Why To Vote For Mark Welch and Matt King: A debate for West Chester Trustee

Over this past week, there were a couple of public debates allowing the current West Chester trustees Catherine Stoker and Lee Wong to defend their records against the challengers Mark Welch and Matt King.  I support Mark and Matt and you dear reader will too after watching the video shown below.  Clearly Mark and Matt are much more competent as potential trustees.  Just listen to them.  There really isn’t any question.

Listening and watching Wong and Stoker defending their records,  Stoker came across as a career, 20 year politician.  Her comments were political, polished, and non-committal, the way long time politicians always are.  Wong on the other hand declared that the reason he should be trustee again was because “people like bike paths, they like to talk to one another, and he rides his bicycle all over West Chester.”  Serious!  He must have said it 7 times during the debate.  The most telling aspects of the debate are the things that Stoker and Wong took credit for and the things they said were out of their control.  A couple of those things were: “zoning regulations were voted on by citizens.”  We are not supposed to blame the trustees who had final approval of these regulations, because it was the will of the people. “The land use plan was put together by a citizens committee.”  In other words, voters cannot blame trustees who had final approval of the plan, because a citizen committee of ass kissing Agenda 21 loving statists created it under their subtle nudges.  “Zoning review committee is manned by citizens.”—whom Trustees appointed and Trustees will have final approval of their work. “The citizens voted for the aggregation program(s)”—(so trustees who voted for approval are off the hook).  See how it works?  Listen carefully to the way the current trustees try to shrug off any responsibility for anything that might be unpleasant.

Stoker blamed the withholding of legal expenses from inclusion in the trustee agenda on staff not being able to pay a vendor, a vendor billing at the current rate of $290 per hour that could not be contacted for longer terms, a vendor whose billings were included in over half a million dollars of legal expenses to the township during 2012?  In defending the Wong and Stoker exclusion of Fiscal Officer from executive sessions, Stoker cast doubt on the integrity of the Fiscal Officer without cause.  But yet, as trustees, Wong and Stoker claim all the credit for the successful operations of the township and the growth of commerce and industry.  No credit to the developers, investors, merchants, donors, etc.—the visionaries who really made it work—or the staff and employees of the township who helped enable it.  Bet you didn’t know that video was so exciting did you?  Watch it again with “educated eyes.”

If this debate doesn’t clear things up about who the people are behind the campaign signs, then it needs to be watched until it does—because the differences are incredibly obvious.  The decision is basically does West Chester want a couple of long-term career politicians who have little idea how to run the community, or do they want a couple of highly competent businessmen who have more than two cents to apply to the various problems of community management.

For me it is easy to decide.  I wouldn’t vote for Wong because he’s certainly not competent.  He is a nice enough guy, but there is more to running a community’s finances than riding a bicycle around West Chester.  And with Stoker, she is too politically savy to actually do the will of the people.  She is a typical politician, and that alone makes her unqualified.  The only real answer is Welch and King.  Those two guys represent opportunity.  The other two represent stagnation, complacency, and a slide backwards toward the business cycle of so many Cincinnati communities that have had their day in the sun, then fallen to decline due to corrosive politicians.

Rich Hoffman


Give yourself the gift of ADVENTURE.  CLICK HERE!