Commentary: Process Worked But Not What We Expected

In planning for the tragedy, Councilmember Stephen Souza used the unfortunate phrase that this would be an election in everything but name.  It was not.

He continues, “While it’s impossible to judge what candidates might have emerged and who would have been elected if we’d had a real election, I’m confident that had these 10 been on the ballot, Dan would have won going away …”

That is probably a pretty accurate assessment.  To be extremely honest, it is not likely that better candidates would have emerged to run for election.  They did not back in 2010.  And this was an easier and cheaper process to go through.

As we graded out the candidates, it seemed pretty clear to us at the end of the night, the final two were the two best in the field.  The council, from our perspective, got it right.

And there is much to like about Paul Boylan, who certainly got people’s attention.  In the end, Dan Wolk was a safer pick.

Having to do things over again, I am sure the council would have done things a bit differently, including finding a way to winnow it down to five before the start of the night.  But even that was manageable, although it made for some difficulty for candidates to explain unfunded liabilities and other complex issues in 90 seconds.

The council talked about codifying the process, as some sort of recommendation for future councils on how to approach vacancies.  I think that would be a good idea, as there is a lot of learning that occurred on the way.

Not all is bread and roses, however.  One of our big fears was that this would be a free-for-all circus.  Perhaps one reason it was not is that the candidates that emerged did not attempt to stack the room with their supporters and filibuster at the mic.  That was a concern coming in.

With requirements for public comment and a public vote, we could have seen such a scene.  Instead, the opposite turns out to be the biggest concern – a complete lack of public interest.

I know a lot of people watched at home, as I got emails and text messages all night.  But inside the chambers, we had many more people for the Golden Heart Awards (which, by the way, is not the worst thing either) than we did to watch the next council selection.

A lot of people thanked the Vanguard for its coverage of the process, and we certainly appreciate this, but it was a mixed bag there too.  Often, the articles on the candidates did not attract many comments or readership.

Those who pay attention will note that our “Live Coverage of Decision Night” was not even the top “most read” in the last 30 days that the system tracks, and falls well shy of our high points.

We did draw our biggest readership of the year on Tuesday, but not by very much.  And nowhere near records on previous dates.

Bottom line, there was a little interest at the end of the process, but not a ton. 

There are probably several reasons for that.  One is that the voters themselves did not get to select the process, even if they got a lot of input.

Second, the candidates all seemed like good and decent people.  Even the ones we might have disagreed with on the issues seemed like good and dedicated people.

Third, along the same lines, there was no villain.  A good villain is always a good draw for readership.  If villain is too strong for your sensibilities, we can settle for antagonist.  There are some good antagonists for the Vanguard over the years that have been sure to draw out readers, but not so here.

So our fears were not borne out in the end, in part because I suspect most people just did not care enough to try to rig the process or even strongly influence it.

Dan Wolk did have a few letters to the editor in support, but though people will point to his name, I honestly think that the council was prepared to vote for someone else if one appeared to be the better candidate.  I’m not just assuming this either, as I had spoken extensively to both candidates and councilmembers and that was my real sense.

Dan Wolk presented the best blend of the issues, temperament, and professionalism.  He understood the history of touchy issues like the Richards Underpass and avoided getting hung up about it.

He is also where the council now is on the issues.  What was emerging is less of the 3-2 polarity we saw in the Saylor council.  What has emerged is more centrist and more consensus.

Moreover, Dan Wolk is a nice guy.  Not a phony nice guy who is going to turn around and stab you in the back when you are not looking.  Not a guy who will be pleasant on the street and then try to rig or shut down process to achieve his ends.

Instead, Dan Wolk appears to be the kind of guy who will be thoughtful and reflective, listen to the public, and try to work with his colleagues.

What has emerged in the last two months has been nothing short of remarkable.  And Dan Wolk appears to have been the best bet to continue that.  In the end, that is why he drew support not only from Joe Krovoza and Rochelle Swanson, but also Sue Greenwald.  And most of the time even from Stephen Souza.

He wants to work on the unfunded liabilities and the pension crisis, in part, because he is a young person raising a family.  He will have challenges along the way, as will the council, but I think they are now well positioned to deal with those challenges with a bit of calmness and rationality.

This is not a council that has been bought and paid for by developers or by city employees.  And they have a chance to make a huge impact on our future.

—David M. Greenwald reporting