Running for office is like being the pitcher in a baseball game, or quarterback. If you win, you are a “hero,” if you lose, you are a “bum,” or at least you feel the pain and inevitable isolation. Even surrounded by friends who care for you, your inner self is vulnerable and exposed.
Last night at the Left Coast Oyster Bar, the election results came so quickly after the polls closed, that I needed to double check. Website creator John Patten announced the win for Jim Bennett and Emilio Carlesimo after a phone conversation with Lori Stelzer. I asked Herald Tribune reporter Kim Hackett, just off the phone, if she had the same result--she did.
Scene:
Jim Bennett and Ted Koszarski and their wives and friends were both there. The group was, naturally, delighted that Jim won. But there was Ted, disappointment registering on his face. Many in the group went to speak with him, to congratulate him on putting himself on the line and trying to do what he thought was good for Venice. You know that your words are not going to make the pain go away, but you hope that some of it will stick and help the spirit rebound. A number of people pointed out that Ernie Zavodnyik had lost the first time and won the second. Emilio had lost last year. Ted began to think about the future when an open seat might be contested, but who knows what the future will bring.
Electoral Politics and Governing:
The election is the “horse race” --the governing is “The Marathon.” I don’t know what the election results mean--everybody has a guess. Was it a referendum on the Council--up for more participation in government, no financial special interest backers--up for protecting the City from over-development, too much height and density--up for new parks and environmental concerns? Or was it a criticism of a Council caught up in the Sunshine lawsuit and its expenses and disputes over the airport, with avid supporters and detractors? One winner--one loser.
A reporter asked me before the election returns if I thought the election was “a referendum” on the Council. I said that was too simple. There were real people campaigning, people with policies, people with personalities, with different qualifications, even different political affiliations (in a “non-partisan, gulp, race.)
I think the election results suggest these factors played a role, along with others. Since humans act on “unconscious” motivations as well as “rational” ones, particularly when emotions are strong as they are for many in elections, what moves people to support a candidate is like an iceberg, mostly under the surface.
Community Service/Constituent Service--The Venetian Golf and River Club.
Despite the unthinking references to the wonderful Golden Beach neighborhood where a number of Council Members live, including Emilio now, I have commented that the area where I had the most interactions with citizens, forums, emails, visits, etc. was “The Venetian Golf and River Club.”
Joined by most Council Members, we sought to help resolve problems caused by previous City annexations of industrial and residential properties without adequate buffering. We also worked to solve the problem created by Laurel Road being the only exit from the area near the Myakka River. If the Laurel and I-75 interchange were closed by an accident, fire, etc. the residents were “trapped.” Our police and fire departments have identified an emergency exit, not paved, but usable and made an emergency plan offering relief to the neighbors.
In the comprehensive plan and in zoning actions the Council has worked to help resolve neighbors' interests and appropriate development. Those efforts appear to have been viewed positively.
Politically, neighbors at the Venice Golf and River Club, have arrived. They have organized well and, have recognized that the Council, far from being concerned only with the “Island,” offered multiple person support, not just that one district council member could offer.
Posted By Ed Martin at 10:26 AM in Category:Inside Venice
Replies
6 Nov 2009 jan collins Ed,
I understand your perspective and can see how the view from the dais can be somewhat different from the one in the back seats of the auditorium, but I am in firm agreement with John Patten on the meaning of the outcome of this last election. If I learned anything in my 3 years of frustration at bringing forth issue after issue (things that were clearly not the legal norm, such as "blank leases), it was that perception overcomes facts every time. You can be "right" and ethical all day long but if the public perception is that you are ineffectual or dropped the ball on the issues they care about, then you are lost. I, too, think Walia only lost because he was such an utterly abysmal candidate. Anyone with just a tad less baggage than he had (and he had tons) would have won. Like John, I say these things not to be disruptive, but to be constructive and try to get you all to recognize that there is a building sentiment out there for another "change". Before the next election (long before) folks had better decide on some good candidates who are willing to run, and those candidates need to start attending all council meetings, become conversant with the issues and the process and determine a supportable stance on those issues. The time to act is now. This last election result is a wake-up call. It takes a good deal of time to change the public perception and the work needs to begin now.
As always, I commend all who serve the public and wish you the best. I would like to keep an open mind on Mr.Carlesimo (and I do congratulate him on his win), but his association with Earl Midlam leaves me truly wondering about his judgment.
Thanks for the kind words. Your list of council accomplishments is impressive. But I'm sure in reviewing the "things gone right" you would also make note of those that didn't. Addressing these issues like the airport, legal costs, permiting process, fee structure, lenghty decision process, seemingly anti-business sentiment,etc. in a timely way would be on your agenda.
In my little analysis of the election one thing became very clear: this is a sharply devided community with very few moderates. Right now the majority of voters is not giving the council a passing grade fairly or not.
My suggestion as a first step is for the council to get together 'off campus' so to speak and see if agreement can be reached on the things you didn't do well or importantly what people perceive you haven't done well. Having completed this process then steps can be taken for improvement in either the reality of the situations or the perceptions thereof.
Mike Dowd
Mike, shall I post this as a comment? I will forward this conversation to the city as it is City business. I forward comments from the website also that are relevant to City business.
I think your advice is sensible. I have an agenda which includes a series of town hall forums for me, or the council if it wishes. I think maybe our first step should be to get on with business and let things settle down. A number of the criticisms you mention are not valid, but I agree all are in the public perception.
One example, I joined the Chamber before I ran, about a year before. I have reached out to them on a number of occasions, going to informal gatherings, inviting the young professionals to meet with me at Mainstreet's Breakfast with the Mayor gathering. Isaac Turner and I offered to meet with the leadership to talk about their concerns about the comp plan-they chose not to meet, instead sending their complaints to Tallahassee. I had info on the Young Professionals passed out at City Hall among the appropriate age group, (drawing a few complaints).
I encouraged other Council Members to go to Chamber events. Kit McKeon has done so frequently, and Jim Bennett has visited with Young Chamber members and is also not anti-business, nor am I as being on three corporate boards might suggest.
John Moore, Ernie Zavodnyik are involved with Mainstreet, Sue is very interested in encouraging Green Businesses. They know all this, but still say we are anti-business. I asked for an example of us turning down a business venture, none are offered. Despite that, I reached out to John Ryan last week, visiting him, and suggested we work together on new businesses for our industrial park, etc. and sensed some thawing. We shall see.
I believe we should work together, but a core of political opponents, who want power not cooperation are calling the tune at the Chamber.
I have no interest in being anti-business--they often quote one council member, avoiding the fact that no majority exists against the airport economic development--I favored it in 2000 and still do, just not a hotel on the public golf course.I will work with the Chamber, Mainstreet--our relations there are good, Ernie's wife and Peggy are "streetwalkers"- but they are quiet, rightly not wanting to seem to be fighting other business interests, but they know they have strong support from this Council.
So, in sum, I will continue to reach out, and lead a moderate council --(look at McKeon and Bennett, who I encouraged to run,) and hope that good deeds will be visible to the public.
Thanks again, I know your advice is worthy, and we have a strategic planning session coming up early next year that might provide the opportunity for conversation you suggest. Any meeting such as that has to be open to the public and we have had successful sessions like that the past two years.
4 Nov 2009 Harry P Mike Dowd? Is that the Mike Dowd that contributed $100 to Harry Walia? No wonder he thinks there are lessons to be learned--how about researching you favored candidate?
4 Nov 2009 Ed Contribution Reports up to Oct. 29, 2009
Jim Bennett--$5,819.23 contributions and loans.
Harry Walia--$40,220 contributions and loans.
Keep the Faith.
4 Nov 2009 Mike Dowd Ed--
Jim Bennett didn't win anything; Harry Walia lost. A sober lesson should be learned from this. A few more moderate voters in our community went for Bennett than they did for Walia. The overall victory last night went to the anti-council group. My estimation is the anti-council voters accounted for 60% of the total vote. This would seem to suggest some changes are in order.
4 Nov 2009 John Patten I disagree, obviously. I think the only reason Bennett won was because Walia proved to be a... (lessee, how do I put this in an approved Ed Martin genteel style...) somewhat less than desirable politico due to his legal history... (OK, that works).
If Carlesimo could win with his baggage, that only means that If John Osmulski had run against Bennett, right now, you'd be toast.
Carlisimo won by almost 2 to 1 -- that's a mandate. For now, he is the man, just as you were in late 2007 and early 2008. Bennett won by a baby's eyelash and the knives are already being sharpened.
You need to deal with that somehow and come up with a winning strategy for 2010. You can do it, you have the time and the smarts, but you need to listen and learn from knowledgable people. History so far indicates that the three from 2007 are terrible listeners.
I'm not writing this to be mean. I'm writing this to shake you to wake you, as Steve Camp once put it.
4 Nov 2009 Ed Martin JP, thanks for the note and the perspective. I would give you a dog biscuit if my site was as reinforcing as yours.
I expect this year we will have a positive agenda for solving problems and reflecting public wishes and I intend to expand the process I have been using to get input from various groups through Mainstreet's Breakfast with the Mayor. This year I met with merchants, non-profit groups, young Chamber members, realtors and more. I hope to have open forums which I know can be rough, but also a good to have a meeting of the minds when folks are willing-and I find most folks are.
I have already welcomed Emilio to the Council, joining other "moderates."
Positive, "thought provoking support is welcome.
4 Nov 2009 Ed Martin Mike Dowd, thanks for writing and I know you to be a thoughtful man and look forward to having a more extended conversation or communication. In fact, anyone who likes jazz can't be all wrong.
I think if you read the transcripts from the "shade meetings" on Lorenzo, you may have more understanding of the position Council and our attorney found themselves in--with assumptions that defendents were innocent of all or most charges, but difficulty in making a settlement, and going to trial more and more expensive. Other than that, and I realize that is a lot--however trivial the actual facts were, Council has really fulfilled its major promises.
1. more citizen involvelment
2. no more acceptance of funds from special interests with pleadings before Council
3. preserving the nature of the City through comp planing.
4. Approving zoning, etc. for multi-family, single family, commercial and hotels,--only the recession kept that from happening.
5. Ending fees for non-profit groups for using city resources, police, fire, etc. which had been approved by the previous council
6. New parks and stimulation projects for employment, e.g. infrastructure.
I am sure we can do better, but you now have a moderate council, not in some developer's pocket, varied in experience, politics, and interests--all successful in their earlier lives.
