JOHN DECKER ELECTED MAYOR OF WHITE HOUSE BUT BECOMES FIRST MAYOR TO WIN WITHOUT A MAJORITY OF THE VOTE On November 7, 2006, John Decker was elected mayor of White House by taking a plurality of the vote, but waking the day after the election to realize that most of the town had voted for the two other candidates--Theresa Lott and Thomas Wright. Much of the pre-election debate centered around what many citizens considered "false promises" made by the board of mayor and alderman back in the late 1990s--promises used as a reason for hiking city taxes one half of one percent. Most citizens were left with the impression that one of the main reasons for this new tax was so White House could build a city recreation center and promote a healthy lifestyle for its rapidly expanding population--a facility that was supposed to include such things as exercise equipment, an indoor walking track, etc. John Decker, who served as an alderman at the time of this new tax increase, was one of our representatives who campaigned for the tax under what are now clearly viewed as "false pretenses." Some local officials continue to claim such promises were never made. Local citizens who heard these promises know better. After all, why would the city of White House have dusty plans for a recreation center lying around at City Hall for so many years if there was never an early initiative to build one? I smell a skunk. Do you? Following the three-way race for mayor on Tuesday, Decker woke Wednesay morning to find that the number of White House citizens wanting to keep him in the mayoral position was less than the number of people wanting someone new to fill the post. The final tally, as provided by the Sumner County and Robertson County Election Commissions was as follows: John Decker, Sumner Co. : 668 Robertson Co. : 503 Total : 1,171 Theresa Lott, Sumner Co. : 363 Robertson Co. : 380 Total : 743 Thomas Wright, Sumner Co. : 234 Robertson Co. : 217 Total : 451 Lott and Wright received 1,194 votes, while Decker received 1,171. Nevertheless, Decker, as well other city aldermen, have continued to defend the actions of the board of mayor and alderman in regard to the use of moneys that have flowed into city coffers from the new tax implemented in the late 1990s. While answering questions during a pre-election debate, Decker characterized the recent study to bring a YMCA to White House as an exercise in studious governing by himself and the board of alderman. The answer was politically expedient, but incorrect. The initial efforts to see about bringing a YMCA to White House were not made by our local governing board. Instead, it was done by one of the other mayoral candidates, Theresa Lott, and one of her good friends. After the YMCA showed an interest, the proposal was taken to the White House governing board to see if the mayor and aldermen were willing to agree to the YMCA's demand that the city split the cost of a "feasability study." The city ultimately agreed to pay-- not because of some sort of responsible or studious governing or political integrity, but because they knew the "recreation center" issue was a hot button issue with the electorate. Decker tried to characterize the YMCA discussions as part of the city's overall plan to be "financially responsible." However, those who know the history of this matter, realize that Decker has done what most all politicians do-- prey upon the ignorance of the electorate and re-cast themselves as believers in "responsible government," even though false promises still lie on the ground all around their feet. It is up to us--the citizens of White House--to demand integrity from our representatives. It is up to city employees to be whistle-blowers when they witness corruption, and not allow corruption, intimidation or harassment to continue in their midst. Without proper use of these two checks-and-balances on our elected representatives--the chance of "responsible government" is slim to nil. So, let's get involved, citizens of White House! I know it's not easy to stay informed and attend all the monthly meetings of the board of mayor and alderman, but the least we can do is read the minutes of the monthly meetings, which are posted each month on our city's website, and try to make our vote an informed decision--rather than just a rubber-stamp referendum on incumbency.