GREENDALE FORUM

It was interesting to view the dynamics of he meeting. It's clear that 2 of the 3 candidates share a similar background in their education and work experience. It's a good thing to be able to see the candidates in a less-scripted venue such as the forum last week.

By the way, Smith, did you see that the questions from the floor were being fed to the moderator as the forum progressed? The candidates responded to several questions that came up during the meeting. No conspiracy to prevent hard questions from coming up!

My impressions:
Mr. Barbian was clearly the most conversant with the the issues facing the village, and with the current village plans and options to address them. Mr. Barbian obviously emphasized his experience in local government as his strongest asset for the position of Trustee.

Ms. Joers-Yanish, like Mr. Barbian, has substantial experience in business management, and seemed comfortable discussing financial issues, and it seems, from her references to her work history, that she also has experience with trying to work through influence, rather than just authority, which is important when you are trying to work to resolve conflicting constituent needs (maintain services vs. lower taxes).

Mr. Genz's work experience is in building trades, and he has a keen understanding of the need to keep costs under control. That was his main focus in many of his answers to the questions, and he specifically emphasized his desire to make cuts and lower taxes.

The Greendale NOW section in the newspaper's article did a fine job of summarizing the forum. I actually sat near the reporter as she took notes during the meeting, and it was interesting to see how well she captured the talking points of each candidate.

The moderator at the end emphasized how important it is to turn out and vote during this election. Since it's a local-only election, the turn-out is likely to be light. I hope that we can all encourage our neighbors to come to the polls on Tuesday 6 April, and vote this time. Maybe that will lower the rhetoric about conspiracies and such.

Yes Smith, I remember the question about being responsive to Greendale Residents, and I remember the moderator reading, fumbling, and re-wording to a more general question. I also recall that all 3 candidates were very clear on being willing to get back to residents, but that none of them were guaranteeing that they would do everything that every resident asked them to do. I don't have a problem with that. Do you?

It seems that you find the trustees are, or have been, unresponsive to your communications, but I hark back to something my grandmother used to say about praying: "Sometimes when people say that God didn't answer a prayer, what they are really saying is that they didn't get the answer they wanted. Don't forget, 'No' is also an answer."

It's a conspiracy I tell ya, it's a conspiracy! Those running the forums are just out to make politicians look good and residents look bad!


Interesting. In 2006 I sent an email, and left a voicemail, with Sally Chadwick. Never heard back. I've dealt with both Birminghams, and Barbian, and all have been responsive.


Perhaps you dropped the "f-bomb" too many times in your question.


OK, so I didn't.

In fairness to the other two candidates, Barbian's been to more meetings and is a bit more versed than someone sitting in the audience or watching from home. Granted, you can pick up a lot of information from that perspective, but those in office do get packets of info for the meeting those in the audience do not.

Personally, I think any candidate should attend meetings starting six months before the election so they have a good grasp of what is going on come election season.

I may have to side with Smith on this one. Being an unresponsive public official, at a village, township or city level, is unacceptable. They do not have so many constituents that they can't respond to every email or phone call they get. They may not be able to fix every problem, but they should at least get answers. The courtesy of a reply is expected.

As I said, censoring. (It was already a general question.)



I also recall politicians, generally, all claim to be fiscal hawks, yet here we are with government spending seemingly increasing every year.

I only asked for the courtesy of a response from those in government who are to deal with matters of public interest and be, I believe, responsive to the public which they serve. You are a master of the straw man. I wonder, though, if it is intentional misdirection or if you don't know it.



I wouldn't presume to suggest that God do anything, unless He (yes, He) said He would. You don't really mean to make such a comparison, do you: God and government?

No, Smith, not in any way trying to set up an equivalence between God and Government.

Just suggesting that there is a substantial difference between
-- "not responding"
-- "not responding in the way I want"
-- "not responding to the same question from the same person for the nth time"

I of course know nothing about your particular circumstance, and you don't want to discuss it here. My experiences with the government officials in Greendale has been that they have responded to me when I made inquiries, but that sometimes their response was: Sorry, but we can't do that, and sometimes their response was: We have heard your request, but we cannot make a decision about that at this time. Both are legitimate replies, although neither is the response that I was hoping to get.

I am sorry that you appear to have had some unsatisfactory exchanges with local government officials. I don't share your dissatisfaction, and I continue to wish you well in your future endeavors.

Good, because they don’t seem to be on the same page around America these days.



Why are you suggesting those things?

I never said that they didn't respond in the way I want. (I do later in this post make mention of one trustee responding that way.)

Nor did I suggest that I have asked repeatedly for a response. I think that I expressly requested that courtesy only one time. (It might be I assumed a courtesy once, didn't get it, and asked for it another time (and didn't get it from most). I'd have to review my records to know for sure.




And, yet, you seem to believe that your advice would somehow be valuable? Hence a lesson in the substantial difference between:
-- "not responding"
-- "not responding in the way I want"
-- "not responding to the same question from the same person for the nth time"




Here's the point, Firefly. You GOT a response. I didn't GET a response from the Trustees from whom I courteously asked for one (with the exception of one of them).

Was I happy with the content of that response? Not really. Am I faulting the trustee for that? No, I am only one person of many in Greendale and this particular trustee, who did me the courtesy of a response is to balance my request with what he/she believes is best for the community and/or the lawful will of the majority. That's all right, that's how it works. But this one trustee does get some respect and gratitude from me for responding. The rest...not so much respect for their failure of courtesy.



Well thanks for your kind words. Hope your April 1st was the best April 1st ever!

Don't know how Firefly's April 1 turned out, but I think April 6 seemed pretty good.

Barbian: 1,114 votes
Genz: 877 votes
Noelle Joers-Yanisch: 658 votes