Forty Percent of Seats Contested in March Primary
In the first two weeks of filing for St. Louis’ Spring municipal elections a full 40% of the seats are already contested.
Contested Races (6):
- President of the Board of Aldermen
- Wards: 6, 12, 18, 20 and 26.
Unchallenged Incumbents (9) in Wards:
- 2 (Flowers),
- 4 (Shelton),
- 8 (Conway),
- 10 (Vollmer),
- 14 (Gregali),
- 16 (Baringer),
- 22 (Boyd),
- 24 (Waterhouse),
- 28 (Krewson)
Still, the idea of nine officials, over 30% of the full 28-member Board of Aldermen, not having any opposition is disheartening. But, it is not too late to rectify the situation! Filing is open for these seats until 5pm on January 5, 2007. Remember, if nobody runs against these nine and an issue comes up in the next four years the commentary will be, “You should have run against them back in 2007.” Don’t even think about trying to recall one of these nine if in the next four years they get way out of line relative to the ward’s wishes. Without an opponent in this election it will be harder to mount an effective recall. Contested elections is what hopefully keeps our system in check.
I’m not making any judgements here about these nine, although I have my views on each. I truly believe each and everyone of them needs to face an opponent to know they must continue working for the people. Voter apathy is also a problem in our city and that is hard to combat when voters see only a single candidate running for an office. Voters need to be given a choice of candidates to become engaged in the process and to feel like they can made a difference. This city’s reluctance to field candidates for office contributes to voter apathy.
One of the reasons we don’t see any many contested races as we should is people frequently say things like, “Our alderman is a nice guy” or “The alderman took care of my problem.” I have no doubts many if not all are “nice” and probably take care of people’s requests for tree trimming, new dumpster or to have a stop sign added or removed. Running against them (or voting for a challenger) is not saying they are a bad person or they have not been doing an OK job. It simply means that someone else might actually be a better person for the job. Machine politics tactics wants you to believe that challenging an incumbent is some personal affront to them but it is simply saying, “Hey, I think I could do a better job than our current alderman.” The race then becomes the point where all the candidates can make their case why they are indeed the best person to serve the citizens of that ward.
If you live in one of the nine wards where the incumbent is likely to just walk back into office for another four years without even breaking a sweat, I ask that you seriously consider running for office. It is a big step that, even if you do not win, you will feel good about your civic participation. You can raise issues that need to be raised both for your ward and for the city. We don’t get too many chances to make a difference and this is one of them.
I agree with both your passion and the concept of contested races. Still, if someone IS doing a good job, what is wrong with sending them back for another four years without competition? Our wards are relatively small, the pool of potential candidates is even smaller (little pay for, at times, thankless work and lots of meetings), and the pool of (better?-) qualified opponents is even smaller. In some ways, “if ain’t broke, don’t fix it” does make a lot of sense. Different doesn’t always equate to better!
Having an election and having a contested election are two different issues. An election guarantees that we’ll be able to say, yes, you should stay (or not) – no disagreement there. For a contested election, as you point out, someone(s) “new” needs to step forward (or be pushed) to run against the incumbent. As we’ve both pointed out in the past, part of the problem is that both our wards and our aldermen’s pay are small – creating larger wards and paying a “living wage” to do the job would do more to attract more and better candidates. Or, if we want to keep our 183 small wards, maybe we should just have the whole bunch run for election every two years? That would reduce the need for recall elections and would allow people to “test the water” more easily, knowing that if public service is too much of a burden, they can bow out gracefully after 24 months.
I think the decision to run is a much larger one than what has been put forward in the discussion (so far) – family, political allies, raising money/where to raise money, do you keep your current job, can you run a an effective campaign, is their a campaign to run?
I do agree that you would get a better pool of candidates if there were only 14 wards and the pay better.
by the by- I’m hearing that my ward – 24th – is going to be having the same election we did about a year ago. Bauer, Barnes and Waterhouse- get ready to rumble!!
I’m assuming the job requires a more-or-less full-time commitment. If so, $32,800 would represent a significant pay cut to me. When I served on the RTD board in Colorado, we were paid $250/month + expenses for a part-time position and the races were non-partisan (no party designations). To encourage more contested races, there’s been discussion in the state legislature on whether or not to make the races partisan, under the assumption that both parties would field candidates and have fewer uncontested races (currently, the non-partisan system has about the same percentage of contested races as we have with BoA races) – not directly comparable to our situation, but a similar dynamic. The thinking was that the parties would also do a better job of pre-qualifying candidates (RTD has seen more than few “colorful” candidates with “interesting” agendas, much like SLPS). The conclusion was that more candidates did not equate to better choices and that party-line voting would be more likely. In those districts with either “challenges” or poor representation, more candidates ran. In those districts where the incumbent was doing a good (or adequate) job and/or there were few service problems, many times the incumbent was unopposed. Paying more would attract more (and hopefully better) candidates. Keeping salaries low makes the job truly a public-service effort, which, unfortunately, rules out a lot of well-qualified people who aren’t independently wealthy and/or drawing a pension . . .
The litmus test for supporting an aldermen s/b where they stand on the proposed BJC/Forest Park lease.
Are you pro-urbanity, pro-density, pro-jobs, pro-Mayor Slay, pro-increasing city tax and lease revenues, and pro-BJC expansion?
Or are you pro-maintaining the status quo and anti-development?
Incumbency is a powerful barrier, as is a single-party, “machine” political system. Term limits are one potential “solution”, but one that also means throwing the good out with the mediocre. An informed, motivated electorate is our biggest need – too many races are won for the wrong reasons (party, advertising, a pretty face, the “right” race or gender, a concealed agenda). And yes, choice is good, but it’s not mandatory – it takes anyone a few months (or years) to get up to speed and learn how to work the system well internally, and in some cases, to get enough seniority to be effective. So while the incumbent may be only marginally effective in some (or many) ways, they can be, in some cases, a better resource than a newly-elected, energized novice in actually getting stuff accomplished.
We each have our own litmus tests – given the tradition of aldermanic courtesy, only the elections in a very few wards will actually determine what happens with the Forest Park proposal.
I’m sure there are many relieved pols, now that the BJC lease issue has been turned over to city voters rather than requiring our elected representatives to actually lead.
If you signed the petition, thanks alot for taking the heat off our elected officials! Once again, our mayor has taken on a leadership role, only to be undermined by a bunch of misguided ne-er-do-wells!
Besides insuring trash pickup, in your opinion what are the five main responsibilities of an alderperson? In the StL area, the most important issues are decided on a regional basis. Obviously, these representatives have much to say about zoning issues but that power seems to be a cause of problems, especially given the lack of a strategic land use plan. Is the current structure (too many wards, too much aldermanic courtesy,etc.) of City government workable? Are certain policies trumping representation?
We got an email from our neighborhood group, thanking our alderman for informing us that the city would be picking up damaged trees limbs, etc, from the recent ice storm.
I guess without our alderman, we never would have known about the city’s cleanup service. You don’t suppose the public affairs officer for the Forestry Division, or the Citizen’s Service Bureau, or some other city office might have issued a press release, do you?
Better they get the word to the aldermen, who can then disseminate the information to their constituents, and thus demonstrate once more their invaluable contributions to our daily lives!
Steve,
If anyone should understand the issue of aldermanic elections, it’s you! You entered the race for the 25th ward, offered up issues and ideas, only to be defeated by a charter member of the city’s political machine.
Work your way into the system, get duly elected as a democrat, share your campaign funds with other democrats, and keep your seat at the table as long as you like.
You’ll always be rewarded by your loyal fellow democrats. We run the show. We decide who gets money, who gets endorsed, and who gets the photo-ops with top dem leaders.
Newcomers need not apply, and only make us verterans have to go through some needless campaign motions. As long as you don’t piss off the party, or your fellow aldermen, you’re in for life. Remember all those seniors who loyally supported Dorothy Kirner? They’re the voting base.
Everyone wants to know what’s so good about being an alderman. It’s called job security! Then, when retirement time comes, you get your buddies to hook you up with a high paying city job for a few years, and, bingo, you triple your city pension calculation. Life is good!
It’s a tried and proven system, dude. Get with the program!
“$32,800 would represent a significant pay cut to me”
And a signifcant pay raise for me. Too bad I’m in an odd-numbered ward.
Did you hear the guys on KDHX defend the lack of leadership in the Board of Aldermen on Collateral Damage?
Michael – then you should run!
“In the StL area, the most important issues are decided on a regional basis.”
Really? Wow, I would have never guessed that.
What issues are those, exactly, that are decided at the regional level?
As best I can tell, transportation funding is the only issue actually decided at the regional level, and that’s highly contingent on Federal allocations.
Planning and zoning are still very much localized.