| Author |
Message |
|
Rick Uldricks
|
Post subject:  Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 8:31 am |
|
|
|
|
deleted
Last edited by Rick Uldricks on Sun Sep 28, 2008 11:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
  |
|
 |
|
Dee Martinez
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 8:48 am |
|
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:47 am
Posts: 141
|
|
Using that logic why not fill it with Tom George?
Many more people voted to keep him in city government than Ryan Demro. Demro was clearly rejected by a huge percentage of voters.
The rule is, you run for mayor you give up your council seat. Ryan made a choice and now APPOINTING him to council would not only be flaunting the rules but it would also give the impression of a backdoor deal.
The at large council seats are up in two years in which case hes free to run again. The city can survive those 2 years.
Last edited by Dee Martinez on Wed Nov 07, 2007 8:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
charlie tardivo
|
Post subject: open council seat Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 8:51 am |
|
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 3:58 pm
Posts: 6
|
|
I thought we got rid of Demro. Lets not make that mistake. I am sure Fitzgerald would not want someone on Council who has a history of attempted unlawful coup attempts. then again...........
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kate McCarthy
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 9:36 am |
|
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:25 pm
Posts: 145
Location: Lakewood
|
|
How about Dan Shields? He made a strong showing in the ward 2 race and he has great experience and support from throughout the community.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dee Martinez
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 10:13 am |
|
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:47 am
Posts: 141
|
Kate McCarthy wrote: How about Dan Shields? He made a strong showing in the ward 2 race and he has great experience and support from throughout the community.
I do not know Mr. Shields he could be a good man, but I have a philosophical problem with anyone being appointed to an elective position he couldnt win in a free and fair election. Seems to me it perverts the democratic process.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
sharon kinsella
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 10:26 am |
|
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 7:54 am
Posts: 1500
|
|
Dee -
Dan only lost by 104 votes. Tom Bullock started his campaign work back in the late winter. Dan didn't start until August. Pretty good showing considering that.
Also, I would think that if someone else was interested in being on Council, they would have been more active in this election.
IMHO
_________________
"When I dare to be powerful -- to use my strength in the service of my vision, then it becomes less and less important whether I am afraid." - Audre Lorde
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grace O'Malley
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 10:33 am |
|
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 8:31 pm
Posts: 525
|
|
A good example of that was former Ward 1 council appointment Patrick Corrigan.
He wasn't much of a councilman and claimed it took too much of his time. Made you wonder why he wanted it then, or did he?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dee Martinez
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 10:42 am |
|
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:47 am
Posts: 141
|
|
Sorry, but I have to differ.
A coucil seat shouldnt be the runner-up prize for not being elected to a council seat. Like Mr. Demro, Mr. Shields can certainly use his experience and name recognition to shoot for a full term as an at-large councilman in 2009.
Until then, its weird to win by losing, and it certainly doesnt help anyone's perception of politics.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Anne Steiner
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 11:15 am |
|
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 6:17 pm
Posts: 23
Location: Lakewood
|
Bryan Schwegler wrote: Jeff Endress wrote: Any thoughts on who should be appointed to fill the Mayor-elect's former council seat? They should fill it with Demro. Boy I was really looking forward to some post election calmness.....
ya had to start something....
Let the games begin!!!!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grace O'Malley
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 12:10 pm |
|
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 8:31 pm
Posts: 525
|
|
No, this is actually a very interesting and important topic to debate.
Should a seat go to a person who ran and lost or to someone who had no previous interest in the job?
I can see pro and con to either choice.
The candidate who entered the race had the interest and spent the time and money to try and gain a seat. And that person actually got votes. So if you choose to bypass one of the non-winners, you allow someone who didn't "pay their dues" to basically get a free ride. Yet I see Dee's point that the position is not a consolation prize.
On the other hand, I've seen it happen in my own ward that the person selected really did not have the drive nor the devotion to the job. It was a purely political strategy selection that did not serve the community well. The choice was a poor choice and bypassed several ready, willing and able candidates that applied and interviewed for the spot.
So what to do, what to do? I'd like to think that council would make a good choice, but prior experience makes me doubt if that will happen.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brad Hutchison
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 1:24 pm |
|
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2007 1:45 pm
Posts: 250
|
Grace O'Malley wrote: Should a seat go to a person who ran and lost or to someone who had no previous interest in the job?
Why would we want someone with no previous interest to hold this position?
It seems to me that whether or not someone just lost an election is irrelevant. Just because someone got fewer votes doesn't make them unworthy. I live in Ward 2 and, honestly, would have been happy with either candidate. Based on a lot of comments on the Deck, I think a lot of people from my ward feel the same way.
With apologies, I'll make a sports analogy. The Colts and Patriots are the 2 best teams in the NFL this year. Because they play in the same conference, only one of them can go to the Superbowl. But that doesn't change the fact that they are the two best choices.
I would rather have Ed's vacant seat go to someone who is active in the community, ran a good campaign, and genuinely wants to serve Lakewood on city council, regardless of the outcome of the most recent election.
That's not to say there aren't worthy options that did not just run for office, I just don't think it matters.
_________________
Be the change you want to see in the world.
-Gandhi
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grace O'Malley
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 1:32 pm |
|
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 8:31 pm
Posts: 525
|
|
Exactly!
Yet I can also see the other point of view.
Use the analogy of a beauty contest. For example, let's imagine a situation where a mayor only serves a part of their term. Should the remainder be served by the runner-up? I'd suspect most people would say No.
The city charter outlines the procedure to fill a position, the council votes on a replacement, yet it offers no guidelines for DECIDING on what basis to choose or who to choose.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brad Hutchison
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 1:37 pm |
|
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2007 1:45 pm
Posts: 250
|
Wow, Grace. It's like I'm from Mars and you're from Venus. 
_________________
Be the change you want to see in the world.
-Gandhi
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grace O'Malley
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 1:42 pm |
|
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 8:31 pm
Posts: 525
|
|
Not really, I actually agree with you. Why pick someone who did not invest any time or effort in the job? Do they really want it? Do they deserve it?
After the last appointment, I was so disappointed in the selection, and the person's performance, that I think it is a very important issue to discuss.
As I stated, though, I can see both sides of this issue.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brad Hutchison
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 1:53 pm |
|
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2007 1:45 pm
Posts: 250
|
I was just referring to my use of football analogies vs. your use of beauty pageant analogies. 
_________________
Be the change you want to see in the world.
-Gandhi
|
|
| |
|
|
|
