You Can Put Your Party Shoes Away.

Oy, what a silly odyssey.  No one planned a Meet the Candidates event for this election, so I planned one.  I had in mind to make it different and more interesting (and illustrative) than the ones we typically do.  It was more unstructured, and it involved actual unrestricted conversations among the candidates.  The conversations were to be about various issues that have been or could be the stuff of Commission Agendas.  Instead of hearing what candidates A, B, and C would say about how they would think through one vague, hypothetical, and overgeneralized issue or another, I wanted them to have the actual conversations, exactly as they would if they were Commissioners.

Here are the Agenda topics I planned:

1)  Annexation.

As you know, our biggest problem is our finances.  Last year, the County Commission refused to hear our application for annexation of an area to our east, just over the track.  We have just gotten word that the reason they wouldn't consider our application is that they thought we were "cherry-picking," and not solving enough of the County's problem with unincorporated areas.  We have been informed that they could look much more favorably on an application from us, if we agree to annex the area we requested last year, and two residential blocks south of there, too, as well as a commitment to continue to annex gradually over the years, until we reach 108th Street.  Do we want to re-apply?

2)  Feral cats.

Residents continue to complain about the populations of feral cats in various parts of the Village.  They want something done.

3)  "Public" Art in BP.

Some residents of the Village appear to be art lovers.  They so much like art that they display it on their front lawns.  Some of these displays are quite conspicuous.  Other BP residents, however, do not appreciate this kind of imposition, and a few of them have lodged complaints.  Our Code is an "inclusive" one, meaning that anything not explicitly included in the Code is not permitted.  Public display of private art is not cited in the Code, and the offended neighbors want these private installations removed.  They consider them Code violations.  The Code Compliance officer is not sure whether this is the proper interpretation of the Code.  Neither is the Code Compliance Board.  They are all now turning to the Commission.

4)  Outsourcing.

The Commission has been receiving what seems like a flood of e-mails.  Some neighbors are complaining about WastePro, and they want you to end the contract, and revive a sanitation program run by the Village, as it was before we outsourced.  Other neighbors (about as many) are preoccupied with Village finances, and they want to outsource more Village functions.  They are aware of a lapse in leadership in the Recreation Department, and of the recent resignation of the Manager, and they consider this to be a perfect time for the Village to outsource many or most of its management functions.

For what it's worth, question 1 was Chuck Ross' idea, question 2 was Barbara Kiers' idea, question 3 was my idea, and question 4 was Roxy Ross' idea.  I was waiting for ideas from a few other people.

I asked the Commission for permission to hold this event in the log cabin, and to excuse me from paying for premises rental (as all Commissions give such permission and excuse such rental for this event) on Tuesday, March 7.  By the end of that day, all three candidates had agreed to the MTC plan for March 16, and the Commission had approved it.  And that's when things began to fall apart.  Or when some candidates began to get very cold feet.

First, it was Harvey Bilt, who wouldn't participate if I was the moderator (which was absolutely the plan).  I could never get Harvey to tell me what problem he was imagining, but I think, as best I could tell, that he thought I was somehow going to ambush him or fool him.  The most specific he would get was to say he objected to my authoring the questions.

Then, it was Dan Samaria, who told me he wouldn't participate unless the questions came from the audience, and told someone else he was worried about what Harvey was worried about.  I should say that I have never been unsupportive of either of them, and I offered, and delivered, help to Dan when he ran against me last fall, and to both of them regarding using this blog to publicize themselves, and appeal to their neighbors.  Harvey even took me up on the latter in 2013, when we opposed each other.  But now, both were in terrified mode and could not participate in any event that involved me.

Mac Kennedy was game from the outset.

I had a lot of back and forth with the three of them (not much with Mac, though) in the past week.  I couldn't get Harvey or Dan to flinch from their refusals to participate, and I decided their participation was vastly more important than was my fully controlling the event.  So I reached out to three people to moderate.  Drew Dillworth and Richard Ederr couldn't, and John Hornbuckle could.  So there it was.  And I made two other modifications to the original plan.  One was that I sought questions from neighbors other than myself (although I had reached out in advance anyway), and the other was that I gave the candidates the questions in advance.  And I told them that only one of the four was mine.  The only concession I would not make was to turn the event from a conversation among mock Commissioners into the stilted system we always use, where each candidate in turn has the same number of minutes to respond to the same questions.  It was essential to me that we try a different system.  It was to be an experiment.  It was to be fun.

But no, no matter what I did, I could not assuage Harvey.  As it turns out, I couldn't assuage Dan, either.  I took away every complaint, concern, or element of paranoia they had, except one, and they would not budge from their terror of this event.  And I have to say, I was very provocative with them.  I told them, and so did Mac, that it was wrong of them to try to control this event, and to try to minimize discomfort for themselves.   The thing they were afraid of is precisely the characterization of being a Commissioner.  Mac told them to "man up," and to "grow a pair," and I supported the challenge.  But no, they were not going to waver at all.

So Mac dropped out of the race altogether.  He wanted no part of such behavior.  I couldn't blame him.  I told him so.  I told him that the most he could accomplish was to be part of a 3-2 minority in which Tracy Truppman and her puppets would simply steamroll him and Roxy Ross.  So what was the point?  No one would listen to him anyway.  And it's not that I agree with every leaning Mac has or position he takes.  It's just that I think he's open-minded, reasonable, fair, and has the interests of the Village at heart.  If he's coming from the right place, I would trust his conclusions, even if I don't agree with all of them.

Does it make any difference whether Dan wins, or Harvey does?  No, not at all.  It seems to make a difference to Tracy, though.  She's been out campaigning with Harvey.  What does she want with him, though?  Is she afraid she's losing complete control over Jenny and/or Will?  Maybe.  I don't know the content of all the colluding that's very clearly going on among the three of them outside of Commission meetings, and I haven't seen the faintest suggestion of independence from either of them in meetings, but maybe Tracy knows what she's doing, or at least what she has to worry about.

So don't bother to come to the Meet the Candidates event on Thursday evening.  There's no event to attend.  But I'm told (not by our fearless candidates) that they're having their own event on Sunday.  I don't know the place or time.  But it doesn't matter.  I'm not voting anyway.  We're getting a new Commissioner on 3/28.  It'll either be Dan or Harvey.  You decide which one it is, if it matters to you more than it matters to me.