I have been asked to take this Video down at this time and am fulfilling the request.
The Luncheon for the Catawba County League of Republican Women was the site of a debate which discussed the current City of Hickory Ward Voting Referendum. This luncheon and debate was held at the Catawba Country Club.
This is the first real debate that has taken place involving this historic issue. I would encourage you to listen. It is about 54 minutes in length.The participants in the debate were Rudy Wright, who is against the referendum and Joe Brannock who is for the referendum.
This debate comes on the heels of the Discussion about the Ward Referendum Voting issue that took place at the Highland Recreation center last night.
Hickory Ward Voting Referendum Forum - School of Government - August 20, 2012
|
| Join To Get Blog Update Notices |
| Visit the Hickory Hound Group |
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I listened to the entire debate.. twice. The politics of fear. Domino effect, this is only the first step in a sinister plan to bring God only knows what to this area and your front door. I also heard a comment about how "some people needed to remove some things from their websites..."
A veiled threat? I don't know. I wasn't there to see who the Mayor looked at or the expression contemporaneous with his words. But this is not to pick apart.
Listening, one can make their own conclusions. Who presented the facts, logic, and rationalization to make an informed decision on this issue and who did not. That's where I'll leave it.
The present system is the "perfect system" to Mayor Wright because the incumbents can pretty well expect to run unopposed (particularly next year).
What I don't understand is why the current Council is so opposed to this change. Do they feel they can't win their ward. Because this referendum does not change the fact that wards are predominantly white and predominantly Republican, even Ward 4, which is Hank Guess's ward in which we are supposedly only doing this to "get him."
The fact is is that this is about accountability. The council, although I will not throw Brad Lail in with this, because he hasn't put his name on the "Incumbent Protection Team" document that appeared in the HDR last week, feels that they can pretty much do whatever they want and their ward can't knowck them out, because of the current electoral dynamics.
The only way that they can be held accountable in their ward is if something happens like happened with John Watts. In the John Watts case he had to run a 4 person primary and the perfect storm happened with the Lowe's Hardware situation.
If unopposed, then you stay in. If two, you are guaranteed a city wide campaign. If three people or more run, then you have to end up in third place and to my knowledge that has only happened one time since this system was implemented in 1970. So in 42 years and 60+ city council races that has happened one time. Those are long odds for a ward to have a direct impact on who represents them.
It has nothing really to do with Hank in totality. The only reason that he happens to be the declared center of the controversy is because his election demonstrated the flaw in the system. It showed how city wide voting in other wards can control representation, despite who is put forth. Z. Ann was the incumbent, might I add. And while this might not necessarily be about race or ethnicity or even social class, it is about control. It is about who will get what, done when. And the group that has enjoyed the privilege of no bid contracts and public financing of whims is nervous. That is where "crackpot" and "scorched earth" come from; the politics of fear and intimidation, used to scare and influence, fomenting ideas and the prophecy that with the passage of this, more will come and nothing will be left of life as we once knew it.
Post a Comment