Is it just me, or is ward representation shaping up to be a disappointment?
Let me clarify: I think the current City Council is one of the better groups we’ve seen in years, thanks in no small part to the addition of ward reps. I think the larger group (there are now 13 councilors, eight elected by ward and five at-large, up from the nine, all at-large configuration in place before the 2009 election) has created a livelier and more active group; when was the last time, for instance, that councilors actually made cuts to the mayor’s budget, as they did this year?
I also think that, as they reach the end of their first full term, a number of ward councilors have really distinguished themselves. Ward 2’s Mike Fenton and Ward 7’s Tim Allen have shown themselves to be especially engaged and informed on important issues. Ward 8’s John Lysak looks to be a hard worker for his often-forgotten section of the city, as does Ward 3’s Melvin Edwards, who—along with Ward 6’s Amaad Rivera—has also championed a number of progressive causes.
But here’s why I’m disappointed: much as I respect the work being done by some of the ward councilors, I’m dismayed that more of them aren’t being challenged to hold on to their seats this fall. This week was the deadline for candidates to turn in their signatures to qualify for the ballot, and only one—one!—of the eight ward councilors will even face a challenge (Ward 8, which will have a replay of the somewhat nasty 2009 race between Lysak and the man he beat, Orlando Ramos.) Six of the ward reps will just slide back into their seats without breaking a sweat. The remaining seat, Ward 6’s, is left open by Rivera’s decision to run at-large this fall, but that seat has already been sewn up by Ken Shea, the former School Committee member.
So why is there so little interest in the ward seats, especially given the long years of fighting to get the system in place? When voters approved the change, in 2007, they did so rather decisively, by a three-to-one margin. But turn-out at the 2009 election—the first where ward reps were elected—was an embarrassing 25 percent, and in a number of wards, the races barely had a pulse. This year, it’s even worse.
Ironically, the heavy competition this year will be for the at-large seats (and for the mayor’s office, of course—but that’s a story for another day). Four of the five incumbent at-large councilors are running for re-election (Tommy Ashe, Jimmy Ferrera, Tim Rooke and Kateri Walsh); the fifth, Jose Tosado, is leaving his seat to run for mayor. And nine challengers are also in the race, hoping to snag Tosado’s seat or—something that, sadly, rarely happens in Springfield elections—perhaps even to knock out one of the incumbents.
Like a lot of people, I had high hopes for ward representation. I hoped that some fresh new leaders would step up (and I think some have). I hoped that the Council would gain some new perspectives (again, it has, although perhaps not as dramatically as it needs).
But as for my other hopes—that the change would revive voter engagement and inspire the emergence of a deep pool of new leaders? So far: eh.
