New to this site and to Riverside politics.
What is the difference between the way the caucus selected its candidates and the way the RCA selected its candidates?
Riverside Info » About Riverside
RCA v RP
(43 posts)-
Posted Wednesday Mar 25, 2009 19:14 #
-
JamesMarsh - I shall try and find out.
To the Caucus:
This is addressed to all card-carrying bona fide Caucus members only: I have been given conflicting information about the procedure(s) for determining who the Caucus will endorse and support as candidates. Could some Caucus member who will sign his actual name please give me the following:? How many are on the Caucus selection committee? How are they determined? What are the Caucus selection procedures? How does the Caucus as a whole decide who they will support - I mean - are there a larger group and a general vote, or is it just one per position, etc.
Is there a list of the members of the selection committee available?
I'm interested, because the Caucus has had such an extraordinarily long run and such a high percentage of candidates that win elections - they must be doing something - right? When was the last time that a Caucus candidate lost in the general election, and when/who was that?
Thank you
Posted Wednesday Mar 25, 2009 20:35 # -
We all know how the Caucus selects their candidates, how did the RCA select theirs? I'm very interested in the answer. I've lived here nearly 30 years, and have never been a fan of the Caucus concept, I like a two or more party system. I am happy to see two groups offering their opinions and expertise. Over the years we have elected a number of independents, non-Caucus candidates, Kay Snyder, Jerry Butimer, Kevin Smith, Paul Stach and I think a few others. This always demonstrated to me that Riversiders do think on their own and do look at the best options. My question is from the perspective of someone who frankly does not know who he will vote for. I'm still talking and listening to the pros and cons on both sides. But I have yet to hear how the RCA candidates were chosen.
I believe the last time a Caucus candidate lost was when Jery Butimer was elected trustee. Regardless, a Caucus candidate would only lose when an independent ran and won. It doesn't happen often but it happens. Based on history, I expect a Caucus candidate or two will not succeed this tear.
Posted Wednesday Mar 25, 2009 20:53 # -
At the GOP candidate forum the RCA candidates said they gathered to discuss who they would like to see run. They decided they should run.
Posted Wednesday Mar 25, 2009 21:32 # -
TS - thanks for that info. I find it hard to get anyone who will tell me their name and verify that they are a member of the Caucus selection committee, or whatever it is called, to to answer me definitively when I ask questions about the Caucus. I don't find that info on their website, and don't really know who is or is not a member. Are you a member?
A parellel question was asked at the GOP forum. Speaking just for myself, I believe that the RCA candidates got together initially way before thinking about running for this election. They worked to oppose the TIF and Tax referendums. They were meeting together and finally decided, at Mr. Reynolds home, to run as a slate. They filed whatever petitions and documentation was necessary and with the encouragement of others they began this effort. All of them have been active in the Village in one way or another. I know each of them pretty well and I know they have all been concerned by some of the things that have transpired in the Village, like the granting of variances for the VC, the arbitrary give away of the alley and the $5K charged for the parking buyout, the botched handling of the Arcade situation, etc. That's what I know about it - perhaps someone else will flesh this out. I know all four of these gentlemen wrote and spoke out repeatedly about village affairs - and were very prominent in the effort to defeat the TIF and the 2008 tax increase, and I think they decided to just continue the effort. I know that many people I have spoken to have long thought the present, effectively one party system was not correct.
Personally, if the elections are contested, I have no quibble with how someone comes to put him or herself on the ballot. If there are other candidates running, Caucus can nominate as many as they like - the more the merrier. But the idea of just a few people selecting the candidates to run in an uncontested election is anathema to me. I think Mr. Gallegos is running alone and without some back-up group, and more power to him. He seems sincerely interested in helping the CBD and I applaud him for stepping forward. I have a less complimentary view of those that won't declare themselves.
Posted Wednesday Mar 25, 2009 21:38 # -
james--I , too, am newer to Riverside politics and was interested in the same questions as you posed. I see that spatny above answred the question about the RCA. And I saw that there was a post on another thread that had some detail concerning how the Caucus gets its candidates. However, the poster did not provide backup for this and I did not find it on the caucus web site (which is here - http://riversidecaucus.org/ tell me if I missed it)
The post said that there was a maximum of 90 caucus members. Apparently a sub group of 12 caucus members from the 90 pick the candidates. Since it is an even number, and if there is a vote, presumably there is a tie breaker vote by someone in the Caucus.
No, you don't decide to join the Caucus. They decide whether they want you after you indicate interest. The have a maximum of 90 people. They give money to the candidates that 12 of them choose.
http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/question-about-caucus-tactics/page/2#post-8211
So three further questions that I have are:
--who are the 12 that chooses the candidates,
--who might issue the tie breaking vote?
--how does one become a caucus member? what are the criteria for acceptance? do you have to be a Riverside citizen, a registered voter in Riverside?
An implied question is - I know I can ask these questions, but does state law govern whether we get an answer, or is it completely up to the discretion of the Caucus or the RCA?
In other words, What are the reporting requirements of a political party?
I wonder if the caucus website has a q and a or a FAQ?
Posted Wednesday Mar 25, 2009 23:28 # -
I'm not a member of the Caucus, never have been and never will. I have friends who have been in at various times. Again, not a fan of a one party system. However, what you describe as how the RCA selected candidates is no different than how the Caucus selects theirs. I'm not trying to defend one group or the other, I'm just looking for consistency and fairness in the postings on this site.
Posted Thursday Mar 26, 2009 07:36 # -
It seems to me that the caucus used their process (their website describes it) to select and interview potential candidates and the RCA candidates were more or less self-selected. I think of the RCA candidates as independents with some common ideals. I've not heard from either side about how it really works, but that's my own take on it.
I suppose you could look at the caucus candidates as independents as well, since the caucus (via their website) says they don't have an agenda, axe to grind, are not a party but a process, etc. The independent candidates just happen to be backed by the caucus. Maybe some people view the caucus as having done some of the vetting and background checking so they don't have to? I've been paying attention to politics in Riverside for the past 5 years or so that I've been in town, and I prefer to measure and select my candidates by their words and actions, not by the endorsement of The Landmark, JBT, the caucus, other trustees, etc.
Posted Thursday Mar 26, 2009 07:52 # -
Fortunately, I think most voters in Riverside really do think through the issues and vote accordingly based on their research. Given a contested election, I can't see too many people voting straight along party lines. I know I don't.
Posted Thursday Mar 26, 2009 08:47 # -
I think the difference lies in the part about the Caucus deciding who they want to be part of their group, limiting the number of members they have in each district or area, and this small group of individuals selecting the candidates the others will back. All this is done and then an announcement is made - so the voters in the village only come to the polls once, to vote in the general election. I don't know exactly how this works, or who actually does it, but there is no open primary process, so non-Caucus residents, and perhaps even Caucus general members not part of the selection committee, don't really have any say in who will carry their banner. Now if the selecting people are the relatives or friends or whatever of the people in power, it takes on another kind of hue, doesn't it? Putting people in slots to run in largely unopposed elections is pretty much a way for the few to direct the fortunes of the many, isn't it?
As far as the RCA guys are concerned, I think Chris is right - they are all independents who have coalesced and are running together to effect change in the status quo and to offer the voters more bang for the buck. I know they have been giving of their time and energy from the outside for a long time, and now, at the urging of many, they decided to bring their skills and enthusiasm to the fray and contest the establishment way of doing things. They have been there at those meetings and spoken up both for and against various policies of the bloc that is in power. They, like myself and Nick Cariello and others have spent hours and hours regularly attending meetings, doing research, filing requests for information that was not easily obtainable, attempting to involve more people in the decision-making process that is attempting to alter the face of this village.
I can't really understand why any single resident should be against their platform: Why would someone not want them to strive to hold the line on property taxes, perform and complete a line-by-line budget audit to root out any efficiencies and wasteful spending that may exist, focus on bringing appropriate businesses and not high-density and unaffordable development to the CBD? Who thinks it is wrong to have Village financial information and other documentation freely available online? Who is against opening up village meetings to accommodate more participation by the public? And if someone is, then shouldn't we ask "Why?"
I think some of the most divisive issues can be traced back to priorities. The Village Manager and this Board have favored the concept of Transit-Oriented Development, and tried to push across some pretty mean-spirited and inappropriate projects like taking a couple residents houses to build a multi-level parking garage. They spent lots of money on out-of-town consultants to seel us a zoning package that was in no way the popular choice, and then as soon as the first developer appeared they immediately gave in to his requests for size, height and bulk variances that has resulted in that awful empty warehouse looming over the center of town. They initially influenced the Arcade developers to stack up one of the most ill-conceived projects ever seen by telling them that their new code would not require more parking - then later had to change that.
They gave away incentives that are costing the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars and got less than nothing for it. Park maintenance, replacing and protecting our precious tree stock, has been treated like a poor cousin by comparison. They tried to stuff the TIF down our throats and when that was rejected came back with a wish list of something-for-everyone projects and a carrot-and- stick sales campaign to sell it. Fortunately as someone else has suggested, the voters did read and study and come out to give them two of the biggest defeats they have ever had. I talked to many people that were insulted and disgusted by their crass and illogical threats to do away with this or that program or department if the voters didn't go their way. Imagine saying, after raising fees and imposing that paltry 1% tax on the only real volume of out-of-town customers we have - at the zoo, that they would rescind it and knock $20 of your vehicle sticker if you voted yourself a tax package they could play with that would cost you hundreds per year. People told me that they felt that was pure arrogance that just let the voters know that their government thought they could be so easily manipulated.
To be in opposition to a regime that treats you like that is, I think, both a duty and an honor. The odds are great, but it is not impossible to defeat them.
Posted Thursday Mar 26, 2009 09:44 #
Reply »
You must log in to post.