Sat in on the Chamber of Commerce Mayoral debate last night in the relatively new Worcester Registry of Deeds, formerly known as the Worcester Common Outlets Food Court. Overall the event was no more exciting than a slice of cheese from the Sbarro franchise which used to sit in the very spot the debate was held.
The moderators of the event did a fine job and asked some decent, less than predictable questions, but the answers… man, are we in tough shape. Maybe it’s just a byproduct of our form of government and the perceived limits it places on the Council and Mayor, but there is a significant lack of well fleshed out, inspiring ideas coming from this crew. It seems that when tasked with difficult times local politicians almost appreciate being confined by a particular set of legal and administrative constraints; but we’re hiring them for the job of lawmaker, so those constraints are artificial in the sense that these are the very people charged with creating/adjusting those constraints to suit todays needs. Our local government exists in a sort of suspended animation, more relevant to 1947 and 1983 (most recent years of charter change) than 2009. Someone needs to step up and point out that 2009 is neither 1947 or 1983 and the future of the city can not be dependent on trajectory set 60 years ago.
One question presented by T&G columnist Dianne Williamson, which was surprisingly not mentioned in either Nick K’s coverage in the T&G or Worcester Magazines liveblog of the event, set the tone of this campaign season for me. It was possibly the easiest question to answer and all four candidates failed miserably. Referring to the public records lawsuit the T&G is currently involved in with the WPD and City Administration, she asked:
‘is it appropriate that public money be used to keep public records from the public?’
The only answer, of course is “No, it is not OK.”
All four candidates wobbled on that one with the predictable answers we’ve been hearing since this public records debacle began. But it raises the question, how can we take anything a politician says sincerely if they believe the public system they function in should not be open to scrutiny by the public they represent? Without real transparency in government there is little reason to have faith in any of the position papers, talking points and claims of general awesomeness all four candidates seem to be comfortable presenting.
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
“All four candidates wobbled on that one with the predictable answers we’ve been hearing since this public records debacle began . .. ”
You hit that right square on the head. It is not only a question of trust, but also and indication that these people are so willing to continue in walk in lock step to block transparency and to protect the arrogance of the power club. It’s basically three people, the exception being Emmanuel, who by virture of their answers, seem to be fighting to win the position to move the city dictator’s agenda forward. Who is running the dictator is another story. You may have an idea who they may be. Look at those big tiffs and who gets to buy property for a buck deals, and see who is involved.
Wow, I’m sorry that one didn’t make the paper! It is a good question (with, as you say, an obviously right answer).
Hear, Hear!
Well doesn’t the councilor have a duty to defend the city’s (charter)? And doesn’t that include do what is right for the city, not necessarily its voters or residents, but the “city”, but those 1,200 employees who run it? You as a taxpayer is nothing more than a means to an end for them.
Since when were ethics a prerequisite for a job as politician?
Just listened to the Levy mayoral debate…ugh.
I really do hope O’Brien loses just so we don’t have to listen to him talk about all the people he knows and how he works sooo close with sooo many important state level politicians.
I never realized that he was such an accomplished Hisown horn player.