"Bisno Slate" candidates tank at the NW Neighborhood Council election
According to today's Daily Breeze, only one of the nine candidates, Joe Gatlin, from the "Bisno Slate" won a seat on the Northwest NC (election results here). Apparently a record 750 people voted, including a pack of new members of the Coalition for a More Progressive San Pedro, which is apparently headed by slate write-in candidate Lousito Lopez, and was singing up new members from throughout the region at their picnic in Peck Park on the day of the election, thus spreading the joy of stakeholderness as thin as possible.
I'm glad that the slate was rejected. I have an intense dislike for the mentality that goes into voting for slates of candidates. If there was ever an electoral tactic that is designed to take advantage of the ignorance of voters to attract votes, slate-voting is it. I've seen repeated NC elections where persons with no involvement with the council crowd into the ballot box to vote for a slate of candidates that they may not even know. This sort of mini-campaigning has poisoned numerous local NC elections, and there is nothing to stop it. Combine that with the vague rules regarding stakeholderness, and you don't even have to break the law to stuff the ballot box in these elections.
Here's the question - in the earlier Daily Breeze article on the flier and the slate, then candidate Joe Gatlin claimed that he was only doing this to bring new voices to the process, and that he would immediately resign from the Northwest Neighborhood Council if elected (why even run then? To lend some credibility to a slate of unknowns, at least one of whom doesn't even know they are running?) .
From the Article -
Point of Interest - I found this earlier article about the slate of candidates this morning, sheds some light on the issue, IMHO. I'd love to get a copy of the slate flyer if anyone has one, BTW. I'd be making a scan of it, so you'd get it right back if you have one. From the article- San Pedran Anne Bobich, said someone had filled out and signed a candidate application using her information. She didn't know she was on the council ballot until a relative told her.
I'm glad that the slate was rejected. I have an intense dislike for the mentality that goes into voting for slates of candidates. If there was ever an electoral tactic that is designed to take advantage of the ignorance of voters to attract votes, slate-voting is it. I've seen repeated NC elections where persons with no involvement with the council crowd into the ballot box to vote for a slate of candidates that they may not even know. This sort of mini-campaigning has poisoned numerous local NC elections, and there is nothing to stop it. Combine that with the vague rules regarding stakeholderness, and you don't even have to break the law to stuff the ballot box in these elections.
Here's the question - in the earlier Daily Breeze article on the flier and the slate, then candidate Joe Gatlin claimed that he was only doing this to bring new voices to the process, and that he would immediately resign from the Northwest Neighborhood Council if elected (why even run then? To lend some credibility to a slate of unknowns, at least one of whom doesn't even know they are running?) .
From the Article -
To prove that his motive is encouraging community participation, Gatlin added that if he is elected to the Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council he would immediately resign the new job -- but only if he has succeeded in mobilizing new voters.
So has Joe resigned yet, and if not when will he? I'd say the massive turnout (750, versus a usual turnout of 200) qualifies as mobilising new voters, even slate write-in candidate Luisito Lopez got 83 votes, presumably from many of NW San Pedro's neww stakeholders.Point of Interest - I found this earlier article about the slate of candidates this morning, sheds some light on the issue, IMHO. I'd love to get a copy of the slate flyer if anyone has one, BTW. I'd be making a scan of it, so you'd get it right back if you have one. From the article- San Pedran Anne Bobich, said someone had filled out and signed a candidate application using her information. She didn't know she was on the council ballot until a relative told her.
9 Comments:
Anonymous said...
as usual, calamari is to the point. Why would a community activist like Gatlin align himself with other candidates so willing to sell out the neighborhood to Bisno Development?
Did he know about the other candidates like LUISITO LOPEZ, who openly voiced support for the current ponte vista proposal? WHO paid for the doorknob fliers?
Was it really Svorinich who put 'em up to it? If so, did Bisno know? Who is the puppetmaster here?
Calamari wrote:
I've seen repeated NC elections where persons with no involvement with the council crowd into the ballot box to vote for a slate of candidates that they may not even know.
So, only people who have "involvement" with the council should vote?
My main problem with these council elections is that the candidates, even the incumbents running for reelection, don't bother to publicize their positions and ideas so that the non-gadfly crowd (i.e., those with jobs / social lives / kids) can make an informed decision about who to vote for. So unless you happened to go to high school with one of the candidates or something, there's no reason to vote for any of them. So most people don't.
Maybe involvement was the wrong word - I'm talking about people who barely even know there is a neighborhood council system, as in folks who are interested and involved in the system, even if only as voters & stakeholders. Sorry if I wasn't clear there. I wasn't really happy with that descriptor when I wrote it either. I certainly don't want to see an elite of "involved" folks dominating the council.
Currently, it is almost impossible to find out anything about the candidates, unless you are heavily involved (there's that word again!) in the council. Which means that really, the next step in NC elections will probably be traditional campaigning, which means money comes into the picture, which means bye-bye to grass roots politics.
I was thinking something more like a special page on each Council website introducing each of the declared candidates and giving each of them a chance to make a brief (couple of paragraphs, maybe) statement outlining his ideas and positions. Ideally, candidates would be very strongly encouraged to be specific in their statements--"I support the Chestnut Street Bowling Park And Velodrome project, and I will oppose any efforts by the Brobdignag Corporation to build an office building on First and Elm" rather than "I am a longtime resident of the community, am active in many civic and church groups, and I look forward to helping our diverse community face the challenges of tomorrow." Brochures containing all of these statements could also be printed at Council expense and made available at markets, coffeeshops, and wherever people congregate.
With candidates encouraged to explain to the electorate who they are and why they want to serve, and given a forum to do so at no cost to them, any refusal by a candidate to give an account of herself would be conspicuous.
For all I know, some of the councils may already do this, but if they do, the candidates don't seem to be taking them up on it.
If you really want to understand what is happening at the nc level, you need to attend a meeting and participate in a debate firsthand (not just once or twice, but maybe 3 or 4 times a year).
As far as candidates being able to stand up and say what they are for and against, it ain't that simple. Most are for progressive-sounding ideals (except for the blatantly evil ones whom I have never personally met, only heard about). How those ideals are spun depends upon the current "moment" of discussion. Should we build 2500 housing units on Western Avenue, acknowledging that these units would be affordable to persons making a measly $45,000 a year, vs. the $185,000 minimum annual household income required to take on an R-1 mortgage, or should we acknowledge the prior rights that the existing residents have to access their neighborhoods at current traffic levels? What about the extremely rare riparian habitat running through the acreage - is it worth keeping at the cost of lost housing for the possibly 30-some deserving households that would otherwise be accomodated were that micro-watershed turned into an underground storm drain? How about that mega-high school? Is it a cultural mecca for the masses in the making, or a disasterous, overbuilt magnet for divergent and antagonistic youth cultures bound to result in gang warfare? And the jobs created by the building of it all - what are they worth? Again, it ain't so simple. But one thing seems true - if people take on an advocacy position based on a direct financial gain (being on a payroll), something is rotten in San Pedro.
wow, so andrea adleman was (re)elected - what's her grand total of NC positions? if she gets on all three, does she get a toaster, or just a few extra column inches in More?
as another commenter mentioned in an earlier post - so long as people can be "elected" to more than one council in a given area (hell, in the city period), it's bogus system that all of you thinking, deliberative commenters and writers on this site should fight tooth and nail against.
what a bastardization of representative government! what a joke! what if, say, a few members of the long beach city council could come get elected to the LA city council? would that seem right to you? right, but cause it would be wrong.
as far as i'm concerned, i'm going to continue to fight for the kind of government representation we're supposed to have - skip these NC crazies and knock on the doors that matter - the people who are REALLY supposed to be representing our best interests - LA city councilmembers, the mayor, etc - not NIMBY naysayers who only care about their square block area.
or, excuse me, their square block and YOUR square block since there's no cap on the number of councils to which one can be elected.
phooey on it all. if we don't fight them, we get what we deserve.
Redrider wrote:
If you really want to understand what is happening at the nc level, you need to attend a meeting and participate in a debate firsthand (not just once or twice, but maybe 3 or 4 times a year).
BT, DT. Except for the debate part--I just hit the mic and made public comments. Believe me, I wish somebody had engaged me in debate; at least it would have suggested that somebody was listening.
As far as candidates being able to stand up and say what they are for and against, it ain't that simple.
At the risk of seeming contrarian: sure, it is. We all know what the major issues are in our council districts and where we stand on them, and so should the candidates.
Most are for progressive-sounding ideals (except for the blatantly evil ones whom I have never personally met, only heard about)
That's why I suggested that they be strongly encouraged to be specific. We're all in favor of puppies, old people, and prosperity--but you're either for or against the Cedar Grove Dog Park, the Burns Memorial Senior Housing project, the Brobdignag OfficePlex.
Should we build 2500 housing units on Western Avenue, acknowledging that these units would be affordable to persons making a measly $45,000 a year, vs. the $185,000 minimum annual household income required to take on an R-1 mortgage, or should we acknowledge the prior rights that the existing residents have to access their neighborhoods at current traffic levels? What about the extremely rare riparian habitat running through the acreage - is it worth keeping at the cost of lost housing for the possibly 30-some deserving households that would otherwise be accomodated were that micro-watershed turned into an underground storm drain? How about that mega-high school? Is it a cultural mecca for the masses in the making, or a disasterous, overbuilt magnet for divergent and antagonistic youth cultures bound to result in gang warfare? And the jobs created by the building of it all - what are they worth? Again, it ain't so simple.
Actually, every one of those questions is simple, even if the issues are complex. I guarantee you that every person running for the NWSPNC has already formulated an answer to every one of those questions, and if elected will put those answers into practice when the time comes to vote on each of those issues. It's just a matter of pressuring them to put those answers on the record before we decide whom to vote for. Right now, it's being done the other way around.
(Another advantage to the brief-candidate-statement website/brochure thing, BTW, is that "going negative" would be quite impossible within its framework. Candidates would be strictly limited to talking about themselves--"I favor the Cedar Grove Dog Park" rather than "Unlike that puppy-hater Joe Smith, I favor the Dog Park.")
Anonymous wrote:
as far as i'm concerned, i'm going to continue to fight for the kind of government representation we're supposed to have - skip these NC crazies and knock on the doors that matter - the people who are REALLY supposed to be representing our best interests - LA city councilmembers, the mayor, etc - not NIMBY naysayers who only care about their square block area.
or, excuse me, their square block and YOUR square block since there's no cap on the number of councils to which one can be elected.
phooey on it all. if we don't fight them, we get what we deserve.
Well, that's all very Mr.-Smith-Goes-To-Washington of you, but the problem is that you've made a much better argument for limiting the number of councils any one person can sit on than you have for junking the whole idea of NCs and recentralizing local government. Yet having made the case for A, you go on to advocate B. What's up with that?
okay, self-proclaimed giant, go ahead and limit the number of councils someone can serve on. it'd be a start. but it won't fix everything.
what are you, some kind of attorney that you'd rather argue the internal architecture of an argument than the merits of the various arguments within it?
it's possible - and likely - that i'm write on either A or B. A) councils would be better if their membership were limited logically. B) councils will always suck no matter what.
Anonymous wrote:
what are you, some kind of attorney that you'd rather argue the internal architecture of an argument than the merits of the various arguments within it?
I'd rather discuss neighborhood councils and how to fix them. If it's your contention that they're not worth fixing, I would like to discuss that too, but you gotta give me something to work with. Is there something intrinsically bad about them, that would still be bad even if they worked the way they were supposed to?
it's possible - and likely - that i'm write on either A or B. A) councils would be better if their membership were limited logically. B) councils will always suck no matter what.
You're almost surely right about A. If you have a case to make in favor of B, other than "they keep doing stuff I disagree with" (in which case, your beef is with democracy) I'm all ears.
Post a Comment
<< Home