What can I say, I’m an equal opportunity commenter. Although many on the left would strongly disagree. But that’s only because they don’t pay attention to or read everything I write. Because the ones who call me upset over something I wrote usually must admit they liked or agreed with something else I wrote.

Such is the life of a columnist. Folks on the right do the same. Except the Tina Peters Sycophant Society. It appears they don’t like anything I write, only because of my take on her deserved demise. They also have the humor level of the left. Which is none.

Yet, there are times when that equal opportunity has to apply to the author of this bit-o-wisdom himself, yours truly.

Such it is in the curious case of our now deployed councilman, Robert Ballard.

The fact is, no sooner than I responded to a post from my friend Ruth on Facebook about Robert keeping his position while deployed overseas in our military, the hamster wheels in my cranium started spinning as to why I concluded there wasn’t even a need for a special meeting to address Robert’s absence and remote participation as a member of council. To clarify, I pretty much said it’s a no-brainer for Robert to do so and all would be fine. I also asked why council was even taking comment on the situation, as the answer was so obvious.

However, the squeaking of my wheels was telling me the answer I was promoting at that time was not so obvious. Frankly, the obvious was in the opposite answer. As many of you know I am one thing without a doubt: I am a contrarian. My grey matter usually meets in the middle when exercising my curious trait. But not this time. And this answer will come as a surprise to many. If I had to guess, quite a few will stop reading after this next line.

Robert Ballard should resign from the Grand Junction City Council.

But Craig, you just said on Facebook Robert should keep his position because he can do his job remotely, did you not? I did. And it was silly of me. Because it was based on emotion – like most Facebook posts. After all, who wants to remove a person from their position because they volunteered to serve our country in the most selfless manner, military service? Answer. No one.

No, Robert should resign for the simplest of reasons. While he is serving our country in the Middle East, he cannot serve the people of Grand Junction in the Grand Valley.

There it is in a nutshell.

Now you may say remote attendance is just as good as being here with today’s technology. My best response to that? Harken back to the Covid years and remote learning for our kids in our schools and tell me how that worked out. Tell me how you felt about that then and how far those kids are behind now. Even more, remote learning was the brainless child of the teachers’ unions who have proven time and again they have no idea what’s best for anyone. Fact is, Robert can have all the desire in the world to perform his duties as a councilman from across the planet, but unless he’s some deity with omnipresence, he simply cannot do the job.

Moreover, and even though it pains me greatly, I must give fellow local columnist Jim Spehar some props on his take. And that take is: Even if Robert can “attend” meetings and workshops remotely, he cannot perform many of his duties which require he be “present” in his district, addressing the needs of his constituents, on location to physically see what’s going on or even meeting with folks over coffee. Face the irony. Many folks supporting remote now were against remote then, because we know deep down it doesn’t work as well as “being there.”

Which brings us to another inconvenient truth: Elected officials are loathe to remove their “friends from across the aisle.” Why? If they vote to remove someone when it’s apparent that they should go, someone can vote to remove them in kind. Hence, the unanimous tally. Additionally, when The Business Times demanded Just Jason be removed (who really should have been) in his “situation,” it was a council member who stated that it “wasn’t the council’s job.”

No. But it was the council’s duty.

Without too much past-digging, Jason had forfeited his ability to represent his constituency by his own words. In Robert’s case, his ability to represent has been removed by his service to our country. And even though our city council didn’t accept that fact with Jason and remove him, it should now with Robert – albeit for completely different and honorable reasons. To put it Biblically, you cannot serve two masters. Even if both are for the greater good, one is still above the other. And Robert made his choice which one is.

Frankly, Grand Junction City Council should have passed two resolutions: One commending Robert for his service, followed by one asking him to resign.

In Truth and freedom. And Robert, thanks for serving to preserve ours.

Craig Hall is owner and publisher of The Business Times. Reach him at 424-5133 or publisher@thebusinesstimes.com