I thought my column two weeks ago (SMDP, Aug. 28, page 4) about meaningless City Council candidate ballot statements wouldn’t get anybody hot and bothered. Boy, was I wrong.
I’d written that most ballot statements as posted on City Hall’s Web site under City Clerk, “2006 Ballot Statements,” were full of “smoke” and feel good fluff. I suggested that candidates should stop “shoveling souffle” and go for meat and potatoes now that campaigning has started.
Rose Gilhuly of Santa Monica took issue with me (SMDP, Aug. 31, page 4) by calling my column a hard-to-swallow, “self-righteousness (sic) attack,” even though I mentioned no names. She accused me of spewing souffle in my ballot statement when I ran for City Council in 2004.
Out of 10 planks, Gilhuly cited just three as fluff. In one line I said,“I will support our schools and children.” I was one of only six candidates out of 16 who mentioned schools on a council ballot statement in 2004.
When it came to supporting “controlled growth and intelligent development,” I was one of five candidates to mention a subject which ranks in the top five community issues.
I thought it was a fairly meaty statement, especially when other candidates rambled on about “sustainability,” which is an environmental term or “livable neighborhoods,” which doesn’t address development or “smart growth,” which is really pro-development.
Gilhuly said, “Dedicated to enriching life in the Pico neighborhood,” was more souffle from candidate Bauer. In 2004, only one candidate mentioned the most violence-prone area of the city in need of some special attention, the Pico neighborhood. That candidate was me.
This year, in spite of ongoing violence and continued problems, only incumbent Bob Holbrook in asking for “alternatives to violence and gangs such as jobs, artistic outlets, community involvement and athletics.” He thought Pico was important enough to mention in his ballot statement. Kudos to Holbrook who’s a lot more to the point than wannabes wanting “more vibrant” and “livable neighborhoods.”
Gilhuly wrote I had “finished in 12th place, just 94 votes ahead of a candidate who had withdrawn long before the 2004 election.” Therefore, “Alas, Bill is shoveling sour grapes.”
No sour grapes here, Rose. I’m just asking that candidates address issues honestly and meaningfully. Your indignation should be directed at those who waltz around issues and hide their real agenda while receiving big bucks from special interests and power players out to buy government for themselves.
In 2004, David Cole, my slate mate who came in 10th, and I, spent about $13,000 on our campaign. We netted 7,546 votes. The leading vote-getters were Bobby Shriver whose campaign support totaled well over half a million dollars. Herb Katz, Richard Bloom and Ken Genser also had hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign backing and easily won re-election.
They probably accounted for 75 percent of the campaign money spent and received 67,853 votes, or 48 percent of the votes cast. Their largess came from the hotel-backed Santa Monicans for Change (now Santa Monicans for Sensible Priorities); the Chamber of Commerce, Santa Monicans for Renter’s Rights, political parties, the police officer’s association, firefighters and other unions, wealthy businessmen and others.
This year, five candidates supported by big buck players will outspend everyone 10 to one. But are they the best persons for the job? Lesser-financed candidates might be outstanding but can’t get their message out. As a result, we’re all cheated of potentially great leaders by a deeply flawed process.
Then there’s the uninformed voter. In 2004, two candidates withdrew early and received a total of 6,064 votes solely because their name was on the ballot. People often just vote for a name when they don’t know who’s running for office and especially for judgeships.
Jews vote for candidates with Jewish names. Hispanics will vote for Hispanic names. Italians will often vote for fellow Italians. Women for a woman. It’s a bad way to cast a ballot. You’ll never know when you might be voting for someone who is a neo- Nazi, Communist, liar, thief, moron or low life. Please, don’t exercise your right to vote if you don’t know who you’re voting for.
So, stop carping. Don’t shoot the messenger. Change the system and make it fairer for all our sakes. (Bill can be found at the Former Candidates Old Folk’s Home.)
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on September 11, 2006. Read the original PDF.