Editor Raheem Hosseini, in last Friday's editorial, did not like the questions we asked at the recent supervisor candidates forum. He claimed our questions of the candidates included "false premises and trapdoor ultimatums."

While we are open to constructive criticism, and do concede that with 20/20 hindsight we could have improved our questions, our candidates forum was a very successful event. We had a standing-room only crowd, heard many solid answers from the candidates and got many compliments on the event. Apparently Mr. Hosseini would have preferred the typical boring forum with nothing but softball, easy-to-answer questions. Wrong, Mr. Hosseini, our questions were very pertinent!

Amador Citizens for Responsible Government is an organization concerned with constitutional and property rights, reducing taxes, unnecessary regulation and government waste -very pertinent issues to all taxpayers. So one should expect challenging questions from us related to our purpose. We would not be doing our job if we did not raise concerns on these important issues.

Let's review some of what we asked that so upset Mr. Hosseini:

The board of supervisors recently approved a 20-year lease for more than $1.2 million per year. Now the county admits that the building will not be fully utilized and is projecting a $400,000 to $650,000 budget shortfall. How do these things happen? Someone needs to ask.

Mr. Hosseini complained that we referred to this building as "oversized and extravagant." Is it unfair to ask such a question about past decisions? Not only is it fair, but it also allows the candidates to outline how they would handle such decisions in a financially responsible way in the future.

Mr. Hosseini complained about our question on the Amador Regional Planning Committee, and our assertion that it adds "another layer of government bureaucracy ... which could infringe upon and dilute the authority and powers of the existing city and county governments."

We are concerned that the Amador Regional Planning Committee, like all government agencies, is likely to grow over time and become more autonomous and less accountable to the public. Look no further than the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency or the Coastal Commission to see the worst examples of regional governments. These are the very legitimate concerns that have kept the city of Plymouth from joining the Amador Regional Planning Committee.

Next, Mr. Hosseini assailed a survey we recently mailed to 1,800 Amador County property owners and received responses from 260 people. He criticized the questions we asked on the survey as well as the candidates, calling the questions "slanted and misleading." There is nothing "slanted or misleading" about pointing out that the county's new general plan would "down-zone" many properties, making them less usable and valuable - this is simply a fact. Was Mr. Hosseini uncomfortable with our pointing this out to property owners and the public? The public has a right to know!

And was our concern over "watershed overlays" slanted and misleading? These overlays, which are proposed in the new general plan, represent a whole new system of regulatory control over tens of thousands of acres of private properties in the county! And once in place, the bureaucracy could easily ratchet up these regulations.

We simply asked the candidates, "Do you support these efforts (down-zoning and watershed overlays); why or why not?" If we cannot ask candidates such questions, why bother to have a forum?

Finally, we must admit to having been stunned by Mr. Hosseini's baseless and nasty attack on our integrity when he called us "rabid" and "anti-government." Are our positions rabid? Are we anti-government? Not at all. We clearly state we are for "limited government," which is the system initially created and cemented into our federal constitution. Our actions and opinions do not in any way justify Mr. Hosseini's derogatory remarks.

So why was Mr. Hosseini so upset?

Is it because the issues shed light on the anti-property rights agenda of certain groups in Amador County whom he tends to support? Or could it be because we underlined the concerns of the silent majority of Amador citizens with whom Mr. Hosseini appears to be out of touch? He's a 2003 graduate of UC Berkeley. Maybe that explains his sympathies.

Regardless of Mr. Hosseini's reasons and complaints, this is a free country, and we will continue to respectfully challenge those in public office, as well as those seeking public office, when we believe the rights of citizens are being infringed and when government is being wasteful.

Vince DeStigter is the president of Amador Citizens for Responsible Government.