Another topic that tends to relate to our need for redistricting is our need for more accountability among our current aldermen. While every alderman is voted on by the entire population of the city, you are only able to run for office in your ward. This becomes a problem when 5 sitting aldermen have either run un-opposed or have been appointed to their position.
Let's look at the facts...
(All of those that have run un-opposed or have been appointed will be highlighted for your viewing pleasure.)
Ward 1
2001 Election: Miles Johnson
2003 Election: Brandon McColloch (ran un-opposed)
2005 Election: Miles Johnson
Ward 2
2001 Election: Danny Leverette
2003 Election: Eliot Mitchell
2005 Election: Jonathan Duda
Ward 3
2001 Election: Scotten (ran un-opposed)
2003 Election: Sharron Cantrell (ran un-opposed)
2005 Election: Domingo Gallardo (ran un-opposed)
Ward 4
2001 Election: Hughes
2003 Election: Roop (later appointed Viola Pickard)
2005 Election: Charles Raines (ran un-opposed)
Now, let's look at the BOMA from that perspective. The only aldermen currently sitting on this board to run against another living, breathing, human being are: Jonathan Duda, Eliot Mitchell, and Miles Johnson. As you can tell, 2/3 are from Ward 2.......that produces over 80% of the current population, and has produced virtually all growth for Spring Hill. There seems to be no shortage of people interested in running for office in this ward, while others can produce virtually no opposition to current aldermen.
This board needs to be turned upside down! We need to place members that are willing to take Spring Hill on a progressive, forward thinking path. In 5 years this will be an entirely different city, and with our current leadership, Spring Hill will become nothing more than urban sprawl.
We need a plan. We need a direction. We need a sense of community. This Board of Mayor and Alderman, as it is constructed currently, is not in a position to offer solutions to the needs that face our community today!
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Aldermen Running UN-OPPOSED
Posted by Gorilla in the Corner at 2:56 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Post Ratings
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: The information on this website is a series of personal opinions and is not meant to reflect an official position by the City of Spring Hill.
9 comments:
Why have they not addressed this before?
Before you rail the current at-large alderman system in SH, ask yourself this question, "Wouldn't any other proposed system create a 'turf war'?" Right now, each area of SH has the same amount of representation and answers to ALL residents of the city because ALL residents vote for ALL wards, instead of only SOME residents voting for SOME wards. Last time I checked, the entire board represents the entire population. As troubling as un-opposed elections may seem, you can't force someone to run.
How big of a "turf war" could there be. With 2 wards running both of their aldermen un-opposed for years, you are only really talking about a real race between 2 candidates for a change.
If you have aldermen representing only their districts, instead of the whole city like they currently have now, then you will always have issues that some aldermen would support more just because it is in their district. If you got a $1 to spend, shouldn't it all go to the city, instead of $0.25 going to each ward?
"you got" "you have" what's the difference? This city needs an edumacated voice.
I agree with Anonymous who wrote at 10:27. You can't force someone to run. If you reapportion the wards, don't you run the risk of the most populated ward having all of the representation? If that happened, you wouldn't be crying then.
Here is an idea for you. 1 alderman for each ward, 4 at large. If you have the best candidate, run and see if you win. That way you are truly elected "by the people." Also, if Ward 2 were to have over 80% of the votes and a ward have 0%, I would in fact cry foul. This argument works both ways, but currently it is so out of whack it is humorous!
"...we can't re-apportion because of our rapid growth. We would just have to do it again the following year..."
That's why a 1 alderman from each ward, 4 aldermen at-large system would work so well. First, ensure that each area of the city has representation (1 alderman from each ward), then ensure that the areas with the most population have the opportunity to be represented proportionally. As the growth occurs in different areas of the city, so to will the choice of at-large candidates.
I don't fault some of the aldermen for defending the current system so vigorously - after all, this is the only system that they have known. I do take issue with those aldermen that refuse to even discuss an alternative.
Post a Comment