Candidates for Aldermanic President Not Impressing Me So Far
Incumbent Aldermanic President Jim Shrewsbury is facing a strong challenge from 6th Ward Alderman Lewis Reed in the primary election to be held on March 6th. Unless an independent petitions to be on the April ballot (deadline is February 12th, hint hint, nudge nudge), one of these two men will be the next President of the Board of Aldermen and the other will be out of political office, at least temporarily.
So far Jim Shrewsbury seems to be running on a platform of starting board meetings on time and following the law. Well, I would certainly hope so! Reed, on the other hand, is bragging about how much development has happened in his ward during his tenure. The problem I have with Reed on this issue is how he is trying to say he’d be a better board president because he has produced so many millions in development while Shrewsbury has not.
I see the President’s job to run the administrative side of the Board of Alderman and to vote on the Board of Estimate and Apportionment. The President’s job is not to start doing development deals throughout the city. Shrewsbury needs better arguments than simply starting meetings on time or following the law. Reed needs to think about what it is the President should be doing and suggest how he is better qualified to do those things than his opponent. Reed needs to understand that if elected his days of brokering development deals are over. Right now neither candidate is impressing me.
We’ll see how they do at tonight’s candidate forum sponsored by the 15th Ward Democrats, 7pm at the Carpenter Branch Library on South Grand (see map). On-street parking is available along with a small parking lot accessible off of McDonald (a one-way street so you’d need to enter from the West). A bike rack is located on the Grand side near the main entrance. The library is also along the #70 Grand bus line.
As a newbie to the St. Louis political scene, how does the aldermanic president position rank versus the mayor? With the Board of Aldermen respecting aldermanic courtesy, which office is/would be more effective in actually getting major projects done and potentially changing the direction the city is headed?
The position is very important for another reason that you don’t mention: if the state takeover of our urban school district occurs, one member of the three-person oversight board will be appointed by the President of the Board of Aldermen.
So far, I have not heard either candidate speak on the matter. I would hope that both endorse local control of our schools and oppose the ongoing dismantling of the public schools. I would also hope that, should the takeover scheme go forward, both Reed and Shrewsbury would appoint a person who will follow the wishes of the people and take a strong pro-public education stance.
What a day it is that there actually is discernible opposition to public education.
While I wouldn’t dispute that there is “discernible opposition to public education” afoot in the nation, that is not what is driving the move to bring the STLPS under state control. That is being driven, rather, by a very reasonable opposition to public education as it has been (mal)practiced in the City for a number of years.
As for an independent running for President of the BOA, Steve, why not you? While I personally would be disinclined to vote for you, I imagine you have about as much chance as anybody at breaking through the City’s sclerotic one-party system. Or, you could be like these busybodies, (I’m sorry, gadflies) in Iowa and New Hampshire and start a draft movement a la Draft Obama.
I wonder what either has to say about Blairmont?
Jim Shrewbury touts his building code violation ordinance yet is he sending fines out to McEagle in Winghaven?
Louis Reed may not do anything either as Pyramid’s John Steffen is one of the players involved in Blairmont.
I would love to see either comment about Blairmont as well as past issues like McRee Town.
The forum last night was telling. Hopefully Antonio will post the video soon.
Jim Z, Board President is whatever the victor wants it to be. The City didn’t completely go down the toilet during Mayor Harmon’s term, the wasted years as many in local and state government call it, for two reasons and one of them was President Slay’s leadership, taking on responsibilities as de facto mayor. Quite the opposite, President Shrewsbury created for himself an “all the power and none of the responsibility” office.
One of the best things that could happen in this City is to modernize the budget process, get rid of Estimate Board, have mayor submit budget, aldermen scrutinize it, amend it, vote, mayor accepts/changes, board accepts/overrides, comptroller audits and issues fiscal notes on board legislation. I bring up the budget process because of the peculiar position the Board President has in our financial matters.
The proper role of a mayor of a city this size, with the responsibilities he has, should be that the executive proposes how much he needs to run the city. The proper role of the Board President, head of the legislative body, should be similar to House Speaker, not combination executive-legislator. The proper role of Comptroller should be checks and balances, not auditor-legislator.
Sadly, instead of taking the bull by the horns and organizing an effort to get rid of our de facto Upper Executive-Legislative Chamber & Lower Legislative Chamber budget process, time is spent in meaningless chatter advocating/opposing pie in the sky changes.
But changing our budget process is not doable because the money that pays for charter proposals cannot bring itself to focus on a single change at a time. They must have many big ticket items. Better to propose a gigantic package of changes every decade and a half or so and fail than to get something much smaller done. If this sounds familiar, it’s probably because many local public affairs blog patrons have the same aversion to focus-fix as the Great White Fathers.
Howard – thanks – that’s just what I was looking for – hopefully, we’ll see some movement in that direction . . .
Why would they be in favor of limiting or removing the role of the BOA President? They are not Pat Herod after all. Most people usually do not run for office only to fire themselves. I might be in favor of reforms but I certainly don’t expect these guys to campaign with such a radical platform.
I was actually somewhat serious in my above post, re Steve running or a draft movement. I don’t even get a response?