Tuesday, April 03, 2012
Pluses of "aldermen at-large" concept is lost on majority of Peru council members
The aldermen "at-large" initiative has caused the "if it aint broke don't fix it" crowd to once again mobilize the troops in order to prevent another threatening idea in Peru. The benefit of having four at-large aldermen elected via a city wide process does not sit well with some aldermen who are intent on maintaining a death grip on the council seat they are currently very comfortable in. I believe the benefits to the electorate of Peru by having a 50% at-large representation far outweigh any negatives. First and foremost is the fact that to do so would dramatically increase the likelihood of motivating more citizens to run for public office. More candidates mean more dialogue on how to improve our city. More candidates mean more interest and participation in the process. More interest in the process means more activism and more activism means new ideas and new ideas mean more progressive policies. And so on and so on. Bottom line, it's a good thing. Nothing to fear here.
Those who oppose the at-large concept will mask their contempt for anything "different" by claiming they were elected only to serve an individual ward, therefore they would somehow violate those who elected them. Some will claim the cost for a ballot initiative as the reason to oppose the idea. That logic is easily trumped by considering the critical importance of allowing the voters to decide. Another point that will likely be made will be that the citizens who favor the initiative have the option of conducting a petitition drive on their own. While that argument does have merit, by clearing the way for the ballot question the aldermen could send the people of Peru a clear and concise message. That message would be, "Come participate in your local government. You are welcome hear. We want your input and we value your point of view because we all share the common goal of improving our community".
On the other hand, by voting down this progressive idea a very different message will be made clear. That message is, "We got this folks. We are not about to subject ourselves to a diverse field of fresh candidates that would certainly jeapordize our seats. We do not welcome or encourage public involvement in the political process. Only we know what's best for you. Besides, most of us would have little chance of being re-elected because we have little support beyond the base of voters in our neighborhoods who keep us in power. We alone are in charge and we intend to keep it that way".
I say, Term Limits anyone?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Steve, you are rehashing the same blog Lois posted last week. Can we discuss engineering or water treatment again? How about a new topic like candidate financing, tax rates or even the Wisconsin recall election. This sounds like a change the law to reflect your self interest. A simple solution is just run for office next election. You will probably win.
Anon 11:42 Who would he run against?
Steve, what is your opinion Of one alderman per ward for four year term with no term limits and four at large aldermen with two year terms with a maximum of two terms. The at large could option to run for a ward alderman without term limits or sit back for two years and than run for two more terms.
Steve, whats you opinion on having 4 appointed city council positions? We only have 2 currently and most of us would like to have 4 appointed by the Mayor.
Why the CONSTANT push towards term limits? Are you implying that you can not beat an incumbent UNLESS they have reached their term limit and aren't eligible to run again? I'm not saying we currently have alderman who are a pleasure to deal with, but if someone got in who did an excellent job at it, then it would be a shame to see them go after two terms, after all, it is the PEOPLE who vote them in. If they aren't doing a good job, we can always vote for someone else. The alderman at large concept is a good one that deserves to be discussed in further detail, I am, however, against term limits. If they don't do good in office, there is always their next election.
Anon 4:25 If I was Steve I definitely would not answer your hypothetical question. In the United States our government is a democracy not a monarchy. Who are you referring to as most of us?
Anon 1:51:
Depending on how the new ward boundaries are configured he would most likely run against Jim Lukosus(incumbent), Brian Foster, and Justin Loger
Steve - why must we rush into this? Most people do not have an understanding of the long term implecations of this decision. That is exactly why I do not have an opinion yet. However, I have concerns about the concentration of power in the four "at-large" positions that could need "help" financing their "City Wide" elections. I'm also concerned the voice of the "Ward" Ald. may be squelched becasue - afterall - they "... only represent the Ward."
So why must the Council "call a motion" tonight? I know the Council can only put it on the Novemember ballot but why now? I think there may be some short term thinking going on.
It seems to me that this administration has only two speeds... painfully slow and recklessly fast.
Art - I am in favor of any electoral arrangement that would motivate more people to run for office and encourage more voters to want to go to the polls. I don't know if two year terms would be in conflict with state statute on length of terms, but it could be.
To 6:15 p.m. - My opinion is that term limits are not necessarily the fix-all for every public body or level of government. I think term limits can be an effective tool in cities where a majority of elected officials have become so entrenched in office that it actually inhibits the publics interest to participate and diminishes the public trust. We need to get people involved. Not just as potential candidates but also motivating people to want to participate by getting out and voting on election day. In my opinion we are at that point in Peru. In addition to creating a positive atmosphere, term limits would reduce the likelihood of any single or group of elected officials establishing an unfair power base that would limit the influence of other elected officials as well as the general public. Two consecutive terms are enough for any public official. If someone wants to run again after sitting out a couple of years as an alderman or four years as a mayor they can do so. I think term limits are necessary to get more people involved and to get us moving forward.
To 11:42 a.m. - The subject becomes topical again the day before a council vote, don't you think?
Besides that, you don't determine the subject matter here my friend.
I suggest you tune in to FOX News to get your daily indoctrination dosage on the WI recall, which by the way will be successful since you asked. As far as taxes, how about the GOP and Paul Ryan's plan to provide more tax cuts for millionaires and billions in cuts to social programs including Medicare, Medicaid, and Pell Grants for middle class college students. But that's not our focus here.
There will be plenty of time ahead to discuss water treatment and engineering in Peru. What's your hurry? You got a dog in that race?
Brian - Not so. There are at least two more speeds you failed to mention. Recklessly slow and painfully fast.
But seriously, I think the aldermen have had plenty of time to form an opinion on this one. If they need more time they should just say so.
I maintain what I have said before. I don't see any reason for an alderman to oppose it other than protecting ones own "seat". Better known as C-Y-A.
I happy to hear that this failed for lack of second to the motion. I think Alderman Radke should run against Alderman Perez in 2015. Thats two we owe Alderman Radke.
This will definitely be on the ballot in November for the people to decide. It really did not matter if the aldermen voted for or against it and even some that voted against the establishment of having 4 ward and 4 at large really say they have no big issues with the possibility of the change.
The paper said there was no second to the motion. Looks like it was seven to one or possbily two if you include the Mayor.
How will at-large aldermen encourage more people to run and more people to vote? I was under the impression that at-large positions caused fewer people to run since they increase the cost of running... They used to only need to campaign in their relatively small ward, now they would need to campaign throughout the entire city. Wouldn't that create a barrier to entry and limit the diversity of the council even further?
12:30 PM
I have been involved in several campaigns in the past several years, one was city wide and the other local in my ward only.
City wide campaigns generally involve more prople and the work is pretty well spread out amongst them because they all tend to live in different wards. Actually it was time consuming to help in one ward because you have less people to depend upon to help.
I don't know why people think it is more expensive. Candidates generally generate some contributions no matter how they are running.
What are the expenses, business cards, signs but these will be smaller and fewer because of new regulations in the city. Perhaps stamps and envelopes. They may use radio if they have funds. Actually now that they have you tube, candidates are using that venue and it is free.
Post a Comment