March 18, 2014 could become a turning point for the future of Peru and it could be the start of a new and smart way of running this city. Your vote of YES to restrict the number of aldermen to 6 with 2 at large (city wide) is very important. No races will be contested, all aldermen will remain in their elected positions for one more year and in 2015 all contenders will run for 6 open seats.
I have read the political ad by former mayor Don Baker in the News Tribune this evening. I read through the reasons why he is the most vocal referendum opponent (the only one with the money to do this), it was a rehash of his 44 years in office and about retaining the system that has worked well for almost 200 years in Peru. The problem with this is that the old way is no longer the best way because the world of today requires people with skills and education that many of the present people are not endowed with and government has become much more complicated . It is like sending your child to school and the teacher is someone who loves children but has no education or skills on how to do the job she was just hired to do. Would you like to return to those days?
The political process can be complicated and should not be taken over by the person who has the most money because that means you can also buy advertising and mailings for as many people as you wish especially if they don't have the funds to do so on their own. The system becomes corrupted and influence takes over.
If you read the newspaper, listen to the radio, read the blog or talk to your friends and neighbors, you are aware that this is a referendum on an idea, a political possibility and not upon any candidate because no one is up for election at this time. Think very seriously about the city you live in and the future of that city and how it will affect you and your families.
I hope that many young people will turn out to vote in this referendum because this could have a big influence upon their life if they choose to remain in Peru or to move away for something better.
20 comments:
I am a young person living in Peru. I am still undecided re: referendum issue. Why would it benefit my future to vote in favor of it?
It should be pointed out that the current government structure in Peru has not been in effect for 200years as the former mayor suggested in his paid political ad.
I know this because of the simple historical fact that Peru did not exist 200 years ago. In fact, the city's letterhead lists the founding of Peru as 1854. While Mr. Baker continues to over-state the consequences of any change to a local goevernment in which he exploited for personal and financial gain for decades, his timeline claiming 200 years of history in Peru are a lot like his political legacy as far as I'm concerned.
Highly inflated!
Lois you don't want money taking over the process. Don't you realize at large aldermen will be the ones who can muster up enough donations or who have the personal means to fund the largest campaigns? Money will buy every at large seat. If you and your followers get this pushed through you will do PERMANENT damage to Peru! I used to give your ideas some thought but I will NEVER listen to this blog again!!! I voted NO!
I got a call from Waldorf this morning, desperation in his voice begging me to vote No because it's a family value issue..what a dip Waldorf I voted yes and if you run again I will not vote for you..maybe baker can pay for your signs
8:12 AM
Heard that Witczak was running the same pathetic line on the local radio station that a vote in favor of the referendum will destroy family values.
I have been tryng to figure out how that takes place. So we can assume that all YES voters will now be responsible for domestic discord and juvenile issues within a family living in Peru. This is sick. Or maybe it will be because they will not be eligible for the IMRF benefits when they retire possibly at age 55.
Former Mayor Baker because of his long 40 plus years in office is eligible for 75% of his best 4 years in office while an elected official.
You the taxpayer have to pay part of this pension from the IMRF and the fee varies from 12 to 14 % paid for by the city of Peru for those that have decided to participate. There are 2 tiers or levels in this pension system. those who serve at least 8 years are in tier one and those who serve 12 years or more are in tier 2 and that determines that pension. If Waldorf is re elected that would raise him to another level and Ferrari is already there. The aldermen have to pay 4 1/2 % of their salary.
Correction for Waldorf at 8 years he would be entering tier 1 as he is not vested yet.
8:12 Has anyone given thought to the fact that all those who are openly opposed to the referendum are either current or former aldermen (and mayor)? They are now supposedly insisting that if passed family values will be affected. What family values could possibly be affected by this change? The only families that I can see that would be affected would be those of the aldermen who would possibly get beat in the next election. Their family's income would be decreased. Remember - those who openly oppose the referendum are current or former politicians. Those who favor it are your neighbors, friends, ordinary citizens who pay the salaries of those politicians.
Family values? Does that mean they wont be able to give patronage to their family?
How in the heck can anyone tie in family values to the make up of the council?
To 6:219am, As a younger person, (assuming you are under 30 yrs), you will benefit from the at-large referendum because it will create more open seats for more people(preferably younger people) to become involved in local government. The current ward system is geared toward geographic areas and voters that are prone to elect the same people over and over again based on name recognition, etc. This system discourages competition and involvement in local government and consolidates power with the same aldermen. That makes for aldermen who get so entrenched they know they can't be defeated and that removes the motivation to provide quality representation. They just sit up there and cast votes. We need new people elected regularly to avoid the lethargy that long serving aldermen are guilty of. With new people come new ideas. With new people comes new energy. With new people comes the ability to break the cycle of old world thinking that continues to hold Peru back from it's true potential to improve the quality of life in our city.
This "Family Values" attack ad is just about as despicable as I've seen on any campaign, local to federal.
Just when you think these characters can't stoop any lower they out-do themselves.
Quite a desperate and disgusting display of nastiness from the den of doughnut devourer's indeed.
It should be pointed out that elected officials make the decision to participate in the IMRF pension plan. If they were really civic minded public servants they would simply "Opt-Out" of the plan as it is not mandatory. Therefore, if your aldermen are partivipating they know full well what they do and it is quite likely they are drawm to public office for a pension benefit. We all know that at least a couple of current aldermen are in it for the money. Now that is pitiful!
I voted yes because what we are currently doing is NOT working. Might as try something else - can't do any harm. Besides, its silly do divide a town the size of Peru into Wards. You can drive from the East Side to the West side in about five minutes if you hit the lights right.
The "family values" attempt is only an attempt to persuade low information voters. The at-large referendum makes not only mathematical sense but fiscal sense as well.
A HUGE PART OF FAMILY VALUES IS WHEN A SPOUSE DOESNT CHEAT OR HAVE AN AFFAIR ON THEIR SIGNIFICANT OTHER, OR LIE TO THEIR FAMILY! Wonder who can relate to this. HAD TO LAUGH WHEN I READ THE ABOVE BLOGS!
While reading these blogs I was thinking about the wording of "family values." Most of the time a person will insert "family values" into their campaign. Watch tv, read, and what another joke that is. People are being lied to right from the start. What goes around comes around. Tunnel vision. A duck is a duck.
Not really justin
I would love to hear the connection, the rational for family values? It is usually used to mean protection of people who are exactly like the politician, who think exactly like them on a broad range of family issues.
It almost always panders to fear... The thought that different people are evil, dangerous. It is one of the lowest campaign strategies.
A young voter asked why vote yes? Even without knowing everything, when you see the strategy of the no vote, well it does not take a rocket scientist to feel which is right.
4:38. Thank you for the well thought out rebuttal.
To 3:19 pm - That's a pretty creepy comment. Are you the morality police? If so, you should consider the old saying regarding the throwing of stones as well as several biblical references to tending to one's own household.
Post a Comment