Ramblings: Class Room To Board Room
by Ron Deabenderfer
While I was a full-time classroom teacher, I'd entertain myself, especially in election years, with theoretical questions about the political arena. I didn't like patronage politics, especially as practiced in Illinois, where ones political affiliation, the who-knows-you game, was more important than what a job candidate could bring to the table skill wise. I knew that promoted higher voter turnouts (one had to solicit votes for his party to win the election to retain his job), but it had drawbacks.
Ever the idealist, I could see all sorts of corruption temptations in that system even though local spokespeople like Bob Bliss would editorialize about its advantages. I composed, though I'm not sure I ever sent, a letter to the News in the early '80's, explaining my frustration with a system that didn't automatically want the best man for a position to be in that position.
According to a New Yorker article Journal-News publisher John Galer gave me to read last week, the patronage system has been replaced; workers no longer go door-to door to encourage voter participation. Contemporary politicians depend instead on media messages (radio and newspapers locally, with internet, television, and magazines nationally) to inspire the voters to go to the polls.
I don't like the new political world either. Now party backing in terms of financial help is necessary for an election at even the county level if one isn't independently wealthy. (I don't think a wealthy person can vote for my interests, which are usually diametrically opposed to the elite among us). Citizens who contribute to a campaign, especially companies who contribute to a campaign, usually have strings attached to those gifts. I'm not sure we can write ethics legislation strong enough to eliminate that sort of favoritism; what Illinois has in place now certainly hasn't worked.
In fact, at least two facts keep the most selfless and thus most qualified people from seeking public office; one is the cost to be elected, often more than the position pays, and the other is the stigma built nowadays into any political position. I'm cynical enough to believe that a truly honest person can't be elected to any state or national position.
The New Yorker article talked about Barack Obama's masterful use of the Illinois machine to achieve the base for his current quest. Undoubtedly Obama worked with Emil Jones and Rod Blagojevich and their cronies to find a place in Illinois politics; he used the system. The question now is if he could use the machine and not be corrupted by it; most people who lie with dogs attract some fleas.
I've been in a unique position the past six months or so as both a participant and an observer of local politics. Ten years ago or so Republicans held a slim majority of the 21 county board seats, and the Democrats wanted to wrest that control back. Then precinct committeeman Gene Fox was the first to approach me about becoming a candidate; he suggested I run for a county-wide office. "Heck," he complimented me, "You've had everybody in class, and everyone (almost) likes you."
I declined; I knew retirement from the classroom was approaching, but I didn't want to leave until I had to.
I couldn't teach and be, say, county clerk, even if I could win. Unlike Gene, I knew how many enemies outspoken teachers and coaches can accumulate, and I wasn't sure how many people in the county had heard of me, nor did I think many would vote for anyone with 12 letters in his last name.
Then Dr. Greg Springer called, told me my voting record had been checked (I usually asked for a Democratic ballot), and asked if I'd run for a county board seat. I rather liked Sid Blankenship, the Republican who held the seat for which John Downs and I would compete with him (two of us three would be elected), but I could serve on the board and teach at the same time, as Springer pointed out. I could test a new field as I was preparing to leave an old one, so I took the opportunity. At least a few veteran politicos scoffed.
Phil Galer had suggested that four of his Journal employees begin writing a monthly column at about the same time; it was then that "Ramblings" began. I think this column has made my name at least recognizable around the county, and I think it's had much to do with my success in elections then and afterwards.
I haven't advertised much, bought yard signs or radio air time, because I'm cheap, and those expenses rub me the wrong way. If I didn't want to be elected, my name wouldn't be on the ballot; if my name's on the ballot, I'd be grateful for anyone's vote. That's all anyone can say in advertising, and I hope voters are intelligent enough to know that without reading it or hearing it.
I've been told the "no ad" strategies will fail me some day; I can live with that. Until it does, I'm not beholding to anyone. I don't take money from the party, from groups, or from individuals. I've only been asked once for help obtaining a job for a friend of a friend, but I had so little influence in that job selection process that I could only smile at the request. In an ideal world, no politician would be beholden to any of his constituents financially; I can only control myself in that regard, and I'll still do that.
The observer part began this winter when I was assigned to cover the Hillsboro city council meetings. That has given me a new perspective. When I first joined the county board, I could sense distrust of the media from a few of the other board members; they were uncomfortable with the group at the table in the right corner of the room. I never joined in their concern; I assumed I wouldn't be misquoted, or ever quoted at all.
Now in city hall I wield the pen. I've discovered that to be responsibility plus; the printed word is often misconstrued. The mayor and councilpeople determine the most important items on an agenda by the way they approach them, but I know what Tobin Ott (of WSMI) mentions on the air or what I put in the first paragraph of my article has much to do with the public's perception of the meeting.
Sometimes we protect council members by not quoting what they say verbatim; in a moment of anger, one says that which he regrets in a cooler moment. Yet that has to be balanced with the public's right-to-know.
Publication can have consequences of which I don't always think. Remember the picture of the giant catfish Adam Fath held after it was pulled from the water lines at the old water plant? When I asked if I could have the picture to publish it, Commissioner Dennis McCammack seemed reluctant. I didn't understand that; it was a graphic illustration of problems within the system. Later, during a ball game, I heard a lady say, "I'll be drinking bottled water from now on." Now I understand McCammack's concern.
Some misunderstandings are comical. When Commissioner Connie Hill wasn't at a meeting, I tagged her absence onto a paragraph that mentioned the commissioner's reports were shorter than usual. I didn't mean it as cause and effect, but the implication, enjoyed by her fellow council members, was that she dominates reports when she's present. I think that's just coincidental, but I admit I snickered when she alluded to the comment at the next meeting.
As I looked around the council chambers before anyone else arrived at the last July meeting, I found one of those pithy sayings framed on the wall. It answered another theoretical question I'd had for years -- should an elected official vote his own conscience, or should his vote be swayed by the wishes of his constituency? (Those wishes are often 50-50 or very hard to determine.)
I'd wondered about that as I and other county board members struggled with the sale of coal rights, the purchase of the abandoned rail line, failing bridges, courthouse repairs/building, and animal control; I'd wondered about it as city officials dealt with annexation issues, sale of the airport, sale of water, and a myriad of citizen problems.
The answer, which I like, is anonymous in the frame; Bartlett's Familiar Quotations attributes it to English statesman Edmund Burke in November of 1774. Now that I've found it, it'll be the standard by which I will judge the public officials I know, including myself: "A representative owes the people not only his hard work, but his judgment, and he betrays them if he sacrifices it (his judgment) to their opinion."
Remember that as you vote this November.
Print this story | Email this story
|
Jim ONeill wrote on Aug 7, 2008 8:14 AM: