Mayoral Food Fight
by radioball - October 6, 2009 1:20pm
Sat in on the Chamber of Commerce Mayoral debate last night in the relatively new Worcester Registry of Deeds, formerly known as the Worcester Common Outlets Food Court. Overall the event was no more exciting than a slice of cheese from the Sbarro franchise which used to sit in the very spot the debate was held.
The moderators of the event did a fine job and asked some decent, less than predictable questions, but the answers… man, are we in tough shape. Maybe it’s just a byproduct of our form of government and the perceived limits it places on the Council and Mayor, but there is a significant lack of well fleshed out, inspiring ideas coming from this crew. It seems that when tasked with difficult times local politicians almost appreciate being confined by a particular set of legal and administrative constraints; but we’re hiring them for the job of lawmaker, so those constraints are artificial in the sense that these are the very people charged with creating/adjusting those constraints to suit todays needs. Our local government exists in a sort of suspended animation, more relevant to 1947 and 1983 (most recent years of charter change) than 2009. Someone needs to step up and point out that 2009 is neither 1947 or 1983 and the future of the city can not be dependent on trajectory set 60 years ago.
One question presented by T&G columnist Dianne Williamson, which was surprisingly not mentioned in either Nick K’s coverage in the T&G or Worcester Magazines liveblog of the event, set the tone of this campaign season for me. It was possibly the easiest question to answer and all four candidates failed miserably. Referring to the public records lawsuit the T&G is currently involved in with the WPD and City Administration, she asked:
‘is it appropriate that public money be used to keep public records from the public?’
The only answer, of course is “No, it is not OK.”
All four candidates wobbled on that one with the predictable answers we’ve been hearing since this public records debacle began. But it raises the question, how can we take anything a politician says sincerely if they believe the public system they function in should not be open to scrutiny by the public they represent? Without real transparency in government there is little reason to have faith in any of the position papers, talking points and claims of general awesomeness all four candidates seem to be comfortable presenting.