Powered by a relatively new local PAC, the co-campaigners articulated a vision for renter and aquifer protections that brought voters out to the polls.
I would like to see the candidates start showing up at council meetings, in person, to get an idea on what's happening. I've heard 2 of them say they haven't been attending or watching because of their busy schedule, I get that but what about when they are elected will they be too busy then? Good luck to all!
I like this idea, perhaps I should start asking candidates more directly about how often they actually engage with the business of whatever body they're hoping to join. A metric that's hard to measure (and difficult to relay to readers) is how involved someone will be. It's easy to look at someone's vote record and public statements and figure out where they stand on a given issue, but are they going to push for it? Are they going to ask city staff informed questions? Are they going to consistently attend? If you ask those directly, you get useless affirmative answers but this might be a way around that.
On a personal note, I sometimes think about this when a candidate is "too busy" to do an interview anytime in the next several weeks. The demands of council are going to be a lot more than answering my stupid little questions!
How can one know if someone is viewing the zoom meeting? The Council web broadcast is so locked down that it is impossible to tell. Visitors don't show up on the YouTube either.
As a councilmember who joins zoom, I join even in chambers sometimes, we can see who's in the audience. I cannot see who's joining via youtube or tv of course, but candidates have been asked if they currently watch or interact with the meetings and a couple said no.
It was asked of the Ward 2 candidates. Of the general election candidates in Ward 2, I am the only one who regularly reviews Council agendas and meeting materials and follows the meetings (sometimes in person, sometimes via Zoom or YouTube). Paul Montoya, a Ward 1 candidate, shows up in person to most City Council meetings.
That's why I would ask them. Catching up on the YouTube recordings would be a valid way to follow along with the business of council (I do it when I can't tune in live!) but if I formalized this with a question, it would give candidates the opportunity to explain if and how they tune in. I wouldn't make assumptions based on who is physically in the room
"Both incumbents opposed — and helped to crush — the proposal to establish a Civilian Oversight Board for the Laramie Police Department."
The punch line.
As the protagonist rightly opined, the voter has little time to understand their vote so she and Tanner et. el. and unknown amounts of money from unknown people are here to help.
If one looks at this race one can see where marketing beat out incumbents all across Wyoming no matter the race. Nothing different in this Council Race. It reminds me of the marketing for new housing developments as these houses were "better" than the existing housing that had faithfully served their owners and had paid taxes but no longer had "cheerleaders" as that had role passed to the City Council. PACS and Developers are the same to me.
I would argue that the incumbents from Joe Biden, to Dan Zwonitizer to Jayne Pierce had worked hard enough at providing good governance that they deserved re-election, but marketing instead accomplishments held the day. (Historical Note; The rich knew Marketing works which is why they pushed through the 17th Amendment)
If you are elected to City Council and are unwilling to ask hard questions about how money comes in and how it is spent then Council is not for you.
In my opinion, the Civilian Oversight Board slows down reforms by making it an over-represented side show. The argument will be about the establishment of a Board with zero questions about policing. Why ask hard questions when you can convince the voters and more importantly donors that you are asking hard questions?
All these candidates and none of them mentioning the real boss - i.e. city manager. Also what kind of debate will happen with a like minded slate - you know
Like the Supreme Court - super majorities are not good for democracy
You are correct. The goal of this partisan bloc (and it IS openly partisan; notice that on their flyer "Democratic" is capitalized and in blue, and that the PAC is organized by a hyperpartisan state legislator) is to completely take over Council. They'd join forces with a current member of Council who is not up for re-election, is Vice-Chair of the Wyoming Democratic Party, and was a state delegate to the Democratic National Convention, to gain a 5 vote majority that would vote as one and implement a partisan agenda. This despite the fact that Council is explicitly nonpartisan, and should be.
This would be very bad for Laramie. Partisan polarization sets neighbor against neighbor and deters compromise and productive dialogue. The agendas of the national parties do not fit Laramie's unique local issues. And every citizen deserves to be heard - not just those of one political party. Laramie citizens who want thoughtful, not doctrinaire, local government should vote AGAINST this bloc, not for it.
The headline here should read, "Blogger Jeff Victor campaigns for the politically extreme candidates he personally supports."
The fact is that the voters, by rejecting the two incumbents in Ward 2, said loudly and clearly that they disliked the direction in which the City was going. But my opponents in the Ward 2 race have not only embraced those incumbents' agendas but doubled down on them.
The so-called "voter education lit" that was distributed just before the election was not "voter education" but rather campaign literature, urging voters to vote for specific candidates and giving the false impression that other candidates did not support such things as affordable housing or tenants' rights. Jeff's posting above deceptively does not show the flip side of the handbill, which listed the names of specific candidates.
Unlike those opponents, I have proposed PRACTICAL measures to deal with issues such as housing affordability, tenants' rights, parking, stormwater management, planning and zoning, and more. (See my Web page at http://voteglass.org.) Hopefully, the public will reject extremism and support me and other moderate candidates in the upcoming election.
I would like to see the candidates start showing up at council meetings, in person, to get an idea on what's happening. I've heard 2 of them say they haven't been attending or watching because of their busy schedule, I get that but what about when they are elected will they be too busy then? Good luck to all!
I like this idea, perhaps I should start asking candidates more directly about how often they actually engage with the business of whatever body they're hoping to join. A metric that's hard to measure (and difficult to relay to readers) is how involved someone will be. It's easy to look at someone's vote record and public statements and figure out where they stand on a given issue, but are they going to push for it? Are they going to ask city staff informed questions? Are they going to consistently attend? If you ask those directly, you get useless affirmative answers but this might be a way around that.
On a personal note, I sometimes think about this when a candidate is "too busy" to do an interview anytime in the next several weeks. The demands of council are going to be a lot more than answering my stupid little questions!
How can one know if someone is viewing the zoom meeting? The Council web broadcast is so locked down that it is impossible to tell. Visitors don't show up on the YouTube either.
As a councilmember who joins zoom, I join even in chambers sometimes, we can see who's in the audience. I cannot see who's joining via youtube or tv of course, but candidates have been asked if they currently watch or interact with the meetings and a couple said no.
I was following the original slide pack from the meeting packet last night in chambers but not the zoom. I'm on the zoomie when at TSC meetings
I always appreciate seeing you in chambers, we don't always see eye to eye, but you support your thoughts with data.
Were they asked during League of Women Voters? Legitimately interested in checking this out
It was a question one of the times I went, I don't remember what wards it was.
It was asked of the Ward 2 candidates. Of the general election candidates in Ward 2, I am the only one who regularly reviews Council agendas and meeting materials and follows the meetings (sometimes in person, sometimes via Zoom or YouTube). Paul Montoya, a Ward 1 candidate, shows up in person to most City Council meetings.
That's why I would ask them. Catching up on the YouTube recordings would be a valid way to follow along with the business of council (I do it when I can't tune in live!) but if I formalized this with a question, it would give candidates the opportunity to explain if and how they tune in. I wouldn't make assumptions based on who is physically in the room
"Both incumbents opposed — and helped to crush — the proposal to establish a Civilian Oversight Board for the Laramie Police Department."
The punch line.
As the protagonist rightly opined, the voter has little time to understand their vote so she and Tanner et. el. and unknown amounts of money from unknown people are here to help.
If one looks at this race one can see where marketing beat out incumbents all across Wyoming no matter the race. Nothing different in this Council Race. It reminds me of the marketing for new housing developments as these houses were "better" than the existing housing that had faithfully served their owners and had paid taxes but no longer had "cheerleaders" as that had role passed to the City Council. PACS and Developers are the same to me.
I would argue that the incumbents from Joe Biden, to Dan Zwonitizer to Jayne Pierce had worked hard enough at providing good governance that they deserved re-election, but marketing instead accomplishments held the day. (Historical Note; The rich knew Marketing works which is why they pushed through the 17th Amendment)
If you are elected to City Council and are unwilling to ask hard questions about how money comes in and how it is spent then Council is not for you.
In my opinion, the Civilian Oversight Board slows down reforms by making it an over-represented side show. The argument will be about the establishment of a Board with zero questions about policing. Why ask hard questions when you can convince the voters and more importantly donors that you are asking hard questions?
All these candidates and none of them mentioning the real boss - i.e. city manager. Also what kind of debate will happen with a like minded slate - you know
Like the Supreme Court - super majorities are not good for democracy
You are correct. The goal of this partisan bloc (and it IS openly partisan; notice that on their flyer "Democratic" is capitalized and in blue, and that the PAC is organized by a hyperpartisan state legislator) is to completely take over Council. They'd join forces with a current member of Council who is not up for re-election, is Vice-Chair of the Wyoming Democratic Party, and was a state delegate to the Democratic National Convention, to gain a 5 vote majority that would vote as one and implement a partisan agenda. This despite the fact that Council is explicitly nonpartisan, and should be.
This would be very bad for Laramie. Partisan polarization sets neighbor against neighbor and deters compromise and productive dialogue. The agendas of the national parties do not fit Laramie's unique local issues. And every citizen deserves to be heard - not just those of one political party. Laramie citizens who want thoughtful, not doctrinaire, local government should vote AGAINST this bloc, not for it.
The headline here should read, "Blogger Jeff Victor campaigns for the politically extreme candidates he personally supports."
The fact is that the voters, by rejecting the two incumbents in Ward 2, said loudly and clearly that they disliked the direction in which the City was going. But my opponents in the Ward 2 race have not only embraced those incumbents' agendas but doubled down on them.
The so-called "voter education lit" that was distributed just before the election was not "voter education" but rather campaign literature, urging voters to vote for specific candidates and giving the false impression that other candidates did not support such things as affordable housing or tenants' rights. Jeff's posting above deceptively does not show the flip side of the handbill, which listed the names of specific candidates.
Unlike those opponents, I have proposed PRACTICAL measures to deal with issues such as housing affordability, tenants' rights, parking, stormwater management, planning and zoning, and more. (See my Web page at http://voteglass.org.) Hopefully, the public will reject extremism and support me and other moderate candidates in the upcoming election.
I’m going to read your slate and try & keep an open mind - try my best