![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
naomikritzerSo, in addition to two City Councillors, the Mayor, and a Park Board commissioner, there are two at-large members of the BET.
Here's who's running:
Carol Becker
DeWayne Townsend
Phil Wilkie
David Wheeler
James Elliot Swartwood
R. Michael Martens
So, who's battling for the money and glory of a seat on the BET? Analysis below the cut.
Carol Becker is an incumbent and long-time participant in city politics. I think she's pretty good at the job. Her signs say "Geek is Good" and if you're unconvinced by her claims to geekery, check out her blog about city finance and budgeting. In addition to experience on the board, she has degrees in public policy. She's kind of the easy first choice, IMO, unless you've butted heads with her repeatedly on the Minneapolis Issues list. (And possibly even if you have; she's just that good at what she does.)
DeWayne Townsend was recruited to run by Carol Becker. He has served on the Longfellow Community Council, and worked on the Midtown Greenway and some of the LRT planning committees. All of this is good.
On the other hand, when I searched his name I found a bunch of hits on the Minneapolis Issues e-mail list -- some of his posts struck me as a little combative. I suppose depending how how you see the issue, you could see him as either combative or as a principled whistle-blower. He got seriously exercised over a loan to Allina but got the number wrong in the subject line (he put down 420 billion rather than 420 million) which is kind of an unfortunately funny mistake for someone who's running for BET to make. Carol Becker posted later on the same thread to say that the city was not on the hook for the money in any way -- it was a conduit bond, which meant that the city was not co-signing for it, nor providing the money, but basically just vouching for Allina. The city gets some money out of it and is put at no risk, though I suppose if a city vouched for a group that proceeded to go under, they might lose credibility in the future. Anyway....the number error is mostly just funny, but I expect a BET member to have a handle on the different kinds of loans (and if I were going to put a bet on who was right about what was involved in these loans, my money would be on Becker).
Phil Wilkie's website seems to be more about saving the BET than electing him to it. He's endorsed by individuals from several different parties (I recognized two Greens, a Democrat, and a Jessecrat). On a Star Trib questionnaire (actually, this is a useful article if you want more information than I'm likely to include in a blog post) he says he's running to bring attention to the dangers of the charter proposal. He wants to give the old Library Board seat to the Park Board, which strikes me as a reasonable proposal. He thinks there should be more auditors than just the one. His experience consists of being a community activist with a number of worthy groups. Overall, I'm underwhelmed; I would like to see either more finance-specific experience, or more specific goals once he gets on the board.
David Wheeler has some solid relevent experience (he served on a finance committee on the Duluth City Council -- presumably before moving to Minneapolis -- and has been on municipal task force stuff in Minneapolis. He says some things I like: he acknowledges that property taxes are regressive, first of all, and he goes on to note that while another auditer would be a really good idea, the city doesn't have money to hire one at the moment and is in fact laying off staff.
Here's my concern about him. He says he neither supports nor opposes the charter proposal; he says that he wants to build a positive relationship with the City Council and Park Board, and campaigning one way or the other would interfere with that. However, someone on the issues list says that Wheeler said at a ward convention early on that he supported the proposal, then backed off and has been claiming since that he's neutral, but is endorsed by a slew of council people, most of whom would be happy to ditch the BET. It makes me nervous. There is actually precedent for a candidate running who's in favor of abolishing the office he's running for; back in 1998, the state of Minnesota abolished the office of the State Treasurer, and IIRC there was a Libertarian who ran for the office that year saying, "I think this office should be abolished, and if elected I will resign immediately, saving the state the cost of my salary." Ed voted for both the amendment to abolish the job and for that guy, but it looks from Wikipedia like he was beaten by the DFLer. Unless I'm completely mis-remembering which election and office this was.
Anyway, if I supported abolishing the BET I'd absolutely vote for him. But since I want to keep the BET, I'm very hesitant, even though he appears to be one of the better candidates. He does look solidly qualified.
James Elliot Swartwood is from the party that is deeply concerned about the self-image of white people. Next!
R. Michael Martens is a finance wonk, which is good; he's been an accountant both professionally and on volunteer boards. He's endorsed by the Republicans, which I view as a minus, but then again, so was Papa John Kolstad, so who knows what the Republicans were drinking at their meeting. He is very focused on the auditor function, and also likes metaphores involving foxes and henhouses, but let's face it, it's not like I came up with it myself. He has some good ideas about increasing openness and educating people about what the board does.
The fact that he's endorsed by Republicans makes me nervous; property taxes are regressive, but I would rather pay too much in property taxes than underfund city services. I want a well-equipped fire department. I want a well-trained police department. I want the parks maintained, the pot holes filled, the street lights fixed, the garbage collected. On the other hand, I don't view homeowners as cash cows. I want a balanced approach. (Well, what I really want is Local Government Aid to come back, since that comes out of the much-more-progressive state income tax; however, that's not within the power of the city government.)
Anyway, Carol would be my first choice. Probably either Martens or Wheeler would be my second choice, with the other as my third; I'm going to have to mull this over. Townsend is probably my fourth choice. Wilkie's fifth -- honestly, I don't think he's running to win, I think he's just trying to draw attention to the charter issue. Not that it actually matters beyond my first three; I only have to rank my three top choices.
Incidentally, if you're curious what my ballot will look like, a sample is available here as a PDF.
Minnesota's ballots usually switch up the order, to minimize the advantage of having your name at the top, so my guess is that not everyone will get RT at the top. However, if state law doesn't require it, it's possible they will not be changing the order this time, because everything has to be counted by hand, and uniform ballots are easier to count. (In our paper today, they noted that the results, especially of the three-seat races, are not guaranteed to be in until December 21st.) Apparently no one has yet written software that works with both our machines and our procedure, so hand-counting it is.
Here's who's running:
Carol Becker
DeWayne Townsend
Phil Wilkie
David Wheeler
James Elliot Swartwood
R. Michael Martens
So, who's battling for the money and glory of a seat on the BET? Analysis below the cut.
Carol Becker is an incumbent and long-time participant in city politics. I think she's pretty good at the job. Her signs say "Geek is Good" and if you're unconvinced by her claims to geekery, check out her blog about city finance and budgeting. In addition to experience on the board, she has degrees in public policy. She's kind of the easy first choice, IMO, unless you've butted heads with her repeatedly on the Minneapolis Issues list. (And possibly even if you have; she's just that good at what she does.)
DeWayne Townsend was recruited to run by Carol Becker. He has served on the Longfellow Community Council, and worked on the Midtown Greenway and some of the LRT planning committees. All of this is good.
On the other hand, when I searched his name I found a bunch of hits on the Minneapolis Issues e-mail list -- some of his posts struck me as a little combative. I suppose depending how how you see the issue, you could see him as either combative or as a principled whistle-blower. He got seriously exercised over a loan to Allina but got the number wrong in the subject line (he put down 420 billion rather than 420 million) which is kind of an unfortunately funny mistake for someone who's running for BET to make. Carol Becker posted later on the same thread to say that the city was not on the hook for the money in any way -- it was a conduit bond, which meant that the city was not co-signing for it, nor providing the money, but basically just vouching for Allina. The city gets some money out of it and is put at no risk, though I suppose if a city vouched for a group that proceeded to go under, they might lose credibility in the future. Anyway....the number error is mostly just funny, but I expect a BET member to have a handle on the different kinds of loans (and if I were going to put a bet on who was right about what was involved in these loans, my money would be on Becker).
Phil Wilkie's website seems to be more about saving the BET than electing him to it. He's endorsed by individuals from several different parties (I recognized two Greens, a Democrat, and a Jessecrat). On a Star Trib questionnaire (actually, this is a useful article if you want more information than I'm likely to include in a blog post) he says he's running to bring attention to the dangers of the charter proposal. He wants to give the old Library Board seat to the Park Board, which strikes me as a reasonable proposal. He thinks there should be more auditors than just the one. His experience consists of being a community activist with a number of worthy groups. Overall, I'm underwhelmed; I would like to see either more finance-specific experience, or more specific goals once he gets on the board.
David Wheeler has some solid relevent experience (he served on a finance committee on the Duluth City Council -- presumably before moving to Minneapolis -- and has been on municipal task force stuff in Minneapolis. He says some things I like: he acknowledges that property taxes are regressive, first of all, and he goes on to note that while another auditer would be a really good idea, the city doesn't have money to hire one at the moment and is in fact laying off staff.
Here's my concern about him. He says he neither supports nor opposes the charter proposal; he says that he wants to build a positive relationship with the City Council and Park Board, and campaigning one way or the other would interfere with that. However, someone on the issues list says that Wheeler said at a ward convention early on that he supported the proposal, then backed off and has been claiming since that he's neutral, but is endorsed by a slew of council people, most of whom would be happy to ditch the BET. It makes me nervous. There is actually precedent for a candidate running who's in favor of abolishing the office he's running for; back in 1998, the state of Minnesota abolished the office of the State Treasurer, and IIRC there was a Libertarian who ran for the office that year saying, "I think this office should be abolished, and if elected I will resign immediately, saving the state the cost of my salary." Ed voted for both the amendment to abolish the job and for that guy, but it looks from Wikipedia like he was beaten by the DFLer. Unless I'm completely mis-remembering which election and office this was.
Anyway, if I supported abolishing the BET I'd absolutely vote for him. But since I want to keep the BET, I'm very hesitant, even though he appears to be one of the better candidates. He does look solidly qualified.
James Elliot Swartwood is from the party that is deeply concerned about the self-image of white people. Next!
R. Michael Martens is a finance wonk, which is good; he's been an accountant both professionally and on volunteer boards. He's endorsed by the Republicans, which I view as a minus, but then again, so was Papa John Kolstad, so who knows what the Republicans were drinking at their meeting. He is very focused on the auditor function, and also likes metaphores involving foxes and henhouses, but let's face it, it's not like I came up with it myself. He has some good ideas about increasing openness and educating people about what the board does.
The fact that he's endorsed by Republicans makes me nervous; property taxes are regressive, but I would rather pay too much in property taxes than underfund city services. I want a well-equipped fire department. I want a well-trained police department. I want the parks maintained, the pot holes filled, the street lights fixed, the garbage collected. On the other hand, I don't view homeowners as cash cows. I want a balanced approach. (Well, what I really want is Local Government Aid to come back, since that comes out of the much-more-progressive state income tax; however, that's not within the power of the city government.)
Anyway, Carol would be my first choice. Probably either Martens or Wheeler would be my second choice, with the other as my third; I'm going to have to mull this over. Townsend is probably my fourth choice. Wilkie's fifth -- honestly, I don't think he's running to win, I think he's just trying to draw attention to the charter issue. Not that it actually matters beyond my first three; I only have to rank my three top choices.
Incidentally, if you're curious what my ballot will look like, a sample is available here as a PDF.
Minnesota's ballots usually switch up the order, to minimize the advantage of having your name at the top, so my guess is that not everyone will get RT at the top. However, if state law doesn't require it, it's possible they will not be changing the order this time, because everything has to be counted by hand, and uniform ballots are easier to count. (In our paper today, they noted that the results, especially of the three-seat races, are not guaranteed to be in until December 21st.) Apparently no one has yet written software that works with both our machines and our procedure, so hand-counting it is.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-10-25 11:04 pm (UTC)Ballots
Date: 2009-10-25 11:06 pm (UTC)The main issue with vote counters is that they have to be certified -- by both state and the feds, I think -- it's not that counters and software can't do it, it's that no certified counters and software can do it. (Our equipment can't do it regardless.)
Thank you!
Date: 2009-10-28 06:08 am (UTC)