Tuesday, January 1, 2008

White Hats

Not every issue that confronts the New Albany City Council is predictable. Mr. Coffey's traditional charm offensive, his "presenting" behavior in front of the incoming council members, is designed to disarm them, to present a disinformative view of his basic approach to his civic duties.

Some have even suggested more-Machiavellian motives to the District 1 representative. D3 rep Steve Price was embarrassed to admit in a fall forum that his voting record tracked religiously to Mr. Coffey's, with Mr. Price voting in lockstep with Mr. Coffey more than 98% of the time. At least one correspondent suggested that Mr. Coffey's recent support of a 3% raise for the police, and his advocacy for Haven House to receive $50,000, were a ruse to allow Mr. Price to vote against the measures and thus assert his independence as he moves into his second term.

This observer does not expect to see a "new" Dan Coffey. Once this new council defeats his nomination to chair the proceedings, and further rebuffs his "claim" as the losing candidate to be the vice, we'll see the predictable Coffeyesque grandstanding. The avowed allegiance to now-Mayor England will evaporate. The collegiality shown during the seduction phase of the Coffey quadrennial courtship ritual will go "poof."

But we spend too much time on Mr. Coffey. Except for the fact that he consumes an inordinate proportion of each meeting with his "expert" opinions on matters ranging from Pakistani internal security to the erosional qualities of steep slopes, from the nature of crime in metropolitan Chicago to the intransigent poverty of a portion of the city he does everything in his power to keep in poverty, Mr. Coffey has become irrelevant.

It is only if he is able to co-opt Mrs. Benedetti (D5), Mr. McLaughlin (D4), or others, that Mr. Coffey has any relevance.

Mrs. Benedetti remains an enigma. Most reporters relate that she is ardently community-minded, the prototypical soccer mom, a volunteer in the best tradition, and far more than a stalking horse for her brother the developer of cookie-cutter greenfield strips.

Mr. McLaughlin waged a timid campaign and yet still demolished the severely diminished Kochert "machine." We ask whether Mr. McLaughlin will be the "Donnie Blevins" of this new council. Will Mr. McLaughlin be the quintessential swing vote throughout the next four years? Based on the cautious way he campaigned in 2007, we fear that Pat will be the pivot around which the council totters. In some ways, that's not a bad position to be in if you have initiatives you want to press. But based on his campaign, Mr. Mac "don't have no initiatives."

This blogger, for one, does not desire to see any council member occupying the "on the other hand" seat. JC said it best: If you are lukewarm, I will spew you out.

On limited information, Shadow5 feels a sense of guarded optimism about D2's Bob Caesar. On first impression, Caesar is a sincere and somewhat involuntary politician. On second glance, he is a skilled operator with a determined agenda. Early indications are that Mr. Caesar has patched over any dissonance between his positions and those of the England triumvirate. Judgment is reserved as to whether that is a positive development.

Shadow5 expresses full confidence in the judgment of new at-large council member John Gonder. We are equally ebullient at Mr. Messer's return to council. The addition of Mr. Caesar and Mr. McLaughlin is something to cheer, especially in light of who they replaced. Mr. Zurschmiede, so far, has shown a decided lack of partisanship (wisely, given his dramatic party minority position) and a promising sense of progressivism.

Mr. Gahan displays the requisite skills and accessibility. Some have touted him as a future mayoral candidate. We continue to view Gahan as a "white hat," although we continue to be puzzled by his adamant insistence on supporting a clearly unlawful redistricting ordinance.

The best news for New Albanians is that the "Gang of Four" is deceased. Although it could be resurrected, that is unlikely. Time marches on, and with any luck, the remaining duo of that formerly troublesome quartet will be serving out their final terms. The optimist in me hopes for new maturity in the youngest of that duo, but fears the worst. And for the elder, it's going to take much more than a two-month charm offensive to raise even the slightest hopes of redemption and renewal.

One recalls that Mr. Coffey marched in lockstep with drum major Kochert in fighting the requests of the police and fire departments for most of the last four years. One recalls that Mr. Coffey was one of the most vocal in opposing support for Haven House, this community's sole homeless shelter program.

Then we watched as Mr. Coffey championed the 3% raise for the police and a $50,000 grant to Haven House. Forgive us for being suspicious. Absent something more than conjecture, it's hard to imagine a Damascene conversion. Based on the last month's perorations and advocacies*, we'd almost believe that Dan Coffey is a Democrat!

*except for his insistence on maintaining unequal legislative districts, no matter the cost, no matter the inequity and no matter the violations of well-established Constitutional norms.

At best, we can look for a rational majority consisting of Gonder, Messer, McLaughlin, Caesar, and Zurschmeide. We can hope that Benedetti and Gahan will join that majority from time to time. Price (D3) and Coffey (D1) can be counted to vote against the city's best interests, whether out of ignorance or out of some persecuted sense that "somebody" is getting something they aren't. That is a recipe that will ensure their defeat in the next election.

Here's hoping they like the power they wield. Here's hoping the remaining "Gang of Two" want to remain in office and will vote to enhance and revivify their moribund districts with new residents, new businesses, and new opportunity.

We can hope, can't we? And here's hoping that the phrase "Gang of Two" becomes a common, but irrelevant blog label. We'd love to retire it. And we shudder to think that the "two" becomes three or four.

4 comments:

Iamhoosier said...

I would respectfully disagree with one of your positions. Can you guess which one?

All4Word said...

Perhaps I do...on the other hand, perhaps I don't.

Iamhoosier said...

Well put.

There is a difference between "on the other hand" and what Mr. Blevins appeared to go through.

OTH can understand that, usually, there is not ONE correct answer. OTH can understand the points on both/all sides of an issue. Mr. Blevins, while apparently a good guy, was in over his head. He rarely understood one side, much less multiple sides. He seemed more concerned about who he was going to make mad. Of course, that is generally speaking.(smile)

It takes all kinds to make any system truly work. I would agree(without reservation)that a council made up of OTH's would never get anything done. I would also state that a council made up only of those who "know" would also not get anything done, because they each "know" something different. My experience has been the OTH's are the ones who bring 2 or more "knows" together. Now you have 3 or more who know. Ya know?

Iamhoosier said...

"OTH" should be "OTOH". I don't think that should trip up anybody.