Is it truly surprising that those opposed to my direct form of leadership have sprung up daffodil-like, blooming with indignation and saying, “oh, you shouldn’t have been rude to the Secretary of State”? Frankly, why not?
For too long, the political arena, particularly at local government level, has been shrouded in a culture of quiet compliance. There’s an expectation that we should all be ‘mealy-mouthed yes-women’ or yes-men, nodding along to whatever central government dictates, irrespective of the impact on our local communities. Well, I’m here to tell you: I am not that person.
My role as council leader is not to be a docile administrator, but a fierce advocate for the people I represent. When vital decisions are being made that affect the lives of our residents, and when those decisions seem ill-informed, unjust, or simply wrong, it is my duty – no, my absolute imperative – to speak truth to power. Politeness, while generally appreciated, has its limits when the future of our town is on the line.
The recent exchange with the Secretary of State wasn’t about disrespect; it was about demanding accountability and clarity on issues that matter deeply to us. It was about challenging assumptions and pushing back against policies that, from our perspective on the ground, are simply unworkable or detrimental. If that comes across as ‘rude’ to some, then perhaps they need to re-evaluate their definition of leadership.
I believe in transparent, robust debate. I believe in fighting for what’s right. And if that means ruffling a few feathers, or abandoning the conventional, diplomatic niceties when our community’s interests are at stake, then so be it. I will continue to be direct, I will continue to challenge, and I will certainly not be a ‘yes-woman’ when a ‘no’ or a ‘but’ is what our residents deserve.
Source: Original Article
