Fear is an intersting thing. Fear can make people act irrationally or heroically and in some cases maybe both. When it comes to politics, fear is no less an influence than money or ego. When it comes to the Michael Bardsley mayoral campaign I've noticed fear mongering permeating from his main opponent's camp, Mary Clare Higgins', though I can't figure out why. Both candidates are liberal Democrats, both candidates are openly gay and both candidates ascribe to similar political ideologies. I don't foresee either moving to end the practice of abortions or gay marriage and neither support radical military intervention around the globe or the proliferation of nuclear power. Moreover, a Bardsley win will not result in an exodus of department heads, committee members or city employees. If Bardsley is elected mayor Smith College and Kollmorgen will not leave town, Hospital Hill will still be developed and Main Street will not roll up its sidewalks and be shuttered. Regarding the city's fiscal leadership, can he do worse than a $6 million deficit? Maybe. But Bardsley has shown himself not to be intimidated by those who disagree with him so I see him working constructively with the team he might inherit to make incremental changes to move the city forward. It is up to him to tell us what those changes might be.
A couple of the significant differences between Higgins and Bardsley identified by this blogger are their respective governance styles and decision making capacities. As a councilor, Bardsley seems to weigh the pros and cons of policy proposals before he takes a vote, and sometimes he is very nuanced in that approach. For this he is accused of waffling on the issues by his critics and of playing both sides. Add to this the fact that the City Council has a very modest budget means it is not able to hire independent experts to advise its members. And like all of the other councilors, Bardsley is not an expert on all of the various issues that he must take a vote on so he muddles through with the rest of them.
Higgins on the other hand is prone to introducing policy initiatives as the city's mayor. In doing so she relies on an extensive staff to formulate her rationale for promoting various proposals. Though she too is not an expert in all fields, she does draw on the opinions of experts who also happen to be her subordinates. That is a significant advantage when it comes to policy making. It certainly permits her to at least appear to have a grasp of the issues.
Yet Bardsley seems unable to make a move without drawing hostility from Higgins loyalists on local blogs and in the press. This hostility is frequently aimed at both his aspirations and his motives. If he votes in favor of something like the Business Improvement District he's criticized for going along with the crowd. If he votes against something like the BID's Memorandum of Understanding he is grandstanding for political gain. I would like for Higgins supporters to clearly articulate what it is they fear from a Bardsley administration. They might have some very good reasons for opposing Bardsley, but so far they have not indicated what those are in a civil fashion. It seems like they are simply attempting to drive a negative perception of candidate Bardsley-you know, the politics of personal destruction. Could it be they fear Bardsley opening the books on the Higgins administration in the same way President Obama seeks to investigate alleged torture practices as exercised by his predecessor former President Bush?
For her part, Higgins has enjoyed a lengthy tenure in the mayor's seat with moderate political opposition to date. With close to ten years under her belt plus time served on the council and other boards, she's shaped Northampton for better or worse in her own image. Many of the policies and practices she employs have been questioned, but at the same time she has ambitiously pushed her agendas and has her supporters in the city. You know the old saying, you can't make an omelete without cracking a few eggs. That goes with the territory I suppose.
As is typical with any incumbent her policies, practices and proposals are not without their critics, present company included. For example the recent departure of former City Soliticor Janet Sheppard due to the destruction of public records was perhaps overdue. The Higgins-Sheppard tandem brought with it a series of controversial decisions, some I've outlined in previous blog entries. In my view Sheppard's tenure boiled down to the repetition of a one act play, that is, advising the city on how to avoid lawsuits. The Higgins administration's dependence on this loophole exploration does not mean that decisions by Higgins et al. are necessarily prudent or popular, but that Sheppard frequently moved to insulate the city from the legal consequences related to its decisions.
Interestingly, Higgins loyalists fail to question in a significant way her motives, aspirations or actions. She is seen as an altruistic god-like creature. But how long should one person get to dominate the local politcal scene? Higgins has served a long time and has crafted a political network that is very loyal to her. Though I respect the Kennedy family and what it has done for the Commonwealth from the top down, I've also longed for fresh perspectives and networks to arise from the grassroots level of the state as well as local government. In my view Higgins does not represent the grass roots element of our community nor do most of the city's councilors. But that is just me stating my preference.
And the future? Well, there is whispered speculation in the city. One scenario relates to Mayor Higgins' future. Should she win again in the fall, will she complete her term? If Higgins were to leave public office in mid term that would elevate the next City Council President to the city's top political post as acting Mayor. My projection at this juncture is if Ward 4 Councilor David Narkewicz wins one of the two at-large council seats up for election (He's running against Jesse Adams and Kathy Silva.) he will make a play for the council presidency. As an unemployed stay-at-home dad he has plenty of time to devote to the position. If he wins and is chosen by his fellow councilors for that post he will be in direct line for the mayor's seat should she step down. That would be quite an ascendency including with it plenty of on the job training. If this scenario plays out, DNark would enjoy some length of time controlling city hall which would give him an advantage over would be challengers for the mayor's position in 2011. In other words, DNark's abiding loyalty to Higgins will be rewarded by a defacto, "appointment," to the mayor's seat should she step down. If this happens he will enjoy the perks of incumbency like unfettered access to the media and photo-ops and ribbon cuttings galore. Of course that is just my speculation as an outside observer.
This year's election sets up other possible scenarios too. One is that lame duck and current Council President Jim Dostal will apply to be re-instated to the Board of Public Works once he leaves office. From there he can shape into reality the proposed landfill expansion he supports. The same could be said if Councilor Bob Reckman loses his seat to challenger Angela Dion Plassman in Ward 3. Of course both of these men will serve until inauguration day in January 2010 at a minimum, meaning they could vote to expand the landfill as lame duck councilors even if the public votes no on landfill expansion via one or both of the referendum questions.
As the city enters its most active campaign season in years, we as a community will do well to place the fear mongering aside and focus on the visions and proposals of the various candidates for office. Tell us where you want to take us and we'll decide who it is we want to follow.
