LETTER: Morris Township has integrity problem

At the Dec. 16 meeting of the Morris Township Committee, I commented on a full-page ad called “Restore Integrity to Our Elections in Morris Township” that a citizen’s group took out in two separate editions of the Daily Record. I am not a member of that group, and I had no part in creating or publicizing this ad. But I did identify with many aspects of its message.

Election night is over. But its offensiveness to many struck an enduring nerve. In commenting on the “Restore Integrity…” message, I was careful to communicate a conciliatory tone. I get that differences in perspective are at play here. I am disappointed that except for Matheu Nunn, the Committee seems unable (or unwilling) to reciprocate a comparable understanding — and respect — for the validity of differences in our viewpoints.

This letter is a follow-up to that meeting.

A word of advice for the Republican establishment: if you agree with Bruce Sisler’s assertion at the Dec. 16 meeting that “nothing is more important than maintaining the credibility of the election process,” then don’t do things that undermine it.

If assuring the public that the integrity of the process is beyond reproach, you might want to reconsider whether it was a good idea to hold a closed-door, Republicans-only gathering in the inner suite of the county clerk’s office during a time of peak confusion on election night when tensions were running high, conflicting information was running rampant, and the outcome of the election was in dispute.

Don’t forget that at the time, fresh in everyone’s minds were the as-yet-unsolved mysteries of the strange irregularity where a poll worker segregated voters by party affiliation and — infinitely more concerning — the weird coincidence of a cartridge malfunction in the single district the Republican candidates won by the greatest margin.

If the goal is to ensure the integrity of the election process, the optics of your election-night gathering did not inspire confidence.

The clerk is supposed to be a neutral overseer of the election process. Remember?

The clerk’s office is not the private domain of the Republican party. Was this just a temporary group memory lapse on your part?

Given the full range of disconcerting circumstances on this particular election night, do you really believe (as Mayor Caffrey suggested at the Dec. 16 meeting) that there’s no difference between gathering in public at the Famished Frog and gathering in private, behind closed doors, in the clerk’s inner office?

I agree with a distinction Louise Johnson highlighted at this same meeting: the difference between perception and reality. Let me tell you: reality looked very different depending on which side of those doors you were on.

Consider the options you now have to turn this situation into an opportunity to build trust and respect across party lines. What a great outcome this would be for everyone. With no skin off your back, the solution is simple: demonstrate that you understand the reality of perceptions other than your own.

For example, you could acknowledge that this gathering created problems that were unintended but regrettable. You might even apologize for inadvertently offending all the people who are not establishment insiders.

At the very least, if your goal is to assure the public of the integrity of the election process, my advice for future election nights is keep the clerk’s door open and meet in the Famished Frog.

Cathy Wilson

MORRIS TOWNSHIP