John, HR, Fred and all my fellow bloggers...
Let me try and explain my view of the present political system with an eye toward clarity; Repeat - this is just my view, based on personal observation and my natural bent to support the underdog.
We have a small, rather insular community of 9-10,000 souls. Normally just a few hundred seem to pay attention to local politics, come to attend Board meetings, get involved. Maybe this is typical of other towns - Many know one candidate or another from contact in schools, churches, businesses and will vote for a candidate purely on those grounds. Since time immemorial Riverside has been governed - primarily and with few exceptions - by candidates nominated by one organization that is or is not a political party - known as the Caucus. This group is well structured, entrenched I would say, and has been organized here for many, many years. In fact I think there has not been any other. It has a stated policy of seeking out candidates that it feels would be good leaders, who would do their best, and would generally maintain the status quo. This group has a membership that it selects, not taking just anyone who wants to join, and it further selects from its own membership a smaller group that become the slating committee or some such. They presumably vet the candidates that approach them, or that they approach and ask to run, then c slate them, fund or help to fund their campaign(s) in whole or part, asking both their members and the general public to vote for them.
Since most elections have not been vigourously (Eng. spelling?) contested this has generally amounted to a slam-dunk election. Indeed many of their candidates run unopposed. So Caucus candidates (nearly) always win. Maybe always. There is no primary campaign or election, so the vast majority of the residents do not have any say in what candidates are slated. Generally, it seems, there has been little or no opposition to the candidates offered by Caucus, mostly they are generally the same in view and "party" affiliation as the incumbents, and do not have a strong record of opposition to the programs or priorities of the Village Board and government. Generally, none of these candidates oppose the record or leanings of their predecessors. So, in most elections, being slated by the Caucus assures the support of the incumbents and results in a win and more of the same. Self perpetuation.
Now I know that Trustee Smith ran as an independent and won his first time, (good for him!) and then either adopted or was co-opted by the Caucus as their candidate in the subsequent election, which he won running unopposed with a little more than 800 votes. (There may have been others), but in general, this is how it works. That makes for longevity and keeping things going in pretty much a straight line. Generally the town's lone local newspaper, The Landmark, has supported the Village government, the incumbents and by default the Caucus candidates.
Fast forward to the TIF, hard on the heels of the TOD and the grantng of variances for the VC. In this election some residents decided they didn't like those things and rose to oppose the TIF, fearing it would result in the sequestration of a pool of funds that could be used for incentives for more VC like structures. They were successful, defeating the TIF 4-1. That result was cast as a fluke by the Board and the Caucus with cries that the opposition were sinister forces or know-nothings who were holding back progress, etc.
Around this time the Board decided that the President should select the Chairpersons of the Commissions - they were previously selected by vote of their members. This helps to bring the agendas and the view of the commissions more in line with what the Board wants, and to some degree stifles opposition to the policies/decisions of the Board and Village Manager at Commission level. Caucus has now slated one of those Chairpersons, Mr. Lesniak, who has been involved in some of their more controversial initiatives, as a Trustee candidate.
Then came the Tax Referendum, where again an organized grass-roots opposition rose up and opposed the Board, and again won by 4-1. This was very illustrative because in that election, in round numbers, roughly 4000 persons voted, 3200 against the tax referendum and only 800 for it. Another incumbent Caucus Trustee, running again unopposed, only drew 800 plus votes on the same ballot, so, in other words we might deduce that upwards of 3000 of the voters who entered the booth were disinclined to reelect that Trustee and chose not to vote for him since they had no other candidate to vote for. (I was told that this Trustee was initially appointed to the Board so i don't know if he would have ever been elected if he had an opponent.) That situation shows me that it is possible that the Board and the Caucus that supports and perpetuates these candidates may in actuality be a minority and completely out of touch with what the majority wants. In unopposed elections many Trustees in the past have been elected solely by the Caucus slating committee that chose them and a single vote. I believe that a fair-minded person would at least grant that conclusion is reasonable given the evidence of the last two elections.
It may also be reasonable to conclude therefore that it may finally be possible to successfully contest an election here against the established forces, and that the vast "silent majority" that does not go to Board or commission meetings might want a totally different choice than what they have been previously offered, and will in fact come out and vote for one if/when one is on the ballot.
I am certainly not alone in drawing that conclusion. The Riverside Community Alliance candidates, in my opinion, are to a man people of good intent who earnestly want to represent all the residents of the Village, not just the people that put them on the ballot, and will do their best for the Village. They looked at these results and banded together and are now running as the RCA slate against the Caucus candidates, giving us a hotly contested election for the first time in recent memory. They certainly know as much about this Village government as the Caucus candidates do, and they have credentials and integrity and history every bit as valid as the RP. They are making and funding their own campaign and platform without aid of any of the incumbents or the local newspaper. Personally I think they have made a real race here, and I think that's great.
The RCA candidates are not evil carpetbaggers brought in from somewhere else, or anything other than what they claim to be, concerned neighbors and residents who are vested in Riverside, understand its history and its problems, and simply want to offer and pursue a different approach to meeting them. From some of the comments I have read, usually posted by people who choose not to use their names, one might think the repubic would be endangered if they are elected. I think not.
The RCA candidates think this Board and the people that operate the Caucus are out of touch with what most people want, and recent elections show that is the case. They believe that we need a different approach to coping with our situation. It is somewhat perplexing they are vilified for opposing what has been patently less than successful. Publicly questioning entrenched authority is never easy, but it is a time honored, red,white and blue tradition that goes back all the way to the Revolution. It has invariably livened up elections and made the results more widely accepted.
Now I don't recall exactly how many votes the remaining incumbents on the Board, or those retiring, have drawn in the last several elections, but I doubt it has ever exceeded half the number of voters who voted against their TIF and/or the tax referendums, and I think that really worries the people in power. What I feel, in my gut, is that regardless of the number of blue signs or endorsements that the "status quo" Caucus candidates have going for them, it is very possible that the "silent majority" out there may welcome a change and be waiting for an opportunity to vote for it. I also know from the past few elections that many people who have been outwardly establishment were reluctant to declare themselves differently because they felt it may not go down well with the powers that be.
Well I can tell you there is no need to worry. To all those who voted against the TIF and the Tax referendum, I urge you to not be timid - it's a secret ballot after all - and to make sure you come out and vote for change via the Riverside Community Alliance candidates.
You know, Riverside was the only community of over 100 that was successful in stopping the TIF. I urge you to come out and cast your ballot for progress and the Riverside Community Alliance. Let's make this a threepeat.
With all due respect to Senor Uphues and the Landmark...