Letter: Disappointed in lack of debate between High Springs City Commission candidates

Letter to the editor

Greetings!  I am following up on my previous submission, entitled “Saving High Springs is Serious Business.”

Because I believe that the future of High Springs, and therefore the vote on November 4 for Commission Seat 3, is serious business, I invited each of the candidates to a public debate, originally scheduled for October 30, 2025.

I sent an invitation email to both candidates on October 23. Both candidates responded the same day.

Candidate Julie Tapia-Ruano replied that she was available and would be honored.

Mr.  Grunder said he had a previous commitment – which is totally understandable. He also mentioned that he was concerned about statements I had previously made in the Alachua Chronicle’s Letter to the Editor. I expressed I did have concerns, but I was very interested in a public debate being conducted that was fair and equitable, without any business or personal associations involved for either candidate. Mr. Grunder had been unhappy about the previous attempt to conduct a debate at a local business, and I wanted those concerns to be absent regarding my event.

As was explained to both candidates in the invitational email, the debate was to be conducted at the Downtown Pavilion at 6 p.m., where citizens in attendance could write questions on index cards and submit them. Each candidate would have two minutes to answer each question. The moderator was to have been a neutral party, there only to keep time and content on track.

I also asked Mr. Grunder (in the email reply of 10/23) if there was an alternate date on which he might be available and to please let me know, one way or the other.  Since time was getting short, I checked with him on October 26th to see if he had considered another date. He replied on October 28, saying that, since I was critical of him, he could not believe a debate would be fair, and since he had no opportunities left before the election, he would decline the invitation.

He did highlight that he had put forward many opportunities for citizens to come to him, either by email, on social media, or at one of his meet-and-greet social events. I agreed that he did, but I am not a fan of those kinds of formats for getting to know a candidate. I’m especially cautious when it comes to communicating over social media or by email, as it is impossible to verify with whom one is actually communicating.

Additionally, I remain a big fan of the candidates who are willing to come to the citizens, because it shows that all citizens matter, not just the overtly social ones who attend the events with party atmospheres.

As I told Mr. Grunder via my last email response:

“I believe I would have learned a lot from your participation in a debate. I had hoped that you would have accepted the challenge to continue to represent all of High Springs, as one which would have you ready and eager to meet the remaining constituency – those voters who did not attend the social gatherings and who do not believe time at a bar or pub is a valuable way to learn about a candidate for public office. My thinking was, if you only meet people your way, that leaves a lot of community members out of the equation.”

As such, I am both concerned and disappointed that this debate was not able to go forward. I believe candidates running for public office should be able to ‘shoot from the hip’ – so to speak – when it comes to questions from their constituency: Questions that matter to the citizens and affect their lives personally.

I think social events, with the atmosphere that they invoke, miss the mark in identifying – much less creating an opportunity for discussing – the important issues that seriously affect the present and future of High Springs’ citizens.

Mr. Grunder also expressed concern about the contention in the campaign. I, too, have felt that contention. Groups on Facebook – and individuals as well – have blocked and failed to publish comments and information regarding the issues if they believed – in any way – that it did not support or favor their candidate. This conduct tips the balance heavily to one side. Many people I know have been attacked and challenged for expressing their opinions, rather than having been engaged in constructive discourse. Very few of the attackers who resort to this negative behavior have put any emphasis on the issues. Most either laugh, demean, dismiss, or yell at people in defense of their candidate, all the while making nasty comments to and about the opponent. This cancel culture is another reason I’m not a big fan of social media as a forum in which to conduct campaign business, because I don’t believe it to be fair or balanced in these matters. Emotion – rather than truth – is fueling a lot of this race. Its noise is blocking out what is real and dismisses where the attention should really be focused.

So here we are… all party smiles but still missing critical pieces of the big picture. That’s a shame. That is why I still contend that a debate is essential. It is both a statement and a disappointment that Mr. Grunder did not agree.

Please vote. Please familiarize yourselves with the additional ballot issues regarding alcohol ordinances. It is very important to make an informed choice.

Carol Bishop, Alachua County

[Editor’s note: The City of High Springs election on November 4 features a City Commission Seat 3 contest with two candidates (Tristan Grunder and Julie Ann Tapia-Ruano), five charter amendments, and a code amendment. Click here for more information.]

The opinions expressed by letter or opinion writers are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of AlachuaChronicle.com. Assertions of facts in letters are similarly the responsibility of the author. Letters may be submitted to info@alachuachronicle.com and are published at the discretion of the editor.