Candidate Learns Lesson in Value of Truthfulness

Councilman Ed Struiksma’s brief but bitter mayoral campaign began with one deception and ended with an investigation into another possible one.

We’ll never know how Struiksma would have fared at the polls had he stuck it out until Feb. 25, but it would appear he leaves the race with very little to show for his efforts. Struiksma, who was appointed deputy mayor shortly before Roger Hedgecock resigned from office, entered the race Jan. 2 after having led fellow council members to believe he would not be a candidate.

In the process, he alienated fellow Republican candidate Councilman Bill Cleator and his establishment supporters, and, more importantly, raised questions about his own integrity. The contest between the former allies quickly became harsh, as Struiksma and Cleator fought to see which would survive the ostensibly nonpartisan primary and win the right to take on Democrat Maureen O’Connor in the general election.

When questions were raised about an expense report Struiksma filed for a city trip to the East, Cleator’s camp was suspected of planting the information with reporters. Whether he was behind the reports or not, Cleator did effectively exploit his rival’s embarrassing situation. Struiksma admitted that not all the expenses he reported on his Boston-New York trip were accurate, but said he had lost $600 worth of receipts and been advised by the city auditor’s office to reconstruct the expenses, something the auditor denies.

After Dist. Atty. Edwin L. Miller announced that a preliminary inquiry into the matter showed that a full criminal investigation was warranted, Struiksma decided to bow out of the race. All indications are that his decision cut short what would have become an increasingly nasty campaign over the next two weeks.

The demise of Struiksma’s campaign substantially alters the equation of the mayor’s race. It would appear that either Cleator or O’Connor now has a chance to win a majority of the votes on primary day, thereby avoiding a runoff in June. The drawing power of the 11 other candidates now becomes much more of a factor. Struiksma’s name will also be on the ballot despite his announced withdrawal.

We don’t fault Struiksma for taking on a better financed and more powerful opponent such as Cleator. On the contrary, we encourage interested people to test themselves and their ideas in political campaigns. We wish others had joined the current mayoral field. Struiksma’s big mistake was not being open about his intentions to run. The bitterness his campaign created grew from the fact that he tricked a majority of council members into electing him deputy mayor knowing he would use the position’s acting mayor status as a platform for his campaign.

As for the questions about his expense reporting, the investigation will have to speak for itself. As with Councilman Uvaldo Martinez, whose expense practices also are being looked into, if Struiksma is found to have misspent city funds, he should face the appropriate penalty. We venture to say he’s already learned a thing or two about the value of truthfulness--in personal relationships and in expense reporting.