1) Why Mr. Cahill is so militant: only a nut case would want good government.

2) Why we hear so little about Belinda Carlyle these days

Dave (Cahill)

1) Exactly who are these “Goo-Goos”? I once heard of an all-girl band called “The Go-Gos”. Are your Goo-Goos a new band, or did your fingers slip when writing your comment? And why do they care about Ann Arbor elections?

2) I’m still not hearing a coherent argument for the civic benefit of maintaining partisan elections in a one-national party town. Exactly what information is contained, in a local election, by referring to national political brands? Is “% for Art” a program of the national Democratic Party? Then how come so many local democrats (e.g., David Cahill, Esq.) are agin’ it? Or does national party affiliation tell us nothing about “% for Art”, nor about who is for it and who is against it?

There are several juicy conspiracy-theory rationales for maintaining partisan elections in a one-party town. My personal favorite is that “Democrats fear that if elections were strictly about local issues/personalities, and local voters weren’t distracted by national party brands, people who call themselves ‘Democrats’ wouldn’t get elected to local offices, and so they want to tie local elections to nation brands”. Beyond parlor game fun, conspiracy theories don’t contribute to civic life, and distract us from substantive issues.

Around here, in local elections the big money, and big media attention, goes to people who identify nationally as Democrats. The result is that the August Democratic primary is where issues – like zoning, park land “leases”, get decided. On local issues, the big money, and the big media, should be around the general election. This is why everyone else in Michigan (save Ypsilanti and one other town I cannot recollect) hold non-partisan elections.

I see no reason that national Democrats could not identify themselves a such in campaign publicity. They just would face off against (most likely) another national Democrat in the general election. This is what non-partisan elections get you. Running as an independent in a partisan local race generally doesn’t achieve having the two biggest vote-drawers (and the issues they support) face off in the general.

Got any demo tapes from them Goo-Goos?

As to non-partisan elections, people can already run as candidates with no party affiliation. So why take the choice of running as a Dem/Repub/Whatever from folks?

I know “goo-goos” are sometimes drawn to nonpartisan elections, for reasons that are hard to fathom. This attraction is a bad tendency that should be militantly resisted.

I think, on the contrary, the introduce-then-refer approach would lower the threshold for placing an item on the agenda, and could potentially free councilmembers up to float ideas onto the agenda without having every detail nailed down, thus actually promoting innovative proposals.

Re: “The council member would then be reduced to introducing a flawed and preliminary draft, easily shot down.”

In the context of current custom, resolutions and ordinances introduced at first reading could be fairly characterized very much as “first drafts.” For example, even with the assistance of the city attorney’s office, the wording of Chuck Warpehoski’s resolution regulating outdoor smoking was significantly flawed in two places. That is what in part led to his own immediate proposal to postpone at first reading. I think that if a councilmember working by themselves or with other councilmembers or citizens cannot produce a draft that is sufficient to win approval from the majority of council to refer for further study, then I think that draft probably deserves to be shot down. Will politics happen? Absolutely. But it’s a way more efficient use of the everyone’s time, if those politics lead to an early and merciful demise of a proposal, instead of leading to a marathon of suffering that ultimately ends in a defeated proposal.

Re: Steve Bean’s introduction of the topic of boards and commissions

I thought about exploring this introduce-then-refer mechanism as it would have applied to the energy commission recommendation on fossil fuels. I think its consideration by the council might have unfolded in somewhat smoother fashion than it did if the energy commission had placed the item on the agenda as an introduction. A next logical step could have been to refer the resolution to the council’s budget committee. Instead, what unfolded was defeat, reconsideration, amendment, postponement, and finally approval. That’s an important reminder that some boards and commissions, like the energy have “agenda access.” But I didn’t want try to tackle that issue in the context of this column. It’s worth pointing out that Rule 13-P wouldn’t apply to members of boards and commissions, only to members of the council.

When I look through the introductions in the NYC Legistar, I see texts that are relatively well constructed. They go beyond the “I am looking into an ordinance that would allow the city administrator to designate parkland as smoke free.” Instead, they have initial text of what a the legislation looks like, including what sections of city code are to be amended. I find it unlikely that such draft legislation emerged without the input of city staff. I know it certainly would have been an error to ask me to draft an preliminary smoking ordinance without guidance for the attorney’s office.

To add a nuance to Vivienne’s point, the City hires the Administrator and City Attorney. Each of them have the responsibility to ensure that the time of their staff members is not misused, but it is not the Administrator’s purview to oversee the legal department’s staff time.

Yet another point: Council meetings are too long as it is. Imagine if they also had to consider every half-baked idea in embryo as well. Debate could ensue.

Again, how is it that first readings ever pass if politics is such a threat?