The Forum

Steve,

Is your question rhetorical?  As someone who has participated in both processes at the village level and had a close relative deal with this very same issue at the school board level,  I would expect you to have extremely good insight on this question of appointment versus election.

My own humble viewpoint is that Shorewood Village government is far too complex for anyone to be effective as an elected trustee.  It's not just fire, police, and public works here.   It's health clubs, libraries, parks, business development (monstrously huge), senior programming, fundraising, private/state/federal grants, health departments, safety committees, environment committees, ad infinitum.  Even if one were brilliant, it would take years to be independently knowledgeable on the subject matter issues involved.  (This is why we have party organization at higher levels of government.)

As a result, a prospective trustee knows that she will be dependent on the information flows from numerous sources.  What better way to ensure that flow than to be vetted by application?  

Elections are messy; people might disagree publicly.  Open disagreement would harm the collaborative nature of politics in Shorewood.  It is less threatening in a small community to confirm later by election a consensus choice.  For good or ill, our village is governed by committee.  Committees are selected, not elected.  

Steve

As you and I both know, you have to "put yourself on the line" to run for office.  You actually have to take public positions and not everyone will agree with them.  

It is much easier for people to put their name on a list, and never have to undergo public scrutiny.

Perhaps more interesting is that the Village Board would rather Anoint someone, rather than let the public Elect someone.

It would appear they prefer to select a Clone rather than risk Independent Thought !

My question was mostly rhetorical.   I know the difficulty of the campaign/election, but believe it a necessary step in the democratic process.  The number of unopposed elections and appointments we are seeing these days leaves me feeling cold, perhaps due to my foolish and romantic attachment to democratic ideals.  

The other question Mr. Knox raises is also a good one.  Will Shorewood ever again see significantly contested elections, or a diverse group of Trustees?  Will we ever have a Trustee here in Shorewood whose opinions are truly different, and who undoes the growing trend toward consensus on every topic?  

Will we see a Trustee who thinks we should focus on our housing stock and roads first and foremost rather than expensive redevelopment projects?  Will we ever have a Trustee from West of Oakland, outside the mainstream, or below the poverty line?  Will we ever see a Trustee who things Sunrise was a bad idea, the marketing plan should be de-funded, and that renters are getting a raw deal?  Will we ever see serious disagreement on video gambling?  Will some lone trustee battle against the idea of maintaining a 30%+ fund balance?   Will we ever have a candidate who believes TIFs are overused, who refuses most developer incentives, and fights for senior citizens before wealthy developers?  Will we ever have a candidate who believes Drivability is just as important as Walkability on busy streets?  Will we have a small business owner, a renter, or a single parent of Lake Bluff students?  

Does the monotonous stream of consensus ever end?

I would think the best candidates would be successful in their careers. A good trustee will have the ability to listen and formulate good questions. Not where they live; they need to expand their view from their own block to all of Shorewood. Most of our current trustees are in that mold. They have diverse opinions, but are able to put their own prejudges aside and work for the common good. Thankfully, they are the first group in years to look toward the future.

Most judges are initially appointed to complete another judge’s term. Then they run for re-election. So, the process of appointing is nothing new to us. Local civic leaders are not politicians in nature. They have skills and knowledge they are willing to use for the communities common good. When good people are maligned in some blogs, I would suggest it would discourage some from entering this process.

When you talk about redevelopment, remember that it all started with Mark Kohlenberg. What we have to remember is for those years; he would not pay for Shorewood’s infrastructure. And now we have to pay for those things – at today’s costs.

Mr. Koczela,

I understand your sense of "feeling cold."  I did put you on the spot.  Thank you for being so gracious in your response.

Responding to your statements, I don't think consensus driven systems are necessarily bad.  They can be deliberative and receptive to good ideas.  They can support vigorous disagreement before reaching a decision.  Good systems are democratic and dutifully representative of their constituents' best interests.  

Having defended the system, I do admit the decision making process can seem frustratingly opaque, unresponsive, even closed.

Open confrontation is abhorred.  (Mr. Tatarowicz understands this.)  Saving face is important.  It is extremely difficult to satisfy these requirements in an open board meeting before the public (or a blog). Consequently, issue driven discussions and vigorous debate are more likely to occur when the public is not present.  On C-span politicians hyper-pontificate; at village meetings they become incredible listeners.  :)

Great list of issues above.  

What I would suggest, if the issue of bring a fresh voice to the village board is important is to find that person now. And remember, their views will not fully align with your view –  what you are looking for is intelligence in an individual. Someone with an administrative background. I will even go a little farther. You should seek out that fellow who walks all over Shorewood and smokes cigars, I don’t know his name but he has an impeccable reputation in administration and finance. You can support a candidate by introducing them to others for the exchange of ideas, where people learn from each other and the candidate will be given the benefit of the doubt when they are on the board. Where you can feel confident they have asked the right questions to understand and act on issues, even when you have disagreement on them.

Rob Carson

Mr. Koczela,

Upon further reflection, I have a few points to add.  

First, I read an article (wish I could find it now) on using an "auditing function" as a way to improve government performance.  Auditing is all about transparency.  In order to audit, you have to identify (possibly debate?) your goals.  Of course, there are downsides - cost and agency issues at the fore.

A procedural approach is an additional suggestion.  As in our court systems, we could require adversarial debate.  For example, no issue could come to the floor without one trustee speaking for, at least one against.  Even if all trustees agreed on a particular action, in order to move forward one of the trustees would need to assume the position of "devil's advocate."  This approach would give the public an indication of the extent to which the board considers an issue.  On the other side, heavy procedure requires a strong parliamentary understanding on behalf of the board.  It is also time consuming.  Revisiting the pros and cons of granting an uncontested fence variance might become tedious. :)

What do you think?

Furthermore, Mr. Carson attacks "some blogs" for maligning good people.  I agree that ad hominem attacks are almost always inappropriate and make for poor arguments.  Surely, he does not refer to this particular blog.  To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Koczela's behavior has been beyond reproach.  Perhaps, Mr. Carson is referring to Mr. Tatarowicz comment above.  I do acknowledge that the assertions by Mr. Tatarowicz appear personal in nature (whether he intended them to be or not).  Mr. Koczela is right to avoid argument on those points.  In any event, it would be wrong to impugn this blog solely by using Mr. Tatarowicz's comments.

I would finally like to discuss Mr. Carson's argument on redevelopment.  I believe Mr. Koczela statement was limited to village priorities as they related to different villager's perspectives, not to the history or merits of any particular issue.  At Mr. Koczela's discretion, I would eagerly anticipate discussion on this issue on another thread at a later date.  :)  

Three quick points. No, I was not infering Mr. Koczela is guilty of personal attacks. Yet, there is negativity on ShorewoodNow blogs.

Second, even the Vatican has eliminated having someone play "devils advocate."

To see the village priorities, you need to see where they came from.

Rob Carson

Mr. Carson,

Thank you for replying to my concerns and clarifying your remarks.  

I apologize for any religious insensitivity on my part in the use of the term "devil's advocate."  I merely meant that a respectful more structured adversarial debate among the village board might alleviate people's concerns by demonstrating that the board was considerate of a diverse range of issues regarding the business at hand.  Any position that would imperil one's soul would, of course, be out of bounds.

I also repeat my desire to see open discussion of village priorities.  Indeed, as a relatively new resident I am woefully under-informed as to the history of Shorewood's priorities.  That history is important.  Perhaps, I was nitpicking (terrible habit of mine) a small section of your post, pointing out that I felt it was off topic (which it is).  Or more likely, I was trying to tempt Mr. Kozcela (not in the religious sense) into discussion.  :)