The Carbondale Observer

The polls are closed and the returns are in. Joel Fritzler will be our new mayor and Don Monty, Jane Adams, and Lance Jack will join the city council. Fritzler’s old council seat will need to be filled, and mayoral candidate Steven Haynes will leave the council. Sitting mayor Brad Cole and council members Mary Pohlmann and Michael Neill, none of whom ran for reelection, will also leave the council.

First, I voted for all the winners so I’m happy with the results. But the 2011 election season isn’t quite over. Since Fritzler won the mayoral election, his council seat will need to be filled by appointment. I wrote in February that the most democratic option is to appoint the fourth place finisher:

…It seems to me that the natural person to appoint would be the candidate who finishes in fourth place in the April 5 election.

When Lance Jack resigned last year it had been nearly two years since the last election, but that wouldn’t be the case this time. Since council members are usually elected, and since the appointment would happen so near the election, I think the fourth place finisher would have a strong democratic claim on Fritzler’s old council seat.

That claim would be even stronger if the race for third place is very close. In this week’s primary, one vote separated third place (Tom Grant) and fourth place (Lance Jack). If Fritzler is elected mayor and I was the candidate who finished a close fourth in the April 5 election, I would expect to be appointed to Fritzler’s old seat.

Lance Jack, who finished third and won a seat on the council, received 772 votes. Tom Grant, who finished fourth and did not win a seat on the council, received 744 – a difference of only 28 votes. Meanwhile, 84 votes separate Grant and Bradshaw, his nearest opponent. I think the case is strong to appoint Grant to fill Fritzler’s council seat, and I hope our new mayor and council will agree.

Second, I think Fritzler won a convincing victory. I was hoping to avoid a situation where the four candidates more or less equally split the vote. A 25.01% victory wouldn’t have been very convincing. We avoided it this time, but anything is possible in the next election. As others have suggested, at the very least Carbondale should use it’s home rule authority to return to the old system in which only two candidates for each seat continue to the general election.

Third, I don’t think it’s possible to really know who would have won a two person Fritzler vs. Maroney election, but I strongly suspect Fritzler would still have won. I’m betting against the conventional wisdom that Goldman’s voters would have broken for Fritzler. I think Maroney would have gotten  a majority of them. But I also think Fritzler would have gotten an even larger majority of Haynes’ voters and he still would have won.

Fourth, I think this election should mark the end of the Lance Jack liquor license controversy. As most readers will remember, Lance Jack was forced to resign the council last year in order to get a liquor license for his restaurant. I wrote two posts (one, two) criticizing Joel Fritzler’s interpretation of state and local laws, which he cited as his reason for voting against the license. Now, for the third time, voters have returned Lance Jack to the city council – even knowing that he has a liquor license. The new mayor and council should not reopen the Fat Patties liquor license controversy.

Fifth, whether justified or not (and I think it’s not), there is a perception that the business community is uneasy with Fritzler and vice versa. Fritzler’s poor performance in the admittedly unscientific Chamber of Commerce membership poll was bad enough and his reaction (at least as quoted in the papers) didn’t necessarily help. Now that the election is over, business should accept and work with Fritzler, and Fritzler should make it clear that he has no hard feelings.

Continuing Brad Cole’s tradition of delivering a “state of the city” address as a Chamber fundraiser would be a wise move for Fritzler. If Fritzler is concerned about citizen access, and I think he is, he could continue Cole’s tradition of televising the speech on channel 16, or even insist that some free tickets be available. At the same time, business should close ranks and support the duly elected mayor. At the municipal level, cooperation between business and government benefits both.

Sixth, I noticed that this is the second mayoral election in a row in which the second place finisher in the primary went on to win the general election. I don’t think it’s that important, but I wonder why it happens. Does the first place finisher get complacent, or does the second place finisher get motivated? A little of each?

Seventh, I wonder if Maroney’s lack of a website contributed to his defeat. I don’t have strong evidence that this is the case, but I have a hunch and some weak evidence. WordPress (my blogging software) gives me a variety of stats showing how people arrive at my blog. For most of the election, search terms like “george maroney carbondale” or “carbondale mayor maroney” brought more people to my blog than searches for any other candidate. I took that as evidence that Maroney would win.

Now that he has lost, I suspect his lack of a website hurt him. People searched for information on Maroney and, instead of finding a site controlled by him and extolling his virtues, they found this blog. This should be a lesson to future candidates. Times have changed. It will be tough to win a mayoral election in Carbondale without a website.

Eighth, as others point out, turnout was lower this year than in some recent elections. Our neighbor to the east, which has several thousand fewer citizens, had almost a thousand more voters than Carbondale. The total Carbondale mayoral vote in 1999 (pdf) was 4,367; in 2003 (pdf) it was 3,507; in 2007 (pdf) it was 3,903. In 2011, the total mayoral vote was 2,683. That suggests apathy, which is a problem.

Ninth, compliments to SIUC journalism student and local news blogger Barton Lorimor, who’s live election return updates on his B(ee)tl(e)Juice blog kept me up to date. Check his site if you want exact vote totals for mayor, city council, school district 95, and the John A. Logan board.

I’ll probably have more to say on this in a future post, but these are some preliminary thoughts.

Comments are welcome.

As everyone knows, today is election day in Carbondale. There are eleven candidates for three seats on the city council, and four candidates for mayor. Polls are open from 6:00 am to 7:00 pm. You can find your polling place here.

I wrote a post after the primary explaining my votes for Jane Adams, Lee Fronabarger, and John Holt for city council and another post explaining my vote for Sam Goldman for mayor. I’m going to follow up here explaining who I’m voting for in today’s election, starting with city council.

It’s no secret that I’ve been planning to vote for Jane Adams and Don Monty since the primary in February. That hasn’t changed. I voted for Don Monty because I think his decades of experience at city hall place him in a unique position to guide Carbondale through tough fiscal times. Here is what I wrote about Jane Adams back in February:

I mentioned above that there is usually one council candidate in each election who stands out as deserving my vote. In this election, that candidate was Jane Adams. I admire her work in establishing the Arbor District. Adams owns some rental property in Carbondale and, unlike many landlords, she has improved the community by maintaining and improving her properties. She has a professional looking website with  a detailed platform and a blog. I agree with the positions Adams has taken, especially her emphasis on downtown development and neighborhood revitalization. I have seen Adams speak at city council meetings during citizen comments and I have read her letters to the editor. I have always been impressed, and have often wished she would run for council. Now she is, and she got my vote.

All of that still applies today. Simply put, Adams has the vision we need on city council.

That leaves one council seat, and several good candidates. I voted for Lee Fronabarger and John Holt in the primary, and I still think both would be good on the council. I thought Jackson did very well in the League of Women voters forum, and I thought Bradshaw showed some improvement as well. Any of these four would be acceptable choices for council.

But I still see the council election as a choice between Tom Grant and Lance Jack.  I think Grant would be a fine council member. His experience in city government is valuable, and his current work as the owner of a sustainable farm brings insight into an increasingly important industry. Grant might win today and Carbondale will benefit if he does, but I am voting for Lance Jack.

It was Jack’s performance in the League of Women Voters forum that earned him my vote. Jack faced indirect criticism from other candidates for his vote in favor of the Saluki Way tax. Jack not only defended his vote for the Saluki Way tax, he defended representative democracy from demands for direct democracy.

Jack isn’t without his flaws. In the LWV forum, he suggested that the city take the lead in building a multi-story, mixed-use development at the intersection of E. Walnut and S. Washington. I think that’s a step too far. The city would have to be a partner in any development of that kind, but it should be a junior partner. But Jack’s focus on downtown and his willingness to consider unconventional solutions are valuable.

Because of the large number of candidates, this election is unpredictable. It’s possible that neither Jack nor Grant will be elected. If they aren’t, the candidates most likely to win are probably Jackson and Bradshaw, in that order, with either Holt or Fronabarger having the potential to pull off a dark horse victory.  Any of these would be acceptable council members.

The mayor’s election was tougher for me. I voted for Sam Goldman in the primary, and I still like his platform. Steven Haynes has good experience in city government. But the election is between Joel Fritzler and George Maroney, and that’s a tough choice. It might seem odd, since the candidates are so different. I’ll explain as well as I can.

My personal politics are probably closer to Fritzler’s than to Maroney’s. But I’m not sure Fritzler can get things done, and he’d certainly be a part time mayor. On the other hand, I have little doubt that Maroney will be able to get things done, and I think he’d be a more active mayor than Fritzler. But I’m not sure I agree with Maroney on some important issues.

I had made up my mind to vote for Maroney because, as I’ve mentioned, I think Carbondale needs an active mayor. I had decided that strong and wrong is better than weak and right. But I never felt great about the decision. My feeling is that Maroney doesn’t understand the value of a traditional downtown, and that he doesn’t understand the built environment. I’m not sure he is diplomatic enough to play the political role of mayor in a town with as many competing interests as Carbondale.

Over the weekend, I decided I had to vote for Fritzler. He isn’t the active mayor I want. I’m not sure he has much of a positive agenda. But I also don’t think he’ll block the positive agenda others bring to the council. Fritzler also got an extra point for having a more active campaign. I’ve seen him walking neighborhoods, and he had a last minute TV commercial Monday evening.

Like the council election, the outcome of this race is unpredictable. Any of the four candidates could become mayor and, fortunately, each is qualified. I’m going with Fritzler, but I’d be satisfied with any of the others.

Comments are welcome.

(Incidentally, anonymous comments are allowed. The comment form asks for name and email by default, but feel free to use a pseudonym if you want to anonymously say who you’re voting for and why.)

Carbondale’s proposed agreement to fund a voluntary summer reading and math program at District 95 was the big issue at Tuesday’s city council meeting. During a public hearing on the city’s FY ’12 budget, one resident spoke in favor of the program. Five residents, including three city council candidates, spoke against the city funding the program.

I’m coming late to this controversy. The people opposed to the plan seem to share a number of objections: we shouldn’t give Carbondale’s tax money to another taxing district, education isn’t the city’s responsibility, there is no way to terminate the five year program early, there are no clear standards for evaluating success, and the program is voluntary (potentially missing the most at risk children).

Supporters say the poor performance of District 95 is an obstacle to bringing new residents to town, that the schools need help and the city has a responsibility to act, and that the city established a precedent for assisting school districts when it helped to finance the construction of the new high school. Supporters also point to the small cost of the program relative to the city’s Saluki Way donation ($750k over five years vs. $20 million over twenty years).

After the public meeting ended, council members spoke. Councilwoman Mary Pohlmann said if the District 95 program is in the final budget, she’ll vote against it. Councilman and mayoral candidate Joel Fritzler also expressed opposition. Councilwoman Corene McDaniel pledged her support for the program, and Mayor Brad Cole said someone has to step in and do something about the schools.

That’s two in favor and two opposed. Councilmen Neill and Wissmann didn’t say definitively whether or not they will support the program. Councilman and mayoral candidate Steven Haynes didn’t stake out a firm position either.

I expect some version of this to pass. Wissmann may have tipped his hand when he pointed out that this program would cost $150,000 in FY ’12, just .375% of Carbondale’s $40 million FY ’12 budget. If Wissmann is in, the proposal only needs the support of one more council member. Haynes will feel pressure from the black community to support the program. Even if Haynes doesn’t support is, I suspect Neill will vote with Cole.

Should the program receive the funds? I’m agnostic on the issue. I think the opponents raise some valid concerns. Some, like the lack of an escape clause or clear standards of measurement can be remedied. Others, like the idea that the city shouldn’t give money to another taxing body, cannot be overcome.

On the other hand, I think the city is trying to solve a problem that has undoubtedly stunted population growth in the city. It may not technically be the city’s responsibility, but the city government is the most competent and professional public organization in the region. If the city doesn’t act, no one will.

Comments are welcome.

The League of Women Voters held its second city council candidate’s forum Wednesday night featuring the six council candidates who were not invited to Monday’s event. Wednesday’s forum included candidates Lance Jack, Rick Jackson, Don Monty, Mike Riley, Candle Wester-Mittan, and Hugh Williams. The five remaining candidates participated in Monday’s forum.

Asked about steps to necessary to balance the budget, Williams pledged to oppose all tax increases. Jack pointed out that rising pension costs are responsible for recent tax increases and urged using “all the tools in the toolbox.” Jackson oppdosed cuts to city employees and increases to the property tax, adding that any plan should be equitable. Monty said that different methods are used to balance different city fund and said tax increases should be a last resort. Riley would keep property and sales taxes static and look for pension savings. Wester-Mittan said Carbondale should reassess its priorities and, as part of that, proposed a forum where representatives from all taxing bodies would be present.

The candidates were asked to name their top two priorities if elected. Jackson said he would prioritize requiring a referendum for any tax increase and the use of celebrations and festivals to develop community spirit. Monty pointed to protecting public health and safety along with protecting Carbondale’s future financial situation. Riley would focus on economic development (including both new and existing businesses) and improving Carbondale’s housing. Wester-Mittan would prioritize economic growth and crime prevention. Williams wants to give subpoena power to the Human Relations Commission and get rid of what he called the “anti-business attitude” in Carbondale, citing parking meters as an example.

The forum seemed almost like a debate when the candidates were asked about whether more citizen involvement is needed on big issues like the city’s controversial twenty year, $20 million commitment to Saluki Way. Jackson, Williams, and Riley expressed support for referendums, and Wester-Mittan for forums. Lance Jack defended his vote for Saluki Way funding and defended representative democracy itself. Monty also defended representative democracy, saying that elected representatives must sometimes make unpopular choices. I agree with Jack and Monty.

The candidates were also asked for their ideas on improving Carbondale’s housing. Monty said Carbondale needs a non-profit housing corporation, attractive neighborhoods, and improvements to infrastructure. Wester-Mittan said the city should work with local banks to develop an incentive program for SIUC and SIH employees to buy houses in Carbondale. Jackson said Carbondale needs higher incomes if it wants to increase the proportion of owner occupied housing. Jack supports keeping or expanding existing programs like the rental conversion incentives.

I thought Monty, Jack, and Jackson were clearly the strongest candidates. I defended Jack in a series of posts when he was driven off the city council last year (see here, here, and here), but last month I expressed some reservations about voting for him. Jack was at his best Wednesday night and he’s certainly back in the running for my vote. I expected Monty to do well and I was already planning to vote for him.

I hadn’t heard of Jackson before this election and I was dismissive of his candidacy in my post on last month’s primary, mostly because he didn’t send a candidate essay to the Carbondale Times and didn’t return the Shawnee Green Party questionnaire. After seeing him in tonight’s forum, I have to say I was wrong. Jackson is a serious candidate and if he doesn’t win this year I hope he’ll run again in 2013.

As I mentioned earlier this week, I’ve made up my mind on two council candidates – Monty and Adams. Judging by the results in the primary, I’m not the only one who feels that way. I need a third candidate, and I think the election is between Lance Jack and Tom Grant. Each would bring strengths to the council. I’ve nearly made up my mind which I’m supporting.

If you want to listen to either city council forum or the mayoral forum from earlier this month, they’re available on WSIU’s website.

Comments are welcome.

I must have missed the Southern Illinoisan’s Saturday article announcing the results of the Carbondale Chamber of Commerce mayoral survey. It turns out the Chamber members favor Maroney, sort of:

The Chamber sent out 325 emails asking who members who they would vote for in the mayoral elections and had 60 responses. Maroney received 47.5 percent with 28.8 percent favoring Sam Goldman, 16.9 percent for Joel Fritzler and 6.8 percent for Steven Haynes.

The survey asked, “Based on what you know about the candidates, their platforms and their experience, who do you plan to vote for to be the next mayor of the City of Carbondale?”

As you might imagine, Maroney thought the result accurately represented the views of the business community. Goldman, Fritzler, and Haynes pointed to the small number of respondents as a reason to doubt the validity of the result.

Sixty responses out of 325 surveys is about 18.5%, which seems pretty good to me. I’m betting Maroney is right – the survey probably reflects the views of the Chamber of Commerce members. But I also agree with Goldman, Fritzler, and Haynes (and the Carbondaze Gazette) that it probably doesn’t matter much.

I was a little surprised that Goldman finished second, and Fritzler third.  Maroney took first place in the February primary, but Fritzler was a close second with just eleven fewer votes. Put another way, Maroney led Fritzler by just 0.59% of the vote. Meanwhile, Goldman ran a distant third, finishing 133 votes behind Fritzler – a little more than a 7% gap. In the chamber survey, Goldman and Fritzler changed places.

If the survey represents the views of the Chamber members, it’s interesting that Fritzler ranks third. After six years on city council, I would have expected him to have built a better relationship with the business community. On the other hand, Fritzler has basically been the anti-Cole since at least 2007, and business loves Brad Cole. But I’m really not convinced it means much for the outcome of the election.

As I’ve mentioned, I voted for Goldman in the primary. I still prefer Goldman, but I haven’t been planning to vote for him in the April 5 election. My perception, and others agree, is that the mayoral election is a two person race between George Maroney and Joel Fritzler.

That’s as it should be. After all, Goldman wouldn’t have made it past the primary under the election rules used for the 2007 election. Worse, he failed to win a single precinct in February’s primary. But some people will vote for Goldman, and I’m wondering whether that’s worse for Maroney or Fritzler.

The conventional wisdom is that Goldman would take more votes from Fritzler than from Maroney. The chamber survey suggests that might not be true.

Comments are welcome.

The League of Women Voters sponsored a forum Monday featuring five of the eleven remaining city council candidates. Monday’s forum included candidates Jane Adams, Jessica Bradshaw, Lee Fronabarger, Tom Grant, and John Holt. The six remaining candidates are scheduled to participate in a separate forum on Wednesday. I watched from home on channel 16, but I missed the first twenty minutes. I’m hoping for a rebroadcast.

All five candidates agreed that Carbondale should not consider privatizing city services like water, sewer, and trash removal. All six also agreed that Carbondale’s liquor ordinance should be amended to allow beer and wine sales at grocery stores. Several candidates proposed police foot patrols in some parts of town.

The candidates were asked to name their two priorities if they are elected. Adams named three: renew, revitalized, and reinvest in Carbondale. Bradshaw would prioritize revitalizing the downtown and increasing sustainability. Fronabarger would prioritize economic development and balancing the budget while maintaining the quality of city services. Grant wants to prioritize financial stability and public safety. Holt would prioritize building unity in a diverse community and making Carbondale competitive with neighboring towns.

The candidates were also asked about their priorities for implementing the comprehensive plan.  Adams emphasized learning from similar communities in finding solutions to blighted neighborhoods and substandard housing. Bradshaw would prioritize a dog park – though not on the old High School football field – and improvements to the city’s housing. Fronabarger named economic development as his top priority. Grant would prioritize economic development and is willing to be flexible in the implementation of the plan. Holt acknowledged some disagreement with the plan but said he would feel honor bound to implement it. Holt stressed that the plan is a guide, not settled law.

The most interesting portion of the forum asked each candidate to write down a question. The questions were shuffled, and each candidate answered one. All of the candidates asked great questions. If I have time, I may write a separate post later this week dedicated to that section of the forum.

As I mentioned previously, I voted for Adams, Fronabarger, and Holt in February’s primary. I didn’t see anything tonight that would make me change my preference. I liked Adams’ answers best, followed by Fronabarger, then Holt, then Grant, then Bradshaw.

I think the council election is shaping up as a race for third. Obviously it’s tough to predict these things, but we do have one poll: last month’s primary. It’s an imperfect sample; historically turnout in council and mayoral primaries is much lower than turnout in general elections. Still, it is the only public poll available.

In the primary, first place finisher Don Monty (18.9%) and second place finisher Jane Adams (15.6%) were the only candidates to earn a double digit share of the vote. Since the primary, they have run two of the most active campaigns. If the primary is any guide, Monty and Adams seem likely to win in April.

That leaves one seat left to fill. In the primary, one vote separated third place finisher Tom Grant and fourth place finisher Lance Jack. Sixty-nine votes separated Jack from fifth place. Using the primary as a guide, it’s easy to look at the council election as a two person race for the third council seat.

I should point out that nothing should be taken for granted. Primaries are not a perfect guide to the general election. Sheila Simon beat Brad Cole in the 2007 mayoral primary before Cole defeated Simon by a two-to-one margin by almost 13 points in the general election. The primary electorate is different than the electorate in the general election. The number of candidates makes this election particularly unpredictable.

The Southern Illinoisan is reporting on the forum here. The Daily Egyptian has an article here. The February primary results are posted on the Btljuice blog.

Incidentally, I thought Fronabarger had the best line of the evening. He called Carbondale an “oasis in the desert of Little Egypt.”

Comments are welcome.

***CORRECTED: I received a comment (see below) alerting me that I had overstated Brad Cole’s victory in the 2007 mayoral election. The mistake has been corrected. I apologize for the error.***

I came across a flyer announcing a forum for the four remaining mayoral candidates is being held at the Civic Center in Council Chambers on Wednesday, March 9 from 7:00 – 8:30 PM. The questions are being presented by the League of Women Voters of Jackson County.

The forum will also be televised on Channel 16.

In a comment on yesterday’s post a reader noted that if Joel Fritzler wins the mayoral election it will be necessary to appoint someone to fill his old council seat. It seems to me that the natural person to appoint would be the candidate who finishes in fourth place in the April 5 election.

When Lance Jack resigned last year it had been nearly two years since the last election, but that wouldn’t be the case this time. Since council members are usually elected, and since the appointment would happen so near the election, I think the fourth place finisher would have a strong democratic claim on Fritzler’s old council seat.

That claim would be even stronger if the race for third place is very close. In this week’s primary, one vote separated third place (Tom Grant) and fourth place (Lance Jack). If Fritzler is elected mayor and I was the candidate who finished a close fourth in the April 5 election, I would expect to be appointed to Fritzler’s old seat.

I’m guessing most people would agree with this, at least in the abstract.  Since the new mayor and council would choose the replacement, I’d be interested to know if Fritzler and the city council candidates agree. I’d also be interested to know if sitting council members Chris Wissmann and Corene McDaniel agree.

If Fritzler is elected, and if the same process is used to replace him as was used to replace Jack, Fritzler (in his new role as mayor) would recommend several candidates and the council would choose one in closed session. Presumably a majority of the council could appoint whoever they want, whether that person was on the mayor’s recommendation list or not.

It will be interesting to see what happens if Fritzler is elected and Lance Jack finishes a close fourth in the primary. As everyone knows, Jack had to resign from city council last year as part of a deal to get a liquor license for his restaurant. Fritzler took the position that Jack was ineligible to hold a liquor license as long as he served on city council.

Obviously, Jack has been the subject of some controversy, and the electorate in April will be different – and larger -  than the electorate that voted in the primary. I’m not sure how likely it is that both Jack finishes fourth and Fritzler is elected mayor. In other words, Fritzler winning wouldn’t necessarily reignite the Lance Jack liquor license/council seat controversy.

Still, if Fritzler is elected mayor, I would like to see the council appoint the fourth place finisher in the council race no matter who that candidate is.

Comments are welcome.

As everyone knows, Earl Czajkowski, Montana Goodman, Craig Anz, and Jerrold Hennrich were eliminated from the city council race in Tuesday’s primary.  Yesterday, I wrote a post explaining which mayoral candidate I voted for and why. Today’s post explains which city council candidates I voted for and why. I voted for Read the rest of this entry »

As everyone knows, Brent Ritzel was eliminated from Carbondale’s mayoral race after finishing last in Tuesday’s primary. George Maroney finished first, Joel Fritzler second, Sam Goldman third, Steven Haynes fourth, and Ritzel fifth. The Southern Illinoisan has the exact vote totals on their website.

I had a hard time deciding which mayoral candidate to vote for. Every candidate had at least one idea I agreed with, and each had at least one factor that I considered a drawback. I didn’t feel especially excited about any of them. I eventually decided to vote for Read the rest of this entry »