It’s come to my attention regarding the ARF mayoral election that there are some unfair accusations being carelessly tossed around.
Max’s owner, Ms. Phyllis Mueller, broke no rules according to the ARF rules and guidelines for the election.
ARF allowed for a dollar vote whether the vote was donated by any number of individuals or a dollar a vote if you decided that you wanted to donate personally out of your own financial reserves. So there’s no limit on how many people you personally could get to donate to your dog’s campaign or how many votes you wanted to donate by yourself personally.
These rules were clear and explicit. So to accuse Phyllis for donating and being generous, which ultimately benefited ARF and the rescued animals, is indeed an unfair accusation.
Phyllis did not make these rules. ARF made the rules. And why would ARF want to make it hard to get more donation votes?
Of course, they would want as many donation votes as they could get per dog regardless of how the votes came to be. So don’t target the person who played by the rules. If you’re upset, maybe you (Madelaine) had a shaky hand on writing a bigger check.
It is wrong to accuse someone who simply wanted to be generous and to imply that something underhanded or illegal was done is completely false.
It would be a good idea to be a gracious loser. After all, we teach our children that.
But then again, “Hell hath no fury like an animal owner who loses an election scorned.”
Chuck Modrich
Idyllwild
