Former Neighborspac leader and one-time Rockville Mayor candidate Drew Powell has released an analysis of incumbent Mayor Susan Hoffmann's campaign contributions. Powell is concerned with development-related contributions and we have quibbled with him over that issue before. But it's hard to disagree with his conclusion that a great deal of Hoffmann's money has come from outside the city. Contributions to her challenger, Phyllis Marcuccio, have come almost entirely from inside the city. That fact is newsworthy. The City of Rockville's website has the original finance filings from Susan Hoffmann and Phyllis Marcuccio and we reprint Powell's analysis below.
Showing posts with label Drew Powell. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Drew Powell. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Powell Takes on Hoffmann's Contributions
Monday, April 20, 2009
Special Interest Contributions in the District 4 Election: Update
By Drew Powell.
Posting today around 11:00 AM, finally in is Nancy Navarro’s April 10th filing with the Maryland State Board of Elections. The BOE confirmed that the Navarro campaign accrued $100.00 in fines for this late filing. It is true that the BOE makes lots of mistakes (like Kramer’s loans), but one has to wonder, in which category does this most recent late filing fall? The possibilities are: 1.) the BOE messed up, 2.) the Navarro campaign filed late.
Consider the first possibility: The BOE makes lots of mistakes; it’s no secret that they are understaffed and asked to do a lot with a little bit of funding. They are reliant on the campaigns to do their jobs right and to preferably file using the ELECTrack system, which makes things much easier on BOE officials. It’s a big job, with lots of room for error. During the past week, I spoke with at least three different staffers in the BOE’s campaign finance division. They assured me that the problem with the late Navarro filing was not on their end. If indeed, there was some kind of ELECTrack issue, why then did the Navarro campaign not express mail or hand deliver the data on a disc? All other District 4 candidates filed on time.
Possibility two, it was the fault of the Navarro campaign: First, let’s look at history; has Navarro ever filed late? Yes. Since her first filing with the BOE in August 2006, Navarro has filed late 17 times out of 31 (inclusive of reports and audits). She has received a total of $3,120.00 of fines and penalties. On five occasions the Navarro campaign requested a BOE waiver and was denied all five times. Additionally, the BOE has requested amendments for 19 of her reports… all of this in fewer than three years.
One might ask that if Navarro can’t manage a $100K campaign, is she capable of handling a $4B county budget? One thing is for certain, when you file your campaign finance report (late) on the Friday before the primary, it can’t possibly post on the BOE/UMD web site any sooner then the Monday before the election. This means it can’t be seen by concerned voters or receive the scrutiny of the press. This looks like it was taken out of the City of Rockville’s play book, where the mayor and council recently voted to obfuscate most campaign finance data until after the City Election.
Using the data in the just-filed report, an update has been performed for the “Nancy Navarro Campaign Finance Analysis 2009 Special Election” spread sheet. In the 2008 District 4 Special Election Navarro accepted $75,000.00 (67% of her total contributions) from development related sources. During this same period last year, she garnered 15% of those development related dollars and went on to declare the remaining 85% after the primary. Between TWO groups, development related interests and unions, Navarro received 84% of all her 2008 funding. This year Navarro’s development related take is 28% thus far. I look forward to her “Pre-General and “Post-General” campaign finance reports.
What you can do? As I have mentioned, it costs a lot of money to run a successful campaign. Don’t complain if candidates take too much money from special interests, if you’re not willing to give some yourself. If only a tiny percentage of the electorate gave $10, $20 or $50 to the candidates of their choice, those candidates would not have to turn to special interests to fund their campaigns. As an over simplified estimate, every mailing piece costs about $1. If you give $50, that’s about 50 more people, who will hear that candidate’s message. What difference can that make? The 2006 District 15 race for Maryland State House was won by 152 votes. If you can’t give money, give your time. Help with phone banks, stuffing envelopes, leafleting, working the polls, etc. Remember, Democracy is a participatory sport for all citizens.
The Strange Case of Kramer’s Mystery Money Loans… Solved
By Drew Powell.
In the April 17th post, “Special Interest Contributions in the District 4 Election” I reported that I was unable to find $42,000 in loans Ben Kramer made to himself during the 2009 District 4 Special Election.
The Maryland State Board of Elections (BOE) shows Kramer receiving $23,000.00 in loans as reported in his “Montgomery Special 2009 Pre-Primary 1 Filing” (03/24/2009) and $27,000.00 as noted in his “Montgomery Special 2009 Pre-Primary 2 Filing” (04/10/2009). The BOE also shows Kramer going from $130,450.00 in “Total Outstanding Obligations” to $180,450.00 during that same period. If you click on the “23,000.00” or “27,000.00” loan figures on either “Montgomery Special 2009 Pre-Primary Report” page it takes you to the same loan summery page 1 of 2. So far so good. This page shows loans made by Kramer to himself since March 2006 and shows ONE loan in the amount of $8,000.00 on February 11, 2009 (part of the 2009 District 4 Special Election cycle).
Now it gets interesting, at the bottom of the loan summary page, you then click on the “page 2” link. What you get is another summary page for Mr. Kramer’s contributions, NOT page 2 of the loan summary page. Try as you may, when it comes to page 2, ‘you can’t get there from here.” The link simply does not exist on the State Board of Elections web site. This leaves a difference of $42,000.00. Where are those loans? When did Kramer receive them? How many separate loans were there and in what amounts? In the April 17th post, I referred to the missing loan data as “mystery money loans.” I was told by a few folks in the know (including the BOE), that since Kramer ran for delegate, the loans could be in “other accounts.” However, there is only ONE “Friends of Ben Kramer” account and if Kramer loaned himself money, that’s where it would appear.
Finally, I started to think; what if this was a BOE database or University of Maryland web error. Don’t ask me why, but the State Board of elections commissioned the University of Maryland to provide all its web services starting in August 2006. It may have reduced the BOE’s costs and/or liability, but it certainly has increased the time it takes to get data posted by at least one to two business days (take Navarro’s late filing for example, which just posted late this morning, even though it was received by the BOE around noon Friday) and has increased the time it takes to correct errors.
After examining the link structures, I tried a manually correct link to try and pull up the missing page 2… and it worked! You can’t get to page two on the BOE/UMD campaign finance web site, but you CAN on “Maryland Politics Watch.” Click on MPW Page 2 to view. Up pops the missing $42,000.00.
The loans reported are as follows:
It looks like Mr. Kramer has a very handy checkbook. How did he make all his money again?
Friday, April 17, 2009
Special Interest Contributions in the District 4 Election
By Drew Powell.
It always good to know where candidates stand on the issues and what may drive their decision making processes regarding their future voting records, should they be elected. Concerned voters may cast their ballots based on a candidate’s existing voting record (if any), what that candidate says about the issues (debates, mailers, other media, etc.), completed questionnaires, who endorses them, with whom they are politically allied, their sources of funds for running their campaigns (also an indication of allegiances) and the candidate’s charisma.
I believe that many would agree that most of the above are highly subjective and left up to one’s own political leanings and conscience. One of the items on the above list is a bit less subjective, “sources of funds” (i.e. campaign finance).
Campaign finance, the basics
For the most part, the Maryland legislature feels strongly about transparency in campaign finance (with exceptions like the “LLC Loophole…” maybe a future post). For many decades they have supported and funded (with your tax dollars) the State Board of Elections (BOE) in its efforts to report on candidate, slate, PAC and other campaign committee donations and expenditures. Since January 1998, these reports have been made available online. Any citizen, who wants to see this information for themselves, can sit in the comfort of their home and view candidates’ financial reports. At first this may this may seem rather boring, however, these contributions can sometimes tell their own, very interesting story. I urge everyone I speak with about this issue NOT to take it from me or anyone else… but to go online and see for themselves. If more voters did this, the outcome of many elections, and subsequent life-impacting legislation that those elected officials enact, might be very different. Visit the Maryland State Board of Elections and see for yourself.
What can you expect when you go to the State Board of Elections’ web site? Once you navigate to the “Search for Contributions” area, you will be asked to input some data to search on, such as a candidate’s name. Once this is done, assuming that the candidate has taken any contributions from 1998 forward, you will see a list, with column headings as follows: Candidates Account, Contributor Name (Address), Amount, Date Received and Contribution Type. Yes, if you donate to any state or county campaign committee (not federal or municipal), your name and FULL address appears in this public domain, online database. You might see contributions from people and/or businesses you know (Verizon, PEPCO, etc.). Even if you don’t know them, sometimes it can be obvious as to what business they’re in (XYZ Construction Company, ABC Auto Repair, etc.) However, there are usually many more that you don’t know who they are or what special interest they might represent. Many of these individuals and companies have given thousands of dollars.
That’s where “campaign finance research” comes in. There are many national and regional organizations that devote huge resources to this issue. Some of the more famous include: Opensecrets.org, Campaignmoney.org and Fundrace.org. From 2003 through 2008, Neighbors for a Better Montgomery (NeighborsPAC) served that function in Montgomery County’s 2002 and 2006 elections. I was honored for a time to be the executive director of NeighborsPAC.
Of the many services NeighborsPAC provided, one was campaign finance research, which we made available online, very much in the same way some of the above-listed national organizations do. It can be very tedious evaluating tens of thousands of contributions, which is why NeighborsPAC decided to prioritize by what was then (and still is) the largest amount contributed to local politicians by a special interest group, the development industry.
Why pick on the development industry?
Let’s start by setting the record straight. Many developers and development related individuals (and businesses) are, in many cases, Montgomery County citizens, who have just as much a right to vote and give money to the candidates of their choice as any other citizen. Developers serve a much needed purpose in our county, as they build the homes we live in and the stores and offices we frequent. But keep in mind that development is a FOR-profit business and as such, like any good business much is done to try to maximize profits. If they don’t do this, they go out of business. The question then becomes, in the area of our legislative system and the possible influence the development industry may have; just what is legal or not, ethical or not, in or out of balance or simply is transparent or opaque?
According to NeighborsPAC research, in the 2002 Montgomery County Election, more than $2.5M was donated by the development industry (about 70% of all monies given during that election cycle). In 2006, development related contributions totaled more than $4M (again, about 70%). According to NeighborsPAC research, one 2006 candidate received more than 71% (more than $1M) from development related interests. I’ll make a prediction now, that for the 2010 County Election, about $6M (again, about 2 out of every 3 dollars) will come from the development industry.
Why would developers care about elections?
If the County Council (with its mandate to make law and establish county code) and the County Executive (with his/her mandate to set the county’s agenda) voted on pharmaceutical drug regulation, believe me, the pharmaceutical drug industry would be a big player in county politics, making big contributions. As far as an industry is concerned, the one that is impacted the most by our County Council and Executive is the development industry. This comes in the form of county legislation regarding: zoning, master plans, impact taxes, transportation infrastructure (and who pays for it), schools (and again, who pays for it), etc. Arguably, it’s the biggest role the Council and Executive play. Keep in mind; we’re talking about BIG bucks. The development industry in Montgomery County alone is worth many tens of billions of dollars. What the County Council does can be a great benefit or hindrance to the development industry and its bottom line.
So what’s a developer to do? If you’ve been a developer for long, you know how the game is played. Even so, you hire $500 Land use/zoning attorneys and turn to the services of companies such as Rodgers Consulting. These “investments” will, for a lot of money, help you increase your chances of getting that zoning change or ZTA (zoning text amendment) or better yet, help you and your industry “Control Elections and Influence Legislation [and] Regulation.” Those aren’t my words, but guidance from Rodgers Consulting Inc. in a 2004 International Builders Show presentation, “Where's the Land?”
So, just what is a development related interest? A 'development-related interest' is defined as an individual, company or organization that benefits financially (directly or indirectly) from business activities related to land development in Montgomery County. Examples of those who may benefit directly are: developers, builders, construction companies, realtors, etc. Examples of those who may benefit indirectly are: Land use/zoning attorneys, developer consultants, development supply companies, development related unions/PACs/advocacy groups, etc.
Using neutral methodologies (applying the same rules to all), in an unflinching manor (i.e. report whenever and whoever meets the above definition for every candidate), NeighborsPAC identified thousands of development related campaign contributions made to county council and executive candidates. This was done by using other online databases and search engines. The same methods were employed in identifying development related contributions and funding sources in the 2009 District 4 special election.
District 4 summary
Here’s a summary of the District 4 Special Election campaign finance picture so far:
Lou August: $0 in reported contributions as of the 4/10/2009 filing (filed affidavit stating that his campaign received less than $1000)
Michael Bigler: One contribution from himself in the amount of $500.00 on 03/13/2009
Robin Ficker: $0 in reported contributions as of 4/10/2009 filing (filed affidavit stating that his campaign received less than $1000)
George Gluck: Four contributions totaling $230.00 as of 4/10/2009 filing
Rob Goldman: $0 in reported contributions as of 4/10/2009 filing (filed affidavit stating that his campaign received less than $1000)
Thomas Hardman: Four contributions totaling $226.07 as of 4/10/2009 filing
Ben Kramer: 15 contributions totaling $2,875.00 total as of 4/10/2009 filing, however as much as $50,000.00 was received in loans from himself (see below and spread sheet)
Cary Lamari: 43 contributions totaling $4,432.00 and $10,000.00 loan to self as of 4/10/2009 filing (see spread sheet)
Nancy Navarro: In violation of Maryland State law, has not filed with the State Board of Elections as of 4/16/09 and has accrued $80.00 of fines thus far (candidates pay fines of $20/day for the first six business days late, $10/business day thereafter). Navarro has filed through March 24, 2009 and also has completed all filing for the 2008 special election. (see spread sheets)
District 4 specifics
It costs money to run a campaign. It’s hard for me to see how a serious candidate can get out their message with little or no funds. Based on the State Board of Elections database, it appears that there are only three candidates on which to perform campaign finance analysis. Those are (in alphabetical order) Kramer, Lamari and Navarro. From the standpoint of campaign funding, each candidate falls into very different categories.
KRAMER: Kramer has raised very little from contributors. Counting from before the 2008 special election, the BOE shows him receiving a total of $5,440.00 in the form of 27 contributions, however we will only consider contributions commensurate with the 2009 special election. For the 2009 special election, that figure is $2,875.00 from 15 contributors. Kramer loaned himself $9,000 ($1K in 12/08 and $8K in 2/09). So how has Kramer spent $50,118.54 in his campaign thus far? I must admit, I’ve been researching campaign contributions and expenditures for seven years and I don’t get it. According to the State Board of Elections, Kramer has a current outstanding debt of exacting $180,450.00, most of it, appears to be moneys loaned to himself during the past three years. His debt or “Total Outstanding Obligations” increased from $130,450.00 in Kramer’s January 21, 2009 Annual Report to $180,450.00 in Kramer’s April 10, 2009 “Montgomery Special 2009 Pre-Primary 2 Report, a difference of exactly $50,000.00. HOWEVER, the BOE shows Kramer receiving only $8,000.00 in loans from himself during that same period. It’s difficult to know whether this is Kramer’s error, the BOE’s error or just plain pilot error on my part. In any case, I plan to have a long discussion with the BOE tomorrow. Back to the candidate: It’s well known that Ben Kramer hails from a family with strong ties to local politics as well as the development industry. A quick land records search shows that Kramer has interests in significant commercial landholdings near and along the ICC. So, is the money that Mr. Kramer has loaned himself “development related?” I believe it is. This puts Kramer’s development related take at 97%. Further, I’m not saying that this will happen, but it always remains possible that Kramer could accept tens of thousands in development related contributions after the April 10th filing. Those contributions would not be in public view until after the primary. Or he could simply wait until after the general election and report receiving development related contributions in the post general election report. Whatever the case, before the primary, Kramer needs to publicly avow that he will not repay any of his personal loans with yet-unseen developer contributions. Further, before the primary, Mr. Kramer must publicly state that, if elected, he will recuse himself on votes in all matters relating to his landholdings or the landholdings of his family, which fall inside Montgomery County. I end this section with a question; Why would someone spend $50,000 of their own money (and probably much more by the time Kramer files his post general election report) to win a seat that pays $94,040.00 a year? I guess it’s nice to be rich.
LAMARI: As of the April 10th filing, Lamari’s campaign has been funded by 43 contributions totaling $4,432.00. Most contributions are in small dollar amounts and are generally from individuals. Lamari has received $100 (2%) in development related contributions. Lamari has also loaned himself $10,000. Like any candidate loaning themselves money, Mr. Lamari should state publicly that he will not use developer contributions to repay campaign loans.
NAVARRO: In the 2009 special election, Navarro’s campaign has received $16,000.00 in the form of 42 contributions. However, Navarro has NOT filed her April 10th Campaign Finance Report as of midnight April 15th and is now four days late in filing. As confirmed at 3:00 PM 4/16/09 by the State Board of Elections, Navarro’s campaign committee has accrued $80.00 of fines thus far. Hopefully, Ms. Navarro will file the overdue report in time for Tuesday’s Primary. But, wait… we are fortunate in that this is Navarro’s second run for this seat in as many years. We have a full accounting of Navarro’s 2008 campaign financials and they do tell an interesting story. In the 2008 special election Navarro took $111,761.00 in the form of 185 contributions. Of that, $75,000.00 (67%) came from development related sources… that’s 2 out of every 3rd dollar. This level of development related campaign funding is very similar to what we saw with “End Gridlock” candidates in the 2002 county election. Of the $75,000.00 in development related contributions received, $31,950.00 (42.6%) came from just 7 development interests. Of that, $12,000.00 came from one developer, IDI. The $75K in development contributions is further compounded by Navarro’s apparent “sandbagging” of most of these funds. $63,750.00 (85%) was recorded after the 2008 Pre-primary Report filing, making the receipt of those developer dollars invisible to primary voters. From Navarro’s first 2009 filing (second late filing not available, yet), it’s hard to say whether she will repeat her 2008 sandbagging scheme. Perhaps she could make a public statement that she will limit her development related contributions in future filings.
As a postscript, it needs to be mentioned that Mr. Ficker is a realtor and thereby qualifies as a development related interest. However, the BOE shows no money received into the “Homeowners for Robin Ficker Committee,” in the form of loans or contributions. Also, Rob Goldman is a partner of the Bethesda-based law firm, Finkelstein & Horvitz, P.C., which, amongst other disciplines, practices real estate law, thus qualifying Goldman as a development related interest. However, the BOE shows no contributions or loans received by Goldman’s campaign committee.
Conclusion
So what does all this mean? Is it significant that a candidate takes more than half of their contributions from the development industry? Does it matter that a candidate is part of the development industry? Do developers get a good return on their investment? Will developer-candidates represent you, a citizen of District 4 or development interests? Do developer funded candidates do the developers’ bidding?
Based on NeighborsPAC analysis of developer funded campaigns in the 2002 election and subsequent county councilmember voting records, it certainly appeared that developer funded elected officials marched to the developers’ drumbeat. Will this happen in District 4? That’s for you to decide. ■
☼ As part of full disclosure, it needs to be mentioned that Neighbors for a Better Montgomery, of which I was the executive director, endorsed ten candidates in the 2006 county election (executive and nine council candidates). Those endorsements included: Valerie Ervin (current Montgomery County Councilmember and Nancy Navarro endorser), Cary Lamari (a District 4 candidate), Ike Leggett (current Montgomery County Executive and Ben Kramer endorser) and Duchy Trachtenberg (current Montgomery County Councilmember and Ben Kramer endorser).
* Last minute note: After reading the campaign finance analysis spread sheets, an informed individual stated that the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council of Carpenters PAC is not development related, but rather a union funded PAC, interested only in good working conditions and fair pay for their constituents. Even so, Mid-Atlantic Regional Council of Carpenters’ constituents benefit from development in Montgomery County, which is why their $6,000.00 contribution was counted as development related. If this contribution were to be withheld from Navarro’s 2008 take, her developer total would have been $69,000.00 (62%).
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
A Winner Has Many Parents and A Loser is an Orphan: What Happened In The Rockville Mayoral Race
Dear Readers, I have been involved in the recently completed Rockville Municipal election and my candidate, Drew Powell, lost. We came in 3rd in a three horse race to be the next Mayor of Rockville. So how do you write a summary of an election where you lose? Carefully, because any criticism of the winning team could be construed as sour grapes when your side lost. Winners get to write the ending, not losers.
The title of this posting is true because elections are a birth. If your side wins you stay up most of the night, lights on, upbeat music playing, passing along good cheer, maybe a cigar, while scores of new found friends are hugging and high fiving each other. It is almost impossible to wipe the smile off of your face. True believers, family and close friends are mixed in with the causal acquaintances where no one cares about distinctions. It is a time to celebrate everything that is good about the American political system. If you lose your party is over in about 10 minutes and those that remain are the one or two true believers sitting in a dimly lit room with the shades drawn looking at each other and saying "what happened?" The hardest part is the self-examination. It is even harder to do when you have been running on raw emotion for the past four days. You are tired but not sleepy, angry but not postal, lonely but not alone, and hungry but not eating. So it is best to give yourself some time to collect your thoughts -- and move away from the ledge.
For first timers (both candidates and the hard core supporters) losing is terrible. Losing sides may think that their world has collapsed but they are wrong. Losing an election is neither war nor death. Emotionally it is akin to breaking up with your first girlfriend (or boyfriend) as a teenager. It is not the end of the world but sure feels like it. Just as teenage love occurs when you do not having the emotional skills to cope with a personal rejection, losing an election tests your core beliefs. It is painful. It is something to be experienced and not posted in a blog. Rejection at the polls requires you to develop your emotional skills. Just like talking to a parent about your first breakup, it helps to have someone who you can talk to about this most public of rejections. That is why campaigns are like adolescence romance it is huge to the teenager but as an adult you know that the youngster's world has not collapsed. There are bigger things ahead. We just don't know what it is. Still losing an election that you are emotionally invested in hurts like heck.
I feel sorry for political activists that have never experienced defeat because they have probably never pushed themselves nor never tested the limits of what government can be: a vehicle for positive change, a place to bring new thinking to old ideas, a chance to leave this place a bit better than before. Isn't that the reason for getting into politics in the first place? But the risk of losing steers many political activists to be safe. And so we get the politics of least resistance. And that leads to middling policy and not true change.
A victory is twice as sweet if it has as its core a previous loss. You appreciate the winning moment more. At the same time, if you never experience a win in politics then you never get the chance to make a difference and you might as well join a gardening club or risk being compared to perennial candidate Harold Stassen.
The Danger In Victory
The danger of an electoral victory is you think you have a mandate to change things that the voters may not have given you. But no one knows the current answer to that future question. After a win you are at your zenith. Plato described in "The Republic" that the ultimate authority should be a citizen king who act as a benevolent dictator. On the morning after an election all winners are benevolent dictators. Unfortunately with each passing day that ultimate authority erodes until the next winning campaign. Still the winners have a mandate to change things as they see fit. And wasn't that the reason for the sacrifice in the first place?
If you lose an election then you find yourself curled away in your own cubby hole reluctant to venture out except to bark at someone. That's not a good thing to do. Remember the sun will come up tomorrow.
It takes guts to run for public office. Regardless of the candidate you should thank them for at least trying. I have never run and don't know if I ever will. But I like to help candidates that can make a community a better place. Unfortunately, last night in Rockville the voters did not want what my side offered.
So what happened in Rockville?
The short answer is obvious -- we did not get enough votes. The medium answer is: The contest did not center on our issues. We could not frame the key issues facing Rockville properly to the electorate; and we did not build the right coalition of supporters. The real answer is equally simple: it was not our time.
With each subsequent election, I learn more about myself. I learned that I am a product of all that I have met and all that I have touched. I was touched by many people. Most importantly by the candidate, Drew Powell (on the left). He is a good man with a desire to make Rockville a better place and I failed him in reaching this goal. I hope he finds a way to remain involved in his town and our county. He is an asset to our community. Drew, please find a way to continue to make our world better.
Why get involved in Rockville?
I think what Rockville does inside its city limits has a huge impact on the rest of the county, regardless of where you live. Rockville is our county seat. It is the geographic center of the county. Rockville Pike/ Rt. 355/ Hungerford Drive is the spine of the county. Having a correct spine keeps everything else in place. It is why I tried to make a difference in Rockville. We had a good candidate and good message, but we failed to get our message out and we lost.
What didn't happen in Rockville
I have been reading the blogs and the papers about how this race was divisive. Not really. I have seen a lot worse and even the stuff worse that I have seen in other elections has been quite tame. I think it is easy to jump to calling things "negative politics" if you don't want to respond. I think it is easy for reporters to discount things that disagrees with their hypothesis and never gave a fair hearing to what we were saying. I also think -- to be fair to the main reporter -- covering the 14 campaigns of Rockville is next to impossible considering the space limitations of newsprint. The debates were virtually unworkable due to the sheer size of the candidates. I also think news articles love to highlight conflict and horse race features of any campaign. They have a chance to instruct when I keep forgetting their goal is to get us to read the ads of the paper first and the articles second and to inform third. As for the debates, I have no better idea of how to organize a debate with so many people running.
But as I said at the beginning any criticism from me will sound like sour grapes. Why did we lose? Not enough votes and we failed to get our message out. It was that simple. Did the "right" people win? Sure. They always do. If you want to know the details then ask the winners, they earned the right to complete the story.
But it was a fun ride with a disappointing ending -- for me at least. For the winners, it was pure joy. So I tip my hat to the new Mayor and to the new members of the city council. Good luck to all. For me, I will remember the call from my girlfriend eager to know the results of the election. After I gave her the news she did her best to cheer me up. Just like a parent would do after one's first teenage romance gone astray. I appreciated that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
