Constituents

I'm disgusted with American politics, because our system is supposed to be a democracy, and it isn't.  It's a plutocracy.  In this country, candidates rely on campaign contributions, and whoever makes the larger contribution carries the most weight in what candidates do once they get elected.  It's not uncommon that bills offered in legislative bodies are written by the donors/corporations, not by the elected legislators.  If the donors have donated enough, the bill they write will be considered, and it will be passed.  And that bill favors the donors.  It doesn't favor you.  As I always say, the constituents of electeds are the donors, not the voters.  Voters, people who didn't vote, and people who can't vote (age, or whatever), can take a hike.  Or drop dead.

Of course, it's not entirely the fault of the donors.  Donors donate money so candidates can advertise themselves.  Prospective voters are, I'm sorry to say, stupid enough to be swayed by which candidate has the most ads, or the most signs.  We're in sound bite world, and prospective voters can't be bothered to pay attention, and wade through arguments and debates.  Candidates can tell prospective voters any stupid thing, or lie, as in the case of "George Santos," they want, and if the candidates are visible enough, the prospective voters will become brain dead, and just accept what they're awash in.

So, the question, to bring this "home," is who are the constituents of our current Commissioners?  As best I can tell, none of them, except Mac Kennedy, ever campaigned.  When I ran, I funded my own campaigns.  Maybe they did the same thing, regarding buying yard signs.  I have no evidence any of them, again except Mac, ever reaches out to anyone.  Some of them have lived in the Village a very short time (two of them for only three years), and none, except Mac, and very briefly Jonathan, ever involved him- or herself on a Board, or anything else that would provide insight as to how the Village functions.  My only input from any of them (except Mac), regarding the Village, and what are their understandings of Village issues, and goals for how to address them, came from watching the Meet the Candidates event, which was completely unrevealing of anything.  And now, three of these detached newcomers are on the Commission.  Taken together, they're a majority of the Commission.  So, whom, and what, do they represent?  What do they think?  What do they want?  What's their constituency?

They're going to have to deal with Village business of various kinds, at least once a month, and they're going to have to have some theory that will guide their decision-making.  On the surface of it, I have not the slightest idea what that theory will be, and from where it will come.  I can't assume it will reflect what I think, or what you think, because these Commissioners don't bother to find out what you or I think.  With that one exception, as always.

There's good news and bad news.  It's sort of the same news.  Mac Kennedy is not shy, he is not without opinions and vision, and he's highly goal-directed.  He's also highly influential over other people.  The immediately preceding Commission quickly became the Mac Kennedy Show, and I strongly suspect this one will, too.  His colleagues have neither grounding nor interest, and it will become clear to them that Mac is smart, does more than his homework, and will guide these other electeds as to what decisions they should make.  It wouldn't be unfair to say that he'll let them know what are the "right" decisions.  And Mac does care what you and I think.  He sends e-blasts with some frequency, and I doubt I have ever responded to one without getting a conversation back.  I don't always agree with Mac, but I always trust him.

The bad news, which, as I say, is the same as the good news, is that the current Commission is the Mac Kennedy Show.  Mac, technically rightly, says he doesn't force anyone else to do anything.  His Commission colleagues can determine, and vote, as they wish.  But I have no reason to think these four will buck Mac any more than did the four before them.  And at least two of the previous other four were essentially hostile to Mac.  But they went along with him anyway.  It quickly became easier than arguing.  So, we'll have a Commission of one voice, which is what we had just before.

As I said, I don't always agree with Mac.  I think that on occasion, he makes what I consider to be a mistake.  But I don't vote on the Commission.  If Mac does occasionally make a mistake, but there's no one there to challenge him, then the mistake stands, and the Village takes the consequences of it.

So, maybe when things get as tenuous and thin as they are now, the constituent of four Commissioners is Mac Kennedy.  It's vastly better than if the constituent of three or four Commissioners was Tracy Truppman, or even when the constituent of four Commissioners was Ed Burke, but it's not the system we're supposed to have.  These people don't get elected unless we vote for them, and we pay them, albeit just a little.  We take the consequences of what they decide to do, or what they let Mac convince them to do.  We're entitled to representation, which we never had from them, even from day 1, when they couldn't even be bothered to meet us and campaign for our support.  The fact is we really never voted for any of them.  We just had to fill Ginny O'Halpin's seat, and we voted against Dan Samaria and Judi Hamelburg.