George,

It was apparent from the article in The Daily Progress on August 8 that Charles Martin is proud of his record on the County Board of Supervisors. Indeed, he appears to encourage voters to evaluate and discuss his record as they make their decisions in the upcoming election. Unfortunately, not everyone in the community can fully participate in such a discussion.

The confidentiality provision in the Ivy Landfill litigation settlement agreement is so comprehensive that it has the effect of silencing the plaintiffs in that case from participating in the public debate over the position Mr. Martin took (and continues to take) regarding the Ivy landfill. On numerous occasions, local officials have defended the confidentiality provision on the grounds that the plaintiffs "voluntarily" agreed to it. If true, such a defense is valid only as a legal matter between the parties to the lawsuit. It is, however, completely irrelevant to the rest of us. Both the past and the future of the landfill are matters of concern for the entire community, not just the plaintiffs.

Many believe that the primary purpose of the First Amendment is to protect a "marketplace of ideas" where opposing views and opinions compete; with the most meritorious eventually prevailing in terms of public opinion. I am sure that Mr. Martin believes his actions regarding the landfill litigation were in the best interest of the community. He may very well be right. But if so, why are he and other local officials afraid to compete with the landfill plaintiffs in the "marketplace of ideas?"

At the time the settlement agreement was reached, Mr. Martin had yet to throw his hat in the ring for the General Assembly election. It was probably not anticipated that the confidentiality provision would have the effect of preventing the plaintiffs from fully participating in the political discourse of Mr. Martin's campaign. Given this presumably unforeseen consequence, I would like to know if Mr. Martin is prepared to publicly repudiate the confidentiality provision and, if not, why not? In answering, I hope Mr. Martin will remember that "the plaintiffs agreed to it" is no answer at all for the rest of us.

(J. Joshua Wheeler, electronic mail, August 9, 2001)