How often do I start with this line?
Stephen Tait does a nice job today in The Daily News covering the seismic shift in the council. As noted a few posts ago, the election of this new council reflects a shift in attidudes of the general populace--and a shift in the populace itself with new folks like myself moving into town and wondering why completing Big Dig took has taken less time than finishing the central waterfront.
This new council has the potential to really break some logjams in this city. Ward 3 Councilor James Shanley summed it up nicely a few days ago when he said. "I think this is potentially going to be a fabulous council," he said. "All I can say is fasten your seat belts."
But what will it get done. And, more importantly, what should it get done?
Like any employer--and they do, afterall, work for us--folks really need to stop and take measure for a moment. What does this council need to accomplish over the next two years to be successful? We should be realistic in our expectations, but we should lay them out as clearly as we can so our new and returning employees (or represenatives if you prefer) know what to shoot for when they start up in Jan.
I've got ideas on this subject which I'll present on Monday or Tuesday along with a poll that will enable you folks to rank the goals on their importance to you. But this is your chance to get your own ideas on the table. Submit your ideas through the comments page and I'll include them on the Monday post and perhaps in the poll as well.
Councilors and councilors-elect are free to chime in as well. It'd be a nice opportunity for you to lay out what your personal goals are as well.
Then we'll all be on the same page when the fun starts in January.
4 comments:
Considering only 43% of eligible voters took part in Tuesday's election, it's a bit of an overstatement to say that the results reflect a "seismic shift" in this community. More than half (57%) of Newburyport voters were either turned off by the quality of candidates or are so disengaged or disenfranchised from local politics that they didn't bother to show up at the polls. A minority of people voted for these candidates, making the election more of a referendum on apathy or disgust, rather than a "new day."
Fair point, anonymous, if you've been reading you'll know that I wish the other 53% of the eligible voters could block off 10 minutes of every other first Tuesday in November to vote. But they choose not to allow their opinions to count. (If someone doesn't like the candidates? Write in someone else.) To me, their failure to vote means literally that their opinions don't matter, at least not in these contest. I wish they thought otherwise but they don't, and I'm willing to bet that its the same folks--give or take 1,000--who sit out every election regardless of the candidates. But--you're right--Tuesday's result represents a seismic shift in the feelings of those folks who care to participate in the election process. For those who didn't vote, I do think you're missing out. There are some high quality candidates out there, certainly you could have found one or two of them that deserved your vote. Sorry for the rant, thanks for commenting.
I know, the other 57%, not 53%.
With regard to the comments made by anonymous, it really is hard to assess why the non-voters non-vote. The weather was bad, maybe the candidates lacked substance, maybe people feel disenfranchised...
By definition, if you don't vote, you disenfranchise yourself. You don't like the candidates running, run yourself. It's just hard to see any election without a 90%+ turnout as a mandate for anything, especially when the idea of a mandate from the people threshold can be cheapened to losing a presidential election by several million votes, having the Supreme Court intervene to stop a recount in a contested state, and winning that state by less than 670 votes.
So you are left with what you are left with, and you analyze from there.
Two Ward Counselors out of 6 were not re-elected; both had survived previous re-elections. One At-Large candidate was not re-elected, a former at Large Candidate was returned to the Council, and a new At-Large City Councilor, very new was elected.
Four new City Councilors out of 11; 3 City Councilors not re-elected; also 2 former City Councilors who served as Mayor were not elected.
On the School side, only one incumbent out of three ran, and was re-elected by reaching capturing the second most number of votes (third, if you count blanks as first); and two new SC members.
That sheer number of new members in both bodies, and the absence of retired or retiring members who were active and vocal in and of itself represents a significant change. Seismic? Tectonic? I guess we won't know that for a while; your skepticism is appreciated.
With regard to those folks who can't manage to find the time to vote, and thus leave all the decision-making to a minority, here is my thinking.
Voting is one of those privileges that should be considered an obligation. I think polls should be open for a 24 hour period; and I think those who don't vote should be fined. Then, I would use those fines to cover the extra costs of keeping the polls open, and the balance going to the schools.
6,000 non-voters, at $25 a pop, gives you $150,000 in revenue. You are halfway back to restoring foreign language as a core curriculum element at the Middle School.
Then, no one can argue semantics about the substantiality of change, and the School have a new revenue stream.
Post a Comment