Wednesday, December 27, 2006

New Year’s Resolutions 2007

Choose wisely, grasshopper.

I found my 2006 New Year’s Resolutions and looked them over, trying to decide what my 2007 resolutions should be. I’ve read all the articles which advise you to be specific, be realistic, don’t list too many, and don’t beat yourself up if you don’t get as far as you wanted.

Looking over the list for 2006, I’d say the last piece of advice is really important, since it doesn’t look like I accomplished any of the 2006 goals.

I don’t mean to imply that 2006 was a total waste, it’s just that when I put “write novel” on the 2006 resolutions, maybe I should have put “think up a good title for a novel.”

More...

Thursday, December 21, 2006

Willing to Serve…

...their City.

The newspaper announced an astounding 31 candidates for the two vacant positions on City Council. Despite the fact that two Council people bailed early (if serving on City Council is so great, why didn’t they stay?) and got themselves elected to other, non-city offices, 31 people turned in their applications to serve on the august board.

Seriously, I think it speaks very well for the state of the City and the experience of serving on City Council that so many people were willing to apply. Looking over the list of candidates, all seem to have decent, if not excellent qualifications. A couple look like they may have applied to further their own pet projects, but that doesn’t mean they wouldn’t do a good job of making decisions on other issues.

What’s interesting about this is that there were only five or six candidates for Council during the last election, with candidates for some districts running unopposed. This experience echos that of the District 60 School Board, which had 15 applications when a vacancy occurred. There were four or five candidates running for election, but 15 applied for appointment when a vacancy occurred.

The difference is that applying for appointment is a lot easier and cheaper than running for election. Unfortunately, selecting candidates for office in this country now seems to be based on who can raise the most money for a campaign, not on who is the most qualified. (Candidates go out and beg for money which isn’t theirs and they are expected to spend lavishly, and then we wonder why they so lavishly spend our tax dollars, which likewise aren’t theirs.) When appointments are made to fill vacancies, however, they are made based on qualifications, supposedly, and not on who is the most popular, or who managed to raise the most money by begging. This creates an opportunity for people who are good analysts, who possess that old-fashioned, rarely-mentioned quality called “wisdom,” and who consider all sides to an argument, but who are also too shy, introverted, modest or quiet to successfully beg for money or push themselves forward as “leaders.”

My only comment to City Council will be to warn them against selecting people who are like themselves, which is the tendency when a committee does the hiring. Pick people to fill the gaps in knowledge and expertise, not necessarily to mirror your own professional and educational experience because you think such people will agree with you on issues.