Opinion: Conflicts of interest in Pike election

To the editor:

In the March 1, 2007 River Reporter, an editorial, “Keeping conflicts of interest out of elections,” bemoaned “the controversy over the recently appointed director of elections in Pike County...”. Since then, Pike Democrats have warned against the corrupting conflict of interest in Mrs. Yolanda Goldsack’s presence as Director of Elections.

We predicted trouble this year with her husband, Bob Goldsack, a candidate for office. Sadly, these predictions were realized. The favoritism Mrs. Goldsack showed by accepting her husband’s flawed petition to be placed in nomination as a Democrat in the upcoming election means not only Mrs. Goldsack has violated the law by failing to adequately inspect all petitions, but also suggests she has acted the political operative instead of the neutral public servant.

It is past time for Mrs. Goldsack to be replaced. A deafening silence rings from the Pike County Board of Commissioners on this. Where does it stand on conflict of interest? Are the commissioners not fully dedicated to democracy? Could it be that Mrs. Goldsack’s continued presence is but the symptom of an underlying problem? Could the real pathogen lie in her superiors’ negligence? Her removal would go a long way to settling that concern.

At the very least, the Pike County Commissioners should require that Mrs. Goldsack recluse herself from this election cycle. In defense of the democratic process, it is time for all voters to demand that the Pike County Commissioners serve the public interest in free, fair and efficiently conducted elections by removing Mrs. Goldsack from her position. In the words of the same editorial cited above, “…when it comes to something as important as our votes, election officials ought to be, like Caesar’s wife, above suspicion.” Mrs. Goldsack is hardly above suspicion. She is tainted.


Julius Litman
Milford, PA