Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by DeWain Feller on December 15, 2010 at 8:06am

I am very disappointed, but not at all surprised.  I am very concerned that we are seeing a growing top-down decision making process at City Hall.  Yes, this is typical of how Monroe County has operated for years, but the city used to rightly pride itself of how the public had a real input into its government.

While Tom Richards may become an excellent mayor, we city residents will not have an effective way to tell politicians what we need during the election, we will not have a way to hear what the candidates’ positions are, and we will not be able to select the candidate whom we feel is best for our city.

Yes, anyone can run in the special elections.  However, the reality is that the slate will likely consist of Tom Richards, a sacrificial-lamb Republican, and a few fringe candidates.  Worse yet, there will be no real discussion of the serious problems facing our city and our neighborhood.

This is my own opinion, however I fully respect our neighbors who feel that the special election option was best for us.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Don Hill on December 15, 2010 at 9:41am

Margy, I know what you are asking asnd believe elected leaders should be responsive ot the public. But foir me this raises the question of whether elected leaders are representatives or delegates? I believe we delegate to them the authroity to make decisions.  I may be naive but I tend to think that I may not understand the full implications of laws, proceedures or policies.  I know when in my job I have to make decisions often times I end up knowing more about the implications of the decision than those not involved in the decision making and from titme to time I make decisions that are not what a majority of my "constituency" might want. But are made becasseu of the law of unitended consequences.  I have problems with the idea that simply because a majority wants something that therefore it is the reight or best thing to do. ( I am not saying that is your point or position.) I hope we elect leaders and not simply those adept at taking the pulse of public so they know how to vote to be re-elected.

 

I personally suspect that we will have an opportunity to learn a great deal about those who wil be running for mayor and an opportunity tpo have our say in forums and the ballot box. I do not think the city needs or wpould really beenfit from another full year of political primaries and campigning. It is time to get about the procerss of governing. And it lets the priovate sector know with whom they are delaing and able to get on with projects that would be stalled while campaigning occured. But I  know others have a very different perspective.

 

Don

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Margy Meath on December 15, 2010 at 1:22pm

IF  we trusted elected officials then accepting their decisions/recommendations might be easier, but I think that we have a local (and national) problem when it comes to trusting those we elect.... some might even argue that the election process itself is extremely flawed!

I rarely use the words elected and leader(ship) in the same sentence as i don't see enough good examples where a person exemplifies both qualities. Leadership is about values and behavior - one can be elected without having *real* leadership qualities and one can be a leader without holding a 'formal' position of power/leadership. Leaders, by their very behavior and personal qualities are almost always trusted AND trustworthy.

Don, for a different 'spin' on unintended consequences, think about this possibility:  the majority of people in the city want a 'regular' election and want time to fully know/understand who the candidates are but people in 'power' (i.e. City Council) decides this is not the best approach and make the decision for a special election. The 'general public' (you and me) are left thinking that our input doesn't really matter anyway and our trust in the people (and the process) erodes. Over time, these scenarios lead to significant apathy and people just give up. They stop voting, they stop caring and they feel more powerless.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Don Hill on December 17, 2010 at 5:57pm

I recall that old TV show "Who do you trust?" So you are right the key question is trust. For me I tend to trust several of those council members who voted for the special election.

 

I also agree that we have difficulties in electing leaders. A leader will tell you where they stand and why.  The American political culture has changed to issue politics. I want to vote for someone who lines up on my issues. And when one is seeking election one needs to gets lots of people to support and actually vote for you. Thus clear communication on ideas and issues is often a liability.  We are far less forgiving of elected officials who do not think or act with us on an issue or two.

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DK Miller on January 11, 2011 at 4:05pm

As many of you know, I felt strongly and still believe that an appointment followed by a primary and general election is the perfect solution.  As President Obama has said many times however, "we must not let the perfect be the enemy of the good."

 

There are three things that I considered:

1. Having 9 (or possibly just 5) people on Council choose the mayor, even for a year, is actually less desirable than having hundreds of Rochester's citizens in the LD's choose a candidate who must then stand for election.  This candidate must run against any other candidates in the Special Election where every registered voter in the City will have a chance to vote.  There is NO guarantee that the candidate will win, and as you know, the party's chosen candidate has not won in the last two mayoral elections.

 

2. After Deputy Mayor Richards declined to accept an appointment, I do not believe that Council was close to any consensus on who to appoint for a year.  It is not clear to me that there is any Democrat at this time who could garner a majority of the votes of council (5 votes) for appointment.  As you know of course, none of us on Council are eligible to be appointed.  If we don't appoint someone within 30 days, we automatically get the special election with even less time for candidates to organize.

 

3. Spending a fair amount of time in City Hall, it is obvious to me that six months of uncertainty in leadership has caused both a morale and a directional challenge for the almost 3000 people who work for the City.  Adding another 12 months of uncertainty would not be in the best interests of a functioning city government, particularly in light of what will certainly be a very difficult budget year.

 

Based on these considerations I chose the good over the perfect.  If this option eliminated any chance for the general public to vote, I can guarantee you that none of us would support it.

 

As Don has aptly pointed out, governing by poll is not always the best approach.

 

Dana

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DK Miller on January 11, 2011 at 8:54pm

The morale of City workers is less an issue than the lack of direction.  The "serious challenge we face" are best handled by 3000 workers who have clear direction and leadership. 

I would dispute the fact the large organizations "thrive" under interim leadership.  At best they tread water.  Having worked for a very large organization for over 30 years, I have seen the paralysis that is caused by a leadership vacuum.

I would not suggest that perfection should not be pursued, but suggest that the law offers us two remedies - a special election in March, or a special election in November.  Neither is a perversion of the democratic process, and no one is excluded from voting.

Thanks to you too!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark Sweetland on January 12, 2011 at 1:18am

I must agree with Dana on this one, a very valuable perspective.  I do not think people are being excluded with an election, either.  I think we cannot have a vacuum in a critical time.  I would vote for Richards in a heartbeat, and thank him for stepping up and filling this when he has really no reason to do so, except his commitment to the City of Rochester.

Mark

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Don Hill on January 12, 2011 at 8:25am

I am not certain that being the Mayor of the City of Rochester in a year of severe cutbacks is a prize many want. It is a year where whoever hold the office if they do the job that has to be done will make the amjority of the populace mad given the decisions that will have to be made.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DeWain Feller on January 13, 2011 at 7:54am

I would not regard an interim, appointed mayor to be a vacuum in leadership.  In fact, the special election route may create more of a vaccum.   If the winner of the special election is viewed by many to be the winner of a tainted (or even illegitimate) process, their earned authority will be seriously constrained.

 

City Hall today suffers from an overage of groupthink a lack of innovative thinking.  We will not get innovative thinking at City Hall unless we have the real discussion of issues that comes with a general election. 

 

The mayor needs continual feedback from the customers (the public, the taxpayers) to identify the real challenges facing the city, gauge the effectiveness of programs, and to vet ideas.  This is not leadersip-by-polls; this is fundemental leadership 101.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Margy Meath on January 13, 2011 at 2:16pm

I appreciate all of the interesting comments to this thread.

A few thoughts:

Dana, I appreciate that you shared your thinking about why you voted the way you did. It seems to me that Tom Richard's stance  of refusing an appointment made the decision making more difficult. There were several published 'rumors' or reports that you were interested in Mayor including the Londberry article from yesterday. Can you/do you want to share anything about this?

 

DeWain - I don't know enough about how City Hall functions (or doesn't function) but I've seen plenty of groupthink around and you're right that it is a huge barrier to effective functioning. It's especially harmful when the people who are involved in the 'groupthink' are in positions of power as this creates even more difficulty for 'outsiders' to express their point of view and/or to have their point of view considered. The concept of groupthink can, literally, contribute to disasters!

 

Today's newspaper says the following about a luncheon that was held yesterday with Bob Duffy who was in town.  It seems to me that meetings like these probably fuel the continued belief that the 'election' of Tom Richards is a done deal. 

 

" While here, he (Duffy) met for an extended lunch with Acting Mayor Thomas Richards, Monroe County Democratic Partychairman Joseph Morelle, City Council President Lovely Warren and Assemblyman David Gantt, D-Rochester. 

 Duffy met the group at the Strathallan Rochester Hotel on East Avenue. He called the luncheon "a social event" and said little time was spent discussing local politics. 

 "This was not a powwow or strategy session or anything like that," Morelle said when asked if the topic was an anticipated special election for mayor and questions about Richards' candidacy. "It was more about the challenges of the city and Bob (Duffy) talking about his new role." "

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DeWain Feller on January 14, 2011 at 5:56pm

I agree with Sheri.  It would be a great benefit to the SW if Dana ran for Mayor (and even greater if he became Mayor).  Some of what I have read about Tom Richards leads me to believe that he may be a great mayor.  However, I don't have enough infomation to make an informed judgement... and therein lies one of the the problems.  Without a public and substantive discussion of where candidates stand on the issues, we really don't know if we are getting the best candidate for mayor.  Without a primary, we won't have that discussion before the election.

 

The other major problem is that without a real change in the top-down decision making culture at City Hall today, it really doesn't matter what the candidate's qualifications are.  The mayor (or any other executive) needs good feedback in order to make good decisions. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Margy Meath on January 18, 2011 at 10:56am

So Tom Richards resigned today from his Mayor/acting Mayor position. According to the D&C Carlos Carballada is now the mayor/acting mayor. I'm not sure of the details of HOW that happens - perhaps it's the 'chain of succession'.....

Alex White stopped at the Marlborough Luminary location last night- he had some interesting things to say about Rochester, his perspectives and why he is running for Mayor.

I imagine that the next step is that City Council formally votes/agrees to move ahead with the Special Election?? Last I knew the formal vote for this was on hold.

Rochester politics are certainly interesting!

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page