On the eve of Worcester's municipal election

On this eve of Worcester's municipal election, I offer the following thoughts, while looking back to what I wrote almost two years ago about the Worcester School Committee, though this is as much about Worcester City Council as it is about the Committee.

Please enjoy this fun "winter is coming" view
of Cannon Mountain last weekend.

Governance takes a majority. 

This seems really obvious, right? But the degree to which I haven't seen that being a theme in this election, is just weird to me. 

People run for reasons: they want to make particular changes, or they want to keep particular things, or they want to be sure particular people, ideas, themes are part of decision making. But wanting those things isn't enough. 
Nor is making speeches about them, even if you do those speeches over and over again.¹ 

I've really seen this theme this election of candidates "stand up for" or "speak up for" X. And if you're someone who has never served in office, that's fine.
But if you have served in office, and you're either running for re-election, or you're running for a different seat, the piece that I (for one) would expect you also to incorporate is how you've worked with others to get towards what you advocate for, or how you would if you served.

The analogy of elections as a bus is relevant here: the bus may not go exactly where you want, so the thing to do is take the one getting you as close as possible to that point.
What we seem to have is a lot of this sense that elected officials making speeches at the bus station about where they want to go is the idea.
It isn't.
The bus only moves if a MAJORITY of the elected body want it to go in a particular direction.

Governance has to work with who is at the table.

You don't always get all the people at the table you want. I see a lot of "we just need to overturn the majority!" sentiment in election after election in Worcester.
That's fine.
But then what if you don't?
Once you have a seated governance body, that's your group. That's what you've got. If you jump straight to "wait til next election," then you've lost your years.
And if you write off those you didn't support at that table, you may well be resigning yourself to getting nothing done.
There's been an enormous amount of coverage of our governance bodies that set them up as teams. That's not only not helpful; it isn't even how they function a lot of the time.²
And if you decide that some group of the elected body is the equivalent of the Yankees³, and never shall you consider them, then you should throw in the towel now. You're just not going to get things done.

Governance means you listen to those who are at the table: what are the things that they talk about; what is important to them; what do they value.
And then, the big one: where does that overlap with what you want to get done?

Note, importantly, that this does not ask that you give up non-negotiables like civil rights. You absolutely should not. But much doesn't require that at all.

It does mean you have to take those at the table seriously, because they're at the table, like it or not.⁴ 

Governance should be boring.

Getting from point A to point B often means wrestling through the finer points of policy: how do you get to a point that a majority can agree to on something one wants to get done?

That does not make for dramatic speeches, and it doesn't make for exciting interchanges, most of the time.

That's actually fine.

Governance requires getting policy language and budget allocations hammered out such that a majority agrees. That doesn't make for day after video clips or hours of talk radio.

That's also fine.

I do not expect my elected officials to be buddies with each other; in fact, I'd rather than at least some of them are not. 

I do expect them to talk to each other professionally both in and out of meetings. 

Reminder: you need not use all the options you have. I myself am a committed bullet voter.
Not sure where you vote? Check here.

________________________________________________________

¹Take it from someone who took a lot of 6-1 votes in her first term.

²To give just one example: the "progressive" change made this past term that arguably has the most daily impact on most of us is the citywide 25 MPH speed limit. That was passed on a unanimous City Council vote after an extensive public process that included multiple hearings across the city and a public petition. That all ran through a subcommittee chaired by Donna Colorio, a Republican.
And that is, again, but one example.

³Obligatory "Yankees as Evil Empire" post-baseball season reference

⁴And yes, I do know exactly what I am saying here. And I am also here to say that it can work.