tourists.’”
Glee cracked, “Silly me—I always thought it was the brutal winters.”
I added, “Not to mention Dumont’s lack of casinos and discount malls.”
Lucy said, “The report makes no specific recommendation regarding enforcement of the obscenity ordinance, but the implication is clear: Dumont County would be well served by a crackdown on smut.”
I thought for a moment. “Is tomorrow’s editorial page locked up yet?”
Lucy reminded me, “Not if you say it’s not.”
I paused again. “Ladies, if you’ll excuse me, I’ve got some writing to do.”
As they left my outer office, I retreated to my desk.
PART TWO
To Serve and Protect
OUR ENDORSEMENT
The Register backs Douglas Pierce for sheriff of Dumont County
by MARK MANNING Publisher, Dumont Daily Register
S EPT. 16, DUMONT WI—SHERIFF DOUGLAS PIERCE, DUMONT COUNTY’S CHIEF LAW-ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, HAS DEMONSTRATED DURING HIS FIRST TERM OF SERVICE THAT HE IS A DEDICATED, ABLE, AND EFFECTIVE PUBLIC SERVANT. BY ANY OBJECTIVE STANDARD OF JUDGING HIS PERFORMANCE AS SHERIFF, HE DESERVES TO BE RETURNED TO THAT OFFICE.
Mr. Pierce (45) points out that during his tenure, crime rates have fallen some 14 percent in our community. Department expenses have remained consistently within budget, and he has presented a responsible plan for the long-overdue modernization of the county’s jail facilities. He has proven himself a skilled administrator—as well as a good cop.
Daniel Ken (35), Mr. Pierce’s opponent in this election, is a deputy lieutenant within the sheriff’s department, having risen through the ranks as a detective in the footsteps of his mentor, Mr. Pierce. Interviewing Lieutenant Kerr at the Register ’s editorial offices, we found him to be affable, intelligent, and committed to public service. If given the opportunity, he could doubtless dispatch effectively the duties of the office he seeks, and we applaud his eagerness to serve the community in this broader capacity.
We disagree, however, with Mr. Kerr’s position that the sheriff’s department should play a more aggressive role in enforcement of the county’s obscenity ordinance, a wrongheaded bit of lawmaking that runs contrary to every journalistic principle as well as to the First Amendment.
We fear that Mr. Kerr’s position, coupled with the curious findings of the County Plan Commission (reported elsewhere on these pages), neither serves nor protects the liberties of Dumont’s citizenry. In our view, this issue alone disqualifies Mr. Kerr as a tenable candidate.
On November 7, Dumont’s voters will be best served by returning Sheriff Douglas Pierce to office. We offer him our enthusiastic endorsement.
Saturday, September 16
N AMING NAMES IS PART of my business. During my career as a reporter, I quickly learned that the name in the first sentence was the most crucial detail of the story: Who did it? As publisher of my own paper, I direct my staff in the reporting of news, but my own writing is generally limited to the occasional editorial. When a column appears under my byline in Dumont, readers know that my words are not restricted to the objective transmission of facts. Rather, I now tread boldly into the realm of opinion—and I’m still naming names.
As a publisher, I view election endorsements as one of my most serious responsibilities. They are also among my greatest risks. Even in a smallish town like Dumont, where the stakes aren’t seemingly all that high, the election of public officials provides the thrust and rhythm of grassroots democracy; for most people, participation in government begins and ends in the voting booth. And in local elections, voters are far more likely to feel some connection, whether real or imagined, to the names on the ballot. Chances are, when I urge my readers to elect so-and-so, half of them will be miffed.
“Why so early?” asked Neil at breakfast that Saturday. He set the morning paper on the kitchen table, folding the
Glee cracked, “Silly me—I always thought it was the brutal winters.”
I added, “Not to mention Dumont’s lack of casinos and discount malls.”
Lucy said, “The report makes no specific recommendation regarding enforcement of the obscenity ordinance, but the implication is clear: Dumont County would be well served by a crackdown on smut.”
I thought for a moment. “Is tomorrow’s editorial page locked up yet?”
Lucy reminded me, “Not if you say it’s not.”
I paused again. “Ladies, if you’ll excuse me, I’ve got some writing to do.”
As they left my outer office, I retreated to my desk.
PART TWO
To Serve and Protect
OUR ENDORSEMENT
The Register backs Douglas Pierce for sheriff of Dumont County
by MARK MANNING Publisher, Dumont Daily Register
S EPT. 16, DUMONT WI—SHERIFF DOUGLAS PIERCE, DUMONT COUNTY’S CHIEF LAW-ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, HAS DEMONSTRATED DURING HIS FIRST TERM OF SERVICE THAT HE IS A DEDICATED, ABLE, AND EFFECTIVE PUBLIC SERVANT. BY ANY OBJECTIVE STANDARD OF JUDGING HIS PERFORMANCE AS SHERIFF, HE DESERVES TO BE RETURNED TO THAT OFFICE.
Mr. Pierce (45) points out that during his tenure, crime rates have fallen some 14 percent in our community. Department expenses have remained consistently within budget, and he has presented a responsible plan for the long-overdue modernization of the county’s jail facilities. He has proven himself a skilled administrator—as well as a good cop.
Daniel Ken (35), Mr. Pierce’s opponent in this election, is a deputy lieutenant within the sheriff’s department, having risen through the ranks as a detective in the footsteps of his mentor, Mr. Pierce. Interviewing Lieutenant Kerr at the Register ’s editorial offices, we found him to be affable, intelligent, and committed to public service. If given the opportunity, he could doubtless dispatch effectively the duties of the office he seeks, and we applaud his eagerness to serve the community in this broader capacity.
We disagree, however, with Mr. Kerr’s position that the sheriff’s department should play a more aggressive role in enforcement of the county’s obscenity ordinance, a wrongheaded bit of lawmaking that runs contrary to every journalistic principle as well as to the First Amendment.
We fear that Mr. Kerr’s position, coupled with the curious findings of the County Plan Commission (reported elsewhere on these pages), neither serves nor protects the liberties of Dumont’s citizenry. In our view, this issue alone disqualifies Mr. Kerr as a tenable candidate.
On November 7, Dumont’s voters will be best served by returning Sheriff Douglas Pierce to office. We offer him our enthusiastic endorsement.
Saturday, September 16
N AMING NAMES IS PART of my business. During my career as a reporter, I quickly learned that the name in the first sentence was the most crucial detail of the story: Who did it? As publisher of my own paper, I direct my staff in the reporting of news, but my own writing is generally limited to the occasional editorial. When a column appears under my byline in Dumont, readers know that my words are not restricted to the objective transmission of facts. Rather, I now tread boldly into the realm of opinion—and I’m still naming names.
As a publisher, I view election endorsements as one of my most serious responsibilities. They are also among my greatest risks. Even in a smallish town like Dumont, where the stakes aren’t seemingly all that high, the election of public officials provides the thrust and rhythm of grassroots democracy; for most people, participation in government begins and ends in the voting booth. And in local elections, voters are far more likely to feel some connection, whether real or imagined, to the names on the ballot. Chances are, when I urge my readers to elect so-and-so, half of them will be miffed.
“Why so early?” asked Neil at breakfast that Saturday. He set the morning paper on the kitchen table, folding the
Similar Books
