Over the Override

I voted in favor of the override.

It's been suggested that such an admission could hurt my chances of getting elected to City Council (if I were running.)

So it bears repeating.

I voted in favor of the override.

But so what? This city seems inordinately obsessed with last May's override. Apparently, some voters are using the override as a litmus tests to measure the value of the candidates on the ballot.

Hogwash, if you ask me.

I mean it was an election, not an ethic war. I’ve got a kid. I thought the School Committee and Lyons made a good case and took some concrete steps by consolidating the schools. So I voted for it. This doesn’t mean I want people to lose their homes. I’d be completely in favor of excusing the most needy from paying the tax or giving them an abatement.

And I recognize that most of the people who voted against it don’t hate kids or want our educational system to crumble. They either didn’t have the means to pay or faith in the city to spend the money well. I get it. That’s fine.

So let’s move on. Even with the thrashing defeat I thought the override was a worthwhile effort. It set everyone on the same page. Furthermore, it saved us from carrying around a giant “What If” around while trying to cobble together the best schools we can. People didn't have to wonder "What if we'd gone for the override."

The election aligned everyone’s expectations and brought them to a common ground. I think that’s valuable, which is why I hate it when someone suggests the override was a “waste.” Elections are never wastes. They're THE most important part of the governing process.

The most galling part of last Spring's drama was the debate over whether the city should spend $17,000 on an election involving our schools. I recognize times are tough, but the request for the override came from a body that spends half this city’s budget and services thousands of its residents.

Yet, some actually questioned whether or not people should be permitted to vote because we couldn’t afford it? Or—and this one is even worse—some councilors questioned whether to have the vote because they'd already polled a handful of constituents and didn’t think the measure would pass.

That drove me nuts. Confession time. I was at the first City Council meeting where the override was discussed, and I might have rolled my eyes. I can't be sure as I wasn't watching myself at the time. But eyes might have rolled.(I was standing way and the back so perhaps my rolling went unnoticed.)

But I wasn't rolling at those who didn't support the override. I rolled at those people who didn't support having an election.

To future councilors, I only ask that Democracy be allowed to function. I’ve lived here a year and I’ve only seen one group request a special election. So I don’t think this is a line item that has gone out of control. Find the cuts somewhere else.

But that’s the past. I still haven’t decided who gets my votes in next month’s election but I can tell you their position on the override won’t come into play. I’ll be looking for the kind of people Mary Eaton Baker describes in her blog post today—folks who hold their core beliefs dear, respect the positions of others, and find some common ground so we can move forward. (Came upon Bruce Menin's excellent post just this afternoon.)

And I suspect some of those people actually voted against the override.