No, I Did Not Attend Last Night's Swearing-In Exercise for New Commissioners.

These swearing-in exercises are ceremonial.  The Commissioners being sworn in know they're (now) on the Commission, and so does everyone else who attends.  Anyone who doesn't attend, but who cares who's on the Commission knows who the Commissioners are.  These are feel-good exercises, and there is no substance to them.

In the comment section of a post not long ago in this blog, Gage Hartung and I were discussing the potential problem of having Commissioners who were in some sense "unknowns" in the Village, and who had not been active in any part of Village functioning in any way (apart, presumably, from paying their property taxes).  Swearing-in exercises do nothing to assuage concern about new Commissioners like that.  Two of our new Commissioners, who were sworn in last night, are like that.  They're happy to be there, enough of us voted for them, for whatever were our reasons, to be happy to have them (at least happy to have them instead of the candidates we didn't elect), but we're still left with a problem.  We have traded, as I said in a post some years ago, the devils we knew for the devils we don't know.  Some Village voters feel the devils we know are so bad that we'll take devils we don't know (not one candidate made any identifiable attempt to meet me, or leave campaign materials at my house -- they made themselves as unknown as possible), and Gage was more concerned, for whatever are his reasons, about trading what we know, and we know to be imperfect, flawed, or even possibly in some sense bad, for unknown devils.

Gage seemed to suggest it might always be better to stick with the devils we know.  He didn't respond when I asked him if he thought all incumbents should always be re-elected to any office, no matter what.  How far do you let that theory take you?

A week ago, I sent an e-mail to the two incumbents who will be staying on and to the three new Commissioners.  It was about an upcoming Ordinance proposal regarding "McMansions."  The three new Commissioners didn't receive the e-mail until their Village accounts were activated, which I assume happened yesterday.  I got an e-mail back from one of them today.  The response thanked me for my message, and it expressed appreciation for "the comprehensive background including [my] experience as a [P&Z] Board member."  The new Commissioner went on to say "While I'm working to understand this proposed Ordinance/change, I'm seeking to answer the same questions you are, and it's a good thing that we have time to best understand the proposed changes and evaluate the necessity of same."

This is the problem with new devils.  They don't understand the issues, or even what the issues are, and they have no institutional knowledge regarding the matter in question or Village functioning at all.  And under present circumstances, they're going to have to figure this out while they're being vigorously herded by one Commissioner who has strong feelings and likes to take charge.  All of the devils we know gave up and gave in.  Maybe the devils we don't know will do the same thing.  So we'll have a Commission of basically one voice.  Lots of rules and traditions were broken when that one voice belonged to Ed Burke.  Things were even worse when that one voice belonged to Tracy Truppman.  I've said many times that I like Mac Kennedy, and I consider Mac my friend.  But he has his style, and the BP Commission is not the Mac Kennedy Show.  Art Gonzalez is coasting and contributes nothing.  I don't know if the three new devils will be able to slow Mac down, and find a way to let him know that the fact that he has an opinion and a vision, doesn't make him "right."  Usually, there isn't a "right."

A week or so ago, I was watching a youtube video of Jon Stewart demolishing some woman who is part of the government in Indiana.  The subject was transsexuals.  And I read a bunch of the comments.  Many people are awed by Jon Stewart, and some said essentially that anyone would have to be crazy to get into a debate with him, because he's so well prepared, and his rhetorical style is so effective.  He did demolish this woman.  But he was wrong about the substantive issue.

It remains to be seen whether or not our three new Commissioners can represent us.  But even if they can't -- even if they're not strong enough -- they will most certainly be better than the old devils we succeeded in not re-electing.