In the comments section, candidate Dan English takes incumbent Steve Adams to task for voting against federal assistance for three more Coeur d'Alene police officers:
Yes I do have a few thoughts on this and Mr. Adam's stance on these kinds of issues are a key reason why I am running as an alternate point of view for the middle majority of our voters and citizens. I am deeply troubled by Mr. Adams’s voting record in opposition to nearly every expenditure no matter the need or funding source. Mr. Adams has a consistent, knee-jerk,anti-government ideology, and votes accordingly. He would prefer the city turn down federal grants for necessary services such as public safety and infrastructure. This would mean that the tax dollars we already pay stay in Washington or be sent to other communities. Since these services are necessary, we would then have an increased local tax burden, in essence paying twice for no added value. In the background documentation for this request, Chief White points out that we are about a dozen officers down already for what we need. While this grant is very competitive and we may not get it even if we try, why in the world wouldn't we try. Especially since it is targeted at community policing efforts and as I understand it, at our new East Sherman sub station where just about everybody agrees, it would be good to have more public safety officers. As a former sworn officer and adjunct faculty member who taught justice studies, I know this request makes sense and cents and should be supported. To vote against it isn't fiscal conservatism but fiscal imprudence.
Question: Are you as glad as I am that Dan English seems ready to hold Adams accountable for his radical stands and votes?