How Long is Too Long?
In March 2007 we will have primary elections for the 14 even numbered wards in the City of St. Louis. Out of curiosity I stopped at the Board of Aldermen yesterday to get a copy of their seniority list. Wow, no wonder they don’t put this info on their website — many have been around since we had over 400,000 residents (452,804 in 1980 & 396,685 in 1990).
I can imagine being in government that long might give you a less than fresh perspective. I can also conceive that seeing the population drop over 20% since you’ve been in office might make you a bit jaded about what it takes to bounce back. This is why I think we need some fresh thinkers at the Board of Aldermen.
Back to the upcoming Spring ’07 election. Below I’ve listed all 14 incumbent aldermen, their ward, how many years they will have served come 2007 and how many terms that represents. Some people have served some odd years due to being sworn in following a special election or I believe in one case they switched from odd to even during the last redistricting.
I personally think we should have term limits with a maximum of 2 terms for a total of 8 years. Some have previously expressed here that 8 years is not enough. Well, how about 12 years? Being Alderman should not be a life-long entitlement.
Based strictly on how long they’ve been in office I think the following need to not run again in 2007, move on and let some fresh thinking have a chance:
•Fred Heitert; 12th Ward: 28 years (7 terms).
• Terry Kennedy, 18th Ward: 18 years (4.5 terms).
• Stephen Conway, 8th Ward: 16+ years (4 terms).
• Stephen Gregali, 14th Ward: 12 years (3 terms)
• Craig Schmid; 20th Ward: 12 years (3 terms)
Craig Schmid is the only Alderman that I really know from the above list. While Schmid and I agree on some things we disagree on many more. I do like that we can have a discussion, disagree and remain friendly — something some other Aldermen seem incapable of doing. I also like that Schmid, at times, is willing to break ranks with their rules of status quo. For these reasons I might be willing to give him a due pass on length of service for one more term. Maybe…
Fred Heitert, the lone Republican. Well, I think he is the only one to admit being Republican. Others simply think & act that way but are Democrats because this is a democratic town. Jimmy Carter was President when Heitert was first sworn into office.
Terry Kennedy must have been quite young when he was first elected, I like that. I’ve heard some good things about Kennedy but I don’t see him as being someone to bring fresh new ideas to the table.
Stephen Conway, the alderman that asked the Preservation Board to ignore their ordinance driven rules to “reconsider” the denial of a homeowner to retain incorrect windows he installed in a historic district without a building permit.
Which brings me to Stephen Gregali. Of the above list I think Gregali is the one I’d most like to see defeated next Spring. For evidence of his mentality (and quite honestly many others) read an email exchange I had with him last month.
Again, I really think we need to have term limits set at 8 years just to create a flow of fresh thinking. The following all will have served two full terms next Spring when they seek a third term:
• Lyda Krewson, 28th Ward: 9 years (2+ terms)
• Lewis E. Reed, 6th Ward: 8 years (2 terms)
• Dionne Flowers, 2nd Ward: 8 years (2 terms)
And the last six seeking reelection next Spring have all served only one term. In the case of two, they’ve served very little after being elected to fill vacancies following a recall of the previous Alderman. I would not seek to replace any of these Aldermen strictly on the basis of time served. Their thought process, willingness to go along with Aldermanic Courtesy, and other actions may tell a different story.
• Joseph Vollmer, 10th Ward: 4 years (1 term)
• Jeffrey Boyd, 22nd Ward: 4 years (1 term)
• Frank Williamson, 26th Ward: 4 years (1 term)
• Donna Baringer; 16th Ward: 4 years (1 term)
• O.L. Shelton, 4th Ward; since June 10, 2005
• William Waterhouse, 24th Ward: since December 16, 2005
In Spring 2009 we are back to the odd numbered wards. I’m not going to go through all 14 of those but I will highlight some of the more entrenched members:
In 2009 both Phyllis Young (7th) and Fred Wessels (13th) will have “served” for 24 years. Six full terms! Sorry you two, time to move on. Run for another office, go fishing, just don’t keep hanging around.
Not far behind is Joe Roddy (17th) who will have served 21 years when his current term expires in 2009 — that is assuming he survives the current recall attempt announced yesterday.
Freeman Bosley Sr. (3rd) will mark 20 years as Alderman in 2009. I think 5 terms is than enough time in office although he hasn’t quite managed to raze every structure in the 3rd Ward so I assume he’ll want more time to finish destroying his bit of the city. Jeffrey Hardin came so close to defeating him last Spring…
I do not know a thing about Gregory Carter, Alderman from the 27th Ward, other than having been elected in 1993. So at the 2009 elections he will have served a full four terms or 16 years. Plenty in my book. Start thinking about a run for another office Mr. Carter.
Matt Villa, April Ford-Griffin, and Mike McMillan were elected in the Spring of 1997. McMillan is most likely to be our next License Collector so he gets a nod of a approval for moving on after 9 years in the same position. Villa and Griffin both will have been in office 12 years when they are up for reelection. Both have some of the worst new development projects in the city located within their wards. Villa & Griffin need to be replaced in 2009.
Ken Ortman (9th) is a very likable guy, certainly the most atypical of all the Aldermen (he owns a bar in Soulard and has a tattoo). Sill, after 10 years in office (as of 2009 election) I think it is time to move on. He is also a proponent of the Aldermanic Courtesy system.
And lastly we have Jennifer Florida who, if she stays off the recall effort, will have been in office for 8 years. That will be about 6 years too long in my view. I’ve liked her and supported her in the past but I’ve just been witness to way too much to let this one slide by. If the recall doesn’t happen I’m certain she will not make it past the 2009 election.
Nearly 36% (10 of 28) of our Board of Aldermen will have been in office at least 12 years in the Spring of 2007. Another 21% will have been around 8 years.
Aldermanic President Jim Shrewsbury was first elected to the Board of Aldermen in 1983 (16th Ward). After 19 years he became President of the Board of Aldermen in late 2002. I knew that Jim Shrewbury became President after Francis Slay left the position in April 2001, when he was elected Mayor, but I had to call him to to clarify why he was not sworn in until November 2002. The answer was more complicated than I thought:
The rules of the Board of Aldermen [charter of the City of St. Louis] states the position of President of the Board of Aldermen, a city wide elected position, will remain vacant until the next scheduled primary and general elections. In the meantime, the Board VP will assume the role of the President without the title (although with the pay). When Slay became Mayor in 2001 Shrewsbury was the VP, so he served in that capacity while also serving as 16th Ward alderman. The next primary was August 2002 where Shrewsbury defeated challenger Lyda Krewson (55% to 45%). In the November 2002 primary he was not challenged and we sworn in once the results were certified. He also had to resign as 16th Ward Alderman upon taking the job of President.
In the March 2003 election Jim Shrewsbury had to run again although this time he was not challenged. Donna Baringer won the 16th Ward aldermanic seat handily by getting 50% of the votes in a 3-way race. Got all that?
Currently Phyllis Young is VP, Fred Wessels is Floor Leader and Joe Roddy is Assistant Floor Leader. Every two years, following the general election, they draw cards to see among the people elected on the same day who has greater seniority. This is why Young has more seniority than Wessels, even though they were both sworn in on the same date.
The Board of Aldermen need to indicate on their website how long each member has been in office. This is relevant data for people when considering if they should, themselves, run for office and when folks are voting. I think they are a bit too embarrassed they’ve been around this long and we are where we are today. I think we must, as voters, look at how long they’ve each been in office and what they accomplished for their ward and the city while they have been there. It should not be an assumed they should remain in office simply because they’ve been there for years (or decades). Being Aldermen should not be a permanent career.
[Updated 6/24/06 @ 7pm — corrected paragraph to clarify that it is the city’s charter, not the rules of the Board of Aldermen, that indicates the President of the Board will remain vacant until the next general election. This applies to the Mayor and Comptroller as well. ]
– Steve
I believe that most of the 2007 Aldermen will probably retain their seats. When only a fraction of the Ward actually votes, it is easy to see why they have been in office for so long.
Steve, you may get your wish in 2012. That will be the first election after redistricting in the city. the 17th, 28th and 18th wards among others could be very different as their populations are increasing faster than city averages. Those wards will be smaller. I could see residents in the 17th and 26th Wards seeking new leadership. Kennedy has allowed a lot of bad development go on in his ward even as it benefits from its proximity to increase in values in the 28th.
We shall see.
I completely agree with your sentiments. These people have been in city government through the absolute worst years of the city’s history. How on earth can they just expect to retain these seats and remain in government? They can’t possibly be given credit for the rebirth of our city. This is especially true with Young. Her tenure as downtown’s alderwoman has seen massive demolition and loss of historic character. If anyone were to ever credit her with the renaissance currently happening, I would seriously challenge their credibility.
[REPLY Yes, and where was Young during the debate over the Century? Quietly hiding in a corner from the Mayor and constituents. – SLP]
Small correction: In 2003, Green Don De Vivo opposed Jim Shrewsbury in the race for aldermanic president. De Vivo received 15% of the vote, despite running what was basically a word-of-mouth campaign.
[REPLY — Good catch, thanks! I didn’t check the April general — bad assumption on my part! – SLP]
Alderman Young had political cover on the Century issue because no organizations in the Soulard or Lafayette Square neighborhoods stepped forward to demand protection of the Century Building.
Downtown should be its own ward with its own alderman. Maybe after the next redistricting, it will be.
And the 20th ward will be the ward moved downtown.
I am not sure I agree with the idea of term limits. Look what it has done for us in Jefferson City – the lobbyists and the bureacrats are the only players with institutional knowledge – which is generally used to benefit interests that are inconsistant with those of the public.
[REPLY – Right, I see. The people we have in office for decades are much more beholden to the interests of the public… – SLP]
Steve:
First, being elected to office is never an entitlement. After all, its an election not an appointment.
As for some of your list of those that should quit, there are some very talented people on that list that are of a definite benefit to the city and it’s residents.
Also, having a Board of seasoning and experience is not necessarily a bad thing. Finally, although some of the current Board have run unopposed, other have run opposed and won, and no one ran against the unopposed. So, who are you to tell the voters of these wards that they have no right to choose the candidate they want to represent them.
Frankly, its offensive that you’ve taken the self-appointed position of deciding who is worth to run and who is not. I’m not sure you meant it to come-off this way, so I’ll cut you some slack here. Also, it appears you want to replace the entire Board of Aldermen, which sounds a little fanatical.
Normally, Steve, you and I are close on issues, but here I think your are WAY off.
I hope I don’t get on your $hit list for this post, because I think you’ve generally got good points, just not here.
Doug:
I’d be happy to work with you on a voter registration drive, if you want to try to change the voter turn-out.
All:
Rather than setting arbitrary term limits, get off your duff and run for office. It’s harder than sniping, but separates the wheat from the chaff. Don’t get me wrong, I am not necessarily supporting any of the above office holders, but I do support their right to run, the right of their constituents to elect them, and the right of anyone to run against them.
[REPLY – Well, given this is my site I have every right to express my thoughts, including suggesting a good many aldermen not run for office during the next election.
The people that were challenged and won did so because many have big money behind them. A-B, law firms and such. Not the general support of the people. For this same reason getting good candidates to challenge long established incumbents is nearly impossible. Who is going to challenge a well funded incumbent of 16+ years? Nobody. So the voters are stuck with who they’ve got until they decide they are done and move to St. Charles County (Geraldine Osborn).
It may sound “fanatical” to you to want to replace the entire board. But the old timers you seek to protect are the ones entrenching the new ones in the ways of Aldermanic Courtesy. We have to replace enough of them to change the processes that keep true progressive change from taking place.
I’m a former candidate. I’ve walked the walk. – SLP]
You didn’t say anything about “my” alderman, Kathleen Hanrahan (23rd), probably because she’s a relative newbie and won’t be up for reelection until 2009. She brings a “different” perspective to the Board. I’m pretty sure she’s a retired city employee (from the Parks, Recreation and Forestry Department), so while she’s new to the legislative side of the city, she’s apparently been drawing a city paycheck for a lot of years already and (I’m guessing) “double dipping” now (drawing a pension and being paid to serve). My concern, much like with some of the school board candidates, is how effectively one can separate an employee’s perspective (on what’s a “fair” wage and benefit package, along with “appropriate” staffing levels) from one’s current management responsibilities (to be fiscally prudent and to push for efficiency in all levels of city government and the delivery of its services to the citizens)?
Since I didn’t live in the ward when she was elected, and don’t know who her opponent(s) was/were, I continue to give her the benefit of the doubt. I haven’t seen any real red flags (bad decisions) on her part, nor have I seen any moments of brilliance, either. My relatively uninformed and limited view of her performance, to date, is that she’s still getting up to speed, probably respects aldermanic courtesy, and is trying hard to be responsive to the relatively minor issues (trash, paving, traffic, etc.) that constituents contact her about. She’s probably also working under the shadow of Mayor Slay, who also lives in the ward.
That said, I endorse Steve’s quest for new blood. I’m also a big believer in “right sizing” the Board. We no longer have 800,000 residents and we no longer live in insular neighborhoods. I think we would attract a much better crop of candidates (and probably a larger group, giving us more choices), if the number of wards were cut in half and the salaries paid to serve were doubled (no net increase in cost). With the current ±$30,000 annual salary, you pretty much have to be retired, independently wealthy or “on the take” to be able to devote the time needed to effectively represent a ward today. Double that to $60,000 AND limit service to two (or three) terms and you create a situation where you might actually attract some of the “best and the brightest” to serve . . .
[REPLY I love those rare times when we agree! I’m with you on limiting the number of aldermen, I don’t think it is a random change — it could be positive but only if other changes are included such as term limits. Otherwise we will just end up for 14 instead of 28 acting in the same manner. – SLP]
‘Personal’ question to Steve–
How much did it cost to run your campaign [I apologize if you don’t want to answer.], and how much do ‘institutionalized’, but more than nominally opposed, candidates spend to run theirs?
People talk about a war chest of $20,000 for Florida. That sounds very raisable for an energetic outsider, or am I living in a different universe?
[REPLY – The amounts are all public record so I don’t mind talking about it. Actually, I’ve written about it on The Commonspace. Anyway, I was a last minute candidate — literally filing on the last day. Not recommended, BTW. Plan ahead.
I raised and spent roughly $3,300. Kirner raised and spent roughly $14K-$15K while the 25th Ward organization spend a few thousand more. People are reluctant to give to challengers because they often see incumbents as unbeatable.
Also, many interests want to keep the status quo and they put their money whre their mouth is. You get various companies owned by A-B giving to many aldermen’s campaigns as well as “friendly” ward organizations. You get developers and those that want to expand in the city such as QuikTrip. They are all writing checks at the maximum level while the new guy gets $25 from a concerned constituent.
To raise more money takes time and organization. This alerts the incumbent of a challenge and they go to work early to raise more money to send a message they are bigger. Our system is just not set up to encourage anyone new and independent to run. – SLP]
I’m not sure I buy the premise that experienced Alderpersons can’t be fresh thinkers. Long-term Alderpersons sometimes take opposite positions on new issues (e.g., civilian review board). I’m also wary of equating fresh ideas with good ideas. There are plenty of “fresh thinkers” in the Missouri legislature who are driving this state into the ground. They brought a fresh perspective by cutting thousands of women and children from the Medicaid roles.
Rather than judge politicians by an arbitrary date, isn’t it better to judge them by their ideas, whether they are new candidates, were recently elected, or have served for years? Suppose an Alderperson was elected on a “urban” platform. I wouldn’t want to keep that person from running again.
[REPLY – I’ll agree that fresh does not mean good! At this point I’m willing to risk it because what we have now is decades old suburban mentality run rampant. – SLP]
At our AIA (American Institute of Architects) chapter meeting yesterday, we heard from the lobbyist who serves AIA members throughout the state.
While I feel that many of the issues we promote to the Legislature are important–particularly those concerning life safety codes and allowing counties across the state to form planning commissions to guide development–I also felt reaffirmed in my previous belief that term limits are not a good idea.
Here in the City, life terms for Aldermen are routine. Seats passing from parent to child are routine. Kennedy, Roddy, and Conway provide three examples. This fosters the perception that City politics will always be the same machine. I think that perception is dangerous to our continued renewal. Are term limits the answer? I don’t know. I’d rather an informed, concerned electorate take matters into their own hands.
And–for the record–Ken Ortman isn’t the only bar owner on the Board of Aldermen. Joseph Vollmer can sometimes be found behind the bar of Milo’s on the Hill, handing out beers and bocce balls. Stop by sometime, it’s fun.
[REPLY – I think that AIA lobbyist needs to head over to city hall once in a while and talk up more urban zoning with those folks.
I don’t like the concept of term limits. I’d rather officials just have a self imposed limit and move on. Instead they act like they are entitled to remain in office until their death and then their son takes over.
In prior posts we’ve hashed out other methods, besides term limits, to correct the problems we have. These include non-partisan elections and public financing of campaigns. Right now the system heavily favors the incumbent and they are not about to change it. – SLP]
Steve, I’d like to object here too. Inexperience is a crippling trait in a legislator. Knowing the system, making contacts, and possessing the recognition and esteem of one’s colleagues are all essential for a legislator to get his or her legislation passed. With term limits, as another poster mentioned, the ability to amass that political capital is severly hampered. As a result, green legislators are often at the mercy of predatory interests. Sure, lifers can be corrupt(ed) too, but remember to be careful what you wish for.
I do agree that aldermen need to get out of their provincial mindsets, but term limits and reducing the size of the Board aren’t the answer to that problem. I think the Board is a decent size. What most people overlook is the ridiculous overrepresentation in StL Co. Take the tiny hamlet of Green Park for example. The 2000 Census reported a total population of a whopping 2,660, yet the County website reports that they have six–six!!–aldermen, in adddition to a mayor and a city administrator. They are also represented in the County government. I think the City’s Board is just right.
The answer in my book to the old school aldermen? Good ol’ fashioned politicking. Get out there, spread the word–as you’re doing now–and support progressive candidates. As you yourself say Steve, the power is shifting. City Hall doesn’t control the flow of information as well as it used to. Ipsa scientia potestas est; the times, they are a-changin’.
Keep up the good fight, Steve!
[REPLY Thanks for reading and your feedback. I’m not yet convinced that “good ol’ fashioned politicking” can overcome the issues we face. Florida was elected as a progressive and I believe she was corrupted by the more senior members.
As far as the number of aldermen, I’m not necessarily a big advocte of reducing the number. But I must ask myself if they had too few when the population was 850K? If it was just right at 850K then it must be too many today. Is the right number 14? Don’t know. Maybe it is 18?, or 22?, or 10?
The tide is shifting so hopefully we can create change in 2007 & 2009 without the need for more drastic changes. Still, I think some sort of charter reform movement will come about prior to the 2009 elections. – SLP]
I think singling them out based on seniority isnt the best way to dictate who or who shouldnt be in office. Look at the overall picture of their contribution to their ward and go from there.
Raising money for campaigns really depends on your drive to be elected. If you want the position bad enough then you’ll hustle and get the money. From what Ive seen, depending on the size of the ward, an effective campaign can be done on $20K – and thats with an opponet.
You start getting your base together at least two years prior and start getting people on board to help raise money. It really is a full time committment but thems the breaks of running a real campaign.
I do disagree that this limits your ordinary citizen from running. Research how its done via the library and books on campaigning, visit the board of alderman when they are in session, talk with your respective party for their input, and talk to your neighbors.
Steve- had you been able to raise say $15 grand do you think you could have competed or even won? (I do understand that you had a respectable showing)
[REPLY Most people were not aware how long some of these officials have been around. I think their time in office speak to a number of points such as political entrenchment, lack of real challengers, obsticles to mounting a challenge, etc…
Yes, I was quite pleased with my turnout (44.1%) given the short amount of time I had to campaign as well as the comparatively little money raised. I do believe that had I had another month and say another $5,000 I may have been able to defeat Dorothy Kirner. But keep in mind she was not a 20-year veteran of the Board of Aldermen. She was, however, well established in the ward having served as committee woman for 20 years.
But how many successful campaigns have been won based on your strategy? Jennifer Florida’s 2001 campaign comes to mind when she challenged Mike Daus who was backed by the old guard ward group. Anyone else? I don’t see such an action coming out of the 13th Ward anytime soon although the democraphic is changing. 7th Ward maybe. – SLP]
Just because they have been in office for a long time doesnt necessarily mean that they are “old school politicians” who are out of touch or beholden to a group of lobbyists.
44% is a decent turnout based on the money and amount of time to get your campaign rolling. I’m sure you didnt win any friends in the Democrtic party by taking her on though.
How many campaigns have won based on my strategy? Waterhouse comes to mind.
Now here’s another interesting thought to this all- are these opponets to long term alderman/women going to come from within the party or from outside? You can count on losing support from the city dems if you decide on your own that you want to challenge an incumbent. BUT if you can raise the money enecssary to get your name out and you hit the pavement then you might have a chance. Example- if I decided to challenge Waterhouse for his seat (which I’m not by the by) I’m almost 100% sure that the party would back him and turn it’s back to me. That might also lead to me getting blackballed within the party and not be considered for anything else whther it be committeeman or appointment to something.
The point is to win and not piss everybody off. If you can straddle that line where people will respect the hard work youve done but be a little pissed that you challenged their guy then maybe just maybe you have a future in politics to look forward to.
Am I making sense or are we just gonna have to disagree on this one?
[REPLY – Based on my experiences to date the local politicians that have been around since the 80s or before are not at all interested in a new way of doing business. That is my perception. You are free to come to a dlifferent conclusion.
No, I did not make any friends in the local Democratic party. Those leaders are not interested in building a better city or changing the rules of the game. They are interested in getting themselves in line for the gravy train.
This is why I support non-partisan local elections. That would help break up the democractic machine monopoly. We must all ask ourselves, whom does the current system serve to benefit?
Your example Waterhouse is similar to mine of Florida. With Waterhouse you had a single Democrat, a Republican and the former alderman just ousted. Bauer, running as an independent, got more votes than the Republican. I don’t see that as a real race. This seat and in the case of the 15th both were “open” seats without an incumbent.
Show me an example where a sitting incumbent was challenged and defeated in a regular election. There have been examples — Jim Shrewsbury in 1983 comes to mind. These cases are very very rare. As a result, you get reluctance for people to run unless a seat is open. – SLP]
The big reason I support a smaller Board is to increase its expertise. While some wards have several significant development projects going on, others have few or none. An alderman is much more likely to be swayed by a developer’s promises if they have little or no exposure to how developers work or lack any other opportunities to “improve” their own little part of the world. And while term limits could a have a similar effect (introducing inexperience into the process), I remain convinced that better pay would also go a long way to attracting nore-qualified candidates, hopefully more experienced in the “real” world of private-sector business.
[Updated 6/24/06 @ 7pm — corrected paragraph to clarify that it is the city’s charter, not the rules of the Board of Aldermen, that indicates the President of the Board will remain vacant until the next general election. This applies to the Mayor and Comptroller as well. ]
I’m not sure your clarification is not exactly clear. It is true that the Charter, not the rules of the Board, establish the provisions to fill vacancies. It is not true that the offices of Mayor and Comptroller remain vacant until the next general election.
As you noted, the president of the board becomes mayor by Charter and serves until a successor is elected. I think, though that the president becomes mayor, not acting mayor. Post is filled, not vacant.
In the event of a vacancy as comptroller, the mayor appoints a new comptroller, not an acting comptroller, who serves until a successor is elected. Post is filled, not vacant.
[REPLY Thanks for the correction to the correction. – SLP]
REPLY #2 I reviewed the City’s Charter online and it doesn’t seem to mention the Comptroller but it does spell out that the President of the Board of Aldermen will act as mayor temporarily until the next election. The charter indicates the board President is not giving up his/her position while acting as Mayor. This, as I understand it, is so that a President of the Board of Aldermen is not forced to become Mayor and resign their current position. They will act as Mayor until the next election, the VP will act as President. Once a new Mayor is elected the President can return to his/her position. – SLP]
The Comptroller’s replacement is addressed among elected officials in Article VIII, section 6.
The other point is more subtle: In the event of vacancy in the office, the Charter provides for an acting president of the board (i.e., the vice president acting as the president), but not for an acting mayor or comptroller. The president of the board is the mayor — not the president of the board acting as the mayor — until the next election. The person appointed by the mayor to fill the vacancy in the comptroller’s office is the comptroller, not a person acting as the comptroller.
Steve:
I realize that it is your site, and that you have the right to take whatever positions you choose. But, I also recognize that you have some great ideas and made a good effort in your campaign for a seat on the Board of Aldermen. My comments to you were not so much to protect anyone currently on the Board, but rather to see you not go so far as to hurt your chances for future opportunities. The Ross Perot’s and Ralph Nader’s of the world have some good ideas but don’t get elected or taken seriously by the majority of voters because they often go too far. It would be unfortunate if you were sidelined by some of your efforts to improve our city. Sometimes you have to work within the system to change the system; frontal attacks don’t always have the best results. I wish you the best and good luck in changing the city (and the world) for the better by whatever means you choose to employ.
[REPLY The fact that I think on my own presents a threat to the establishment so working within the system isn’t really an option. Besides, I have no desire to be a commmittee man for 20 years while sucking up to those in office on the off chance they’ll still like me when they pick a successor. – SLP]