studios would be when it comes to hosting a debate at the Sawyer Free Library.
We answered all of your concerns about the format and more. At least one of the debate organizers has experience in being an event moderator. GPN has "broadcast" on social media since 2007 and has never been flagged. The Cricket is a legitimate news source and 1623 Studios has legitimate credibility within the local broadcasting community.
To this voter, it felt as if we were being "dragged along for limited time" or to put it another way—"stonewalled."
This concerns me as a voting citizen. When did we start to lose touch with the essence of an open run for an elected seat, in which the people get a look at where you stand on the issues facing the people? When was it decided that only a "legitimate" institution of your choosing, would be worthy of hosting a debate? I also ask how does this legitimacy grow?
These questions arise as you never did return our email when we asked you which debates you were actually considering as you alluded to in your first response.
No response.
Is this your strategy for politics?
To this voter, it seems as though you did not want to engage in the effort to reach those who may or may not vote for you.
To this voter it seems as if you may fear losing a seat when challenged, and instead you chose to take the path of least resistance.
To this voter it seems you may be aware that the people who want you in that seat will vote for you, and exposure to other potential voters who may or may not vote in your direction are kept "in the dark."
It seems an intentional void was created in effort to keep the people uneducated and unknowledgeable about an upcoming election, who you are, your voting history, and what you may do for the people into the future with the power you hold.
Please remember you work FOR THE PEOPLE and that the vote of an individual is the basis for democracy in America—it's why the people love America and this provides the essence of what freedom actually is.
It's unfortunate that this failed process is also why Americans have begun to lose hope in the American way of politics and the future of our nation. This being at a very local level.
Having this debate forum at the Sawyer Free Library was not the "end all" for GPN, 1623 Studios or the Cricket newspaper. We were offering this as a service to the people. As a voter on Cape Ann, this process has me wondering about the ethics of the relationship between voter and politician and how disconnected from the people a candidate can become.
I write this letter on behalf of many potential voters in Manchester by the Sea and Gloucester, who may or may not cast a vote in this upcoming election, and because of your decision to remain invisible to the public while defying an American institution of debate.
Sincerely,
Keith Palazzola
For the People by the People debate
