Vote for Me, Then Vote Against Me

[XLFD]

It may not make a lot of sense to ask for Ludington electors to take the time to write-in a candidate for public office in May and then vote against establishing that public office, but local politics doesn't always make a lot of sense in the first place.  

Those in the western part of Mason County won't see anything on the May 3rd ballot this year, but those in the Ludington Area School District (LASD) will see a vote on renewal of the sinking fund and those also in the city limits of Ludington will see two other ballot 'questions' facing them.  The first item on the ballot asks for them to select not more than nine members for the city charter commission. 

Those unaware of the issue may wonder about a couple things:  1) Why do I have only four choices when nine spots are to be filled, and 2) What the heck is a charter commission anyway? 

To answer the first, candidates for the position who wanted their name on the ballot (and almost automatic election to the commission) needed to file a petition signed by 40 qualified voters in Ludington between the time the position was offered by city council action in November 2021 and January 2022, the deadline.  Not a lot of people outside of the loop knew about the position or the less-than-two-months process to qualify, which explains why the four people that gathered signatures were political insiders:  a former police chief, a former planning commissioner/current county commissioner, and two close relatives of city councilors, respectively on the ballot.

The charter commission itself doesn't actually exist but may come into being after they count the May 3rd ballots and find that the majority of electors voted for its existence by answering a simple question with a 'yes'.  

If that happens, the newly founded charter commission will have up to three years to review the charter up and down and suggest changes that will ultimately need to be voted on by the city's electors in another election.  The commission's meetings will be public and will generally operate independently of other city agencies, including the city council (More info can be found here).  When this was voted on by the city council, City Manager Foster estimated this process may easily cost the taxpayers around $80,000 by the time their duties are over.

If the majority of city electors vote against this commission (or more precisely the revision process), the votes for charter commission will not take effect, that is, the four on the ballot and any qualified write-in candidate chosen will not have a position to fill.  They will have won an election, but to an office that never forms.

Which brings me to the title of this article.  I, under my Christian name Tom Rotta, have signed the required documents in order to be a qualified write-in candidate.  Under Michigan law, anybody whose name is wrote-in on these ballots need to have such paperwork filled out beforehand if those votes are to count.  I have figured that if this commission gets enough votes to be created it should have someone other than city hall insiders on the panel, as the current crop would be likely to recommend changes that would grow governmental powers and seek to diminish the rights of citizens, the accountability of city officials, and the transparency of city government.

This fear isn't unfounded when we look at what changes to the charter the city council has championed in the past:  asking to increase the city manager term from every year to every five years, remove council approval for the manager doing 'emergency' repairs, and reducing the time the city budget was publicly available.  These all failed at the ballot box after being enthusiastically supported by the council, led by Councilor Kathy Winczewski.  Mark my words, a city-insider led charter commission will only look to increase municipal leverage and power.

So whereas, I would appreciate you writing in my name, Tom Rotta, to be on this charter commission as a check on city hall power should this commission come into existence, I emphatically encourage you to save the taxpayers a lot of money and future headaches at the polls by voting 'no' on whether the charter revision should take place.  I further encourage those who agree with me to get their own name officially in as a write-in candidate and actively campaign for your position, while also actively campaigning against a general revision.  

Then continue the trend by voting against the sinking fund renewal.  The school district has a brand new elementary building and are in the process of reconstructing the middle and high school with the $101 million bond, there is no immediate repair or maintenance imagined that would justify that fund now.

[Willy]

Thanks for the information. I hope the voters are wise enough not to vote for revising the Charter but if they do then I am very pleased that Mr. Rotta will be on the ballot and that if he is elected he will help keep any cronyism and corruption out of the process. 

 

[XLFD]

To be precise, I am only on the ballot should the voter choose to write the eight characters of my name in the proper spot, as only the four candidates who submitted a complete petition will have spots on the ballot.  Likewise, I cannot guarantee that my one vote can stop the tide of 'progress' of up to eight other commissioners, but I will make the case to the folks, whenever necessary, about charter changes that will go against the rights and the will of the people and stand in the way with my one vote on the committee. 

And who knows, maybe I can proffer some common-sense changes that might gain acceptance among my peers on how to make the City of Ludington a more accountable and transparent entity.

[shinblind]

Gotta write in Rotta.

Tom is  right.

Write in Tom Rotta.

[Freedom Seeker]

Good campaign slogan, shinblind!

Write in Rotta!

Go Rotta!

Tom Rotta to right the city's wrongs!

[XLFD]

Thanks for the support, but please, even if you take the extra effort to write my name on your ballot, save even more of your enthusiasm and vote against the charter revision.  I won't take offense at being elected to a position that has been popularly chosen to be undesired.  For some reason I think I've played this role before.

If the revision is voted against, and up to nine people are elected to the commission, they can honestly put on their resumes in the future that they were charter commissioners who didn't make matters worse.

[shinblind]

If nominated Tom will not run.

And when elected he will not rubberstamp the city.

Perfect.