Friday, March 23, 2007

Now that's dedication

Theresa Colaizzi says she's pulling out of the race for a City Council seat because she wants to finish the job she started on the school board...unless:

If Mr. Shields wins the controller's race, he would have to resign his council seat, and a special election to replace him would ensue. If that happens, Ms. Colaizzi said, "then I'm back in the game."

It seems to me it's not that she's so dedicated to being on the school board but that she doesn't want to run against an incumbent. Frankly, I think it's ridiculous that a person can run for two offices simultaneously, as Doug Shields is doing, and as many others have done before him. For one thing, it's wasteful: If Shields wins the controller race, then the city is going to have to hold a special election to replace him. Plus, voters are left casting what is more or less a provisional ballot; they don't really know if the person for whom they are voting is even going to be available to take office.

In 2005, Bill Peduto ran for mayor and for re-election in his City Council district. Once I criticized Peduto on a blog for failing to visit enough neighborhoods during that mayoral campaign, and one of his supporters responded that this time would be different because this time he didn't also have to defend a City Council seat.

Well, then, what was the point of running for mayor last time? Just to get some city-wide name recognition? I realize that Peduto might have lost the mayor's race anyway, and then have been out of local politics if he had not kept his council seat. But had he run a more aggressive campaign then (and I'll say that his last run for mayor seemed more energetic than his recent, aborted bid) he might have been in a better position now.

True, he had no way of knowing that there would be another mayoral election in just two short years. But that's the thing about politics: You never know.

Labels: , ,


Blogger Mark Rauterkus said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

9:39 AM

Blogger Mark Rauterkus said...

Hi J.P.

I hope you are not upset with me because I'm running for more than one slot?

I'm running for six, as you may know.

As for T.C. and D.S. and Wm. P., I sorta agree with you. I'd fix it with a non-Libertarian solution. I don't think it is okay to have Pgh Public School Board Members grow in power and run for another office. They use the kids as stepping stones. That stinks. School board roles should be terminal (for a time of a few years), as it is with workers in the White House. The school board would focus on education and economy matters, not power, if they couldn't use school board dealings as a spring board.

One ideal way to get me into one race, not six, is to get you and five other of your (our) friends to stand for office for those other five slots. So, what post might you like to stand for?

I'm still in an active search for a candidate for District Attorney. And, I have a few running mates now. But more are needed.

9:43 AM

Blogger Jonathan Potts said...

Explain to me again what you are trying to accomplish by running for all those offices, because I fail to see what purpose it serves.

I don't think I'd oppose legislation that barred school board members from running for office, but I think it's naive to think that would make a huge difference. I've observed plenty of suburban school boards, where there was little opportunity for members to run for higher office, and it didn't make a damn bit of difference. People still used the board to grind axes and settle scores, with little regard for the children they were ostensibly serving.

10:30 PM

Blogger Adrian said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

9:45 AM

Blogger Jonathan Potts said...

Spam will be deleted.

10:12 AM


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home