Once upon a time I was Principal Clarinetist of the Wyoming Symphony. There is a cultural difference between the East and the West that is important to remember if that is your job ...
Although in the East concerts begin at 8 p.m. in general in the West we prefer our concerts to start at 7:30.
I had been on the East Coast performing for a few weeks and had become so accustomed that luxurious additional 30 minutes in my day that I mentally blocked that concerts begin at 7:30 in Casper. I even arrived to the concert that evening at 7:30 way earlier than my usual anxiety inducing (for others) 5 minutes before the gig with idea of catching up with some folks before the show.
I walked in to hear the Overture to Candide already in progress.
OOPS!
Fortunately for me 3 months later I got hired to work in Washington D.C. because punctuality is not my strong suit and as it's a prerequisite in orchestral playing, Congress tends to have more of a soft 15 minute policy.
Last night I missed the Candide Overture again, this time as a tardy audience member. En route to Boettcher Concert Hall to hear the Colorado Symphony perform Beethoven's 7th Symphony friends and I encountered the march that was a part of the Denver branch of the "Occupy X" movement that is sweeping the nation and the world. I don't like Candide Overture so I'm glad I missed it. And in the context I was in I actually felt a little vindicated. Why should I feel obligated to hear the entire concert? I came to hear Beethoven, why should I have to suffer Bernstein in order to do that, I don't work here!
The context since I brought it up is witnessing for the first time with my own eyes the "Occupy" movement. I have no idea where this is going, but I saw a lot fo the Tea Party when I worked in Washington. I thought the Tea Party made some solid points but on a whole seemed disorganized without clear greivances or solutions ... does that description sound exactly like what people are saying about "Occupy"? I first heard about Occupy as a overnight thing ... that was a month ago, I thought the Tea Party was a fad also ... That was two years ago!
Adding to that was this was my first time going to the CSO since the beginning of that organizaitons revolution. I give this post the title Beethoven's 5.32th Symphony (I didn't come up with it, it was a suggestion by a friend) in support of the musiciains -many of whom are close friends who took a 20% pay cut to keep the organiziation a float. Where this and the Occupy Movement come together is the Occupy movement is raising voice against the very irrational assesment of value that the 20% pay cut embodies.
Occupy is saying something that is very important. Something Elizabeth Warren has recently and rightly become famous for saying in a way that needs to be heard. Even in a capitalist society the concept of distribution of wealth is ... well essential to the commonwealth. Of course those who by virtue of labor or accident of birth have control of many resources should enjoy and benefit from their abundance. Scarcity how people become wealthy. The control of a scarce resource is one way to do it, but an even better way to do it is to have control so much of an abundant resource that you make it scarce ... and get to control how scare it is. Currency is very good a serving that role and as a proxy makes abundant global resources appear scarce. We do not have a scarcity problem, we have a distribtion problem and it seems that these mini (CSO) and macro (occupy) revolutions are making clear that the clock is ticking on using false scarcity as an wealth generating tool.
I say all that to say this:
We have mini and macro revolutions occuring in Boulder right now. In my viewpoint the min-revolution is the municipal energy issue which though I oppose it I am fairly confident it will pass. This issue is having relatively a lot of attention as compared to what I think is the potentially macro-revoution, the City Council election. Where the municipal utility no matter the outcome of this election is most likely to have been a very expensive barganing chip of dubious value; it is who we elect to Council that will be guiding what happens next not only for light switches but what kind of City Boulder will become. Another local blogger has referenced this and after spending 2 years away I am more convinced that to ignore the direction the state and region is going is folly. And with the growth the region is going to experience in both the near term and longer term leave Boulder with exactly two choices:
Become a Suburb or a City in it's own right. There are no alternatives.
I strongly favor Boulder becoming a City in it's own right. Not only for quality of life issue but also some very practical reasons. That said it's not that Boulder becomes Denver northwest let alone New York as fearmongers suggest. It's that Boulder becomes the example of a modern, sustainable City that we have the potential to be. What Occupy and the Tea Party say about our national political structure is the same discussion being had by the Colorado Symphony and I will say here about Boulder's current direction:
It's simply not going to work.
It's not to say that Congress the former CEO of the CSO or PLAN Boulder/Sierra Club are not a. right about a lot of things b. well intentioned c. competent and thoughtful. It is to say that they are all a. also wrong about a lot of things b. prone to uninteneded and unmitigated consequences and c. too blinded by what they believe to be able to think rationally about the current actual state of play.
It is for that reason that I am going to do exactly what I have formerly criticized others for and not endorese a full slate of Candidates. When I ran for Council, partly because I thought it was good political strategy but also because I do think in an ideal world where everyone practiced politics with the intellectual honesty to acknowldege that even those who disagree with them deserve a voice; I suggested people use all their votes, voting for candidates that balance each other out ideologically with the result being a balanced Council of the best talent.
So now I am going to be a complete hypocrite and not only endorse a "bullet voting" slate but also with complete disregard to balance.
I will be voting for:
I reconcile my hypocrisy by saying this:
1. In a representative democracy having an all at-large council is ridicolous in the first place. This model only plays into the hands of those who want to load up the council with people who agree with them ideologically so they can run wild loose and free without any obstruction, delay or input from opposing viewpoints ... exaclty like I'm doing now.
and
2. I am going to at least own up to my bias right up front so you can decide for yourself and in case that wasn't clear enough I AM COMPLETELY BIASED.
I don't have anything against any of the incumbents. I know Ken, Lisa and George, I consider them freinds and I was colleagues with George on the Downtown Management Commission. I also expect all 3 will get re-elected and thats fine because I find them of the current council to be among the most reasonable as individuals even when I disagree with them personally. Their re-elections won't neccessarily move the City forward but they will also do no harm which in politics is frequently good enough.
Budget
I am supporting Dan because he is laser focused on long-term budget issues. That's the only reason, 100% litmus test style voting here, the exact type of thing I wish people wouldn't do I'm telling you I'm doing it this time because he's right about it. Don't let the largesse of some of our residents fool you. This city has deep structural budgetary problems that will either get fixed in a careful thoughtful way ... or in the next 15 years will take care of themselves in ways that will make Boulder a fundamentally different and worse place. I don't care what you're most important litmus test issue is, Open Space? Great, Recreation? Fantastatic, Conservation? Awesome. Whatever it may be it will be a non-starter unless we have people like Dan minding the store.
Representation
I am supporting Keving Hotaling because he is the youngest person on the ballot. That's the only reason, 100% litmus test style voting here. Ron Tupa told me once that he voted for me for that reason once (that he always votes for the youngest person on the ballot) It seemed like good advice, for starters, the youngest person is likely to live the results of their policy longer right? I also frequently agree with where Keving is trying to go (I don't always agree with how he wants to get there but that's why you have 8 other council members). Kevin has vision but more important experience being a young professional in Boulder in today's economy. I remember watching a Judiciary Committee hearing on technology and my former boss and current freind Jared Polis who was a member of the committee asked the only questions of the panel that were in anyway cogent. It's not to say the other members quesiton's weren't relevant, it is to say that they were clearly written by staff and the member didn't really understand the underlying meaning of the questions. Jared understood perfectly not because he's neccessarrily smarter than his colleagues ... But because HE'S 36 YEARS OLD and actually has used facebook and twitter before. It's bad enough that in an all at-large system neighborhoods don't have representation, leaving those of us who don't live in Whitier or University Hill without a real advocate for our potholes. If you want Boulder to have a future where people raise their families here (like perhaps you had the opportunity to) then you need young professionals to stay instead of graduate and move to Denver. A city with no children is a city with no future, and a city can't have children unless it has young professionals. If we plan to keep Boulder a vibrant diverse place then our council should reflect that. If you believe in representation vote for Keving Hotaling.
Vision
I am voting for Fenno Hoffman because he has vision. That's the only reason, 100% litmus test. I think more than anyone I've talked to Fenno Hoffman understands that lifestyles are going to be fundamentally different in the near future and we better be prepared for it. I find him practical, thoughtful and intellectualy honest. I also believe that Fenno is a neccessary counter balance to Macon Cowles. In some ways they are cut from the same intellectual cloth but Fenno has a much more sympathetic touch that will be important in having high minded debates but more importatnly keeping the council grounded when neccessary. If you recognize that Boulder cannot stay the same and prefer that Boulder get better over time vote for Fenno Hoffman
Virtue
I am voting for Mark Gelband out of pure virture. That's the only reason. Mark actually says what he thinks. He is apolitical (which if elected I'm sure will change somewhat but that will be ok politics is a team sport). I also almost always agree with Mark, if not from the begining he can usually win me over in discussion. I don't know if he is just persuasive or just right a lot but unlike some current members of the council he is NOT pious. When he is wrong he says so. I think there is and ought to be a distinction between an activist and a politician and Mark is certainly more on the activist end of the spectrum than I usually support in an election but the reality is the other side has activist on council already and their candidates are all at least where Mark is on the specturm between activist and politico so why shouldn't the side of good governance, pragmatism and breaking the special interest strangehold also have an activist. If you believe having a watchdog for pragmatism that knows how to bark on council is valuable, vote Mark Gelband.
You can vote for my slate, you can vote against these people because they are my slate, the most important thing to do however is vote. Then tell everyone you live with to vote, the make sure all of your freinds vote. The election year before a presidential year typically has the lowest voter turnout of the cycle. It is my hope that the passion of Occupy may yield a voter turnout higher than the abysmally low participation in municipal elections because though some of our problems may have been caused on Wall Street, or Pennsylvania Avenue, or Colfax, we live here and the solutions that will allow Boulder to continue to be the amazing place to live that it is will by and large either be produced or unfortunately defeated at 1777 Broadway.
Now please, go vote! And then buy some tickets to the Colorado Symphony. The orchestra played great as usual last night but the most interesting thing about last night's performance was the audience. I was wearing flip flops and jeans, and I wasn't the only one. The audience was younger than I've ever seen at an orchestra concert and they gave a Philip Glass violin concerto a standing ovation. There is indeed something happening not only in America right now but at the CSO as well and where it remains to be seen where any of these culture shifts go, I am somehow the most optimistic about the revolution that is happening at the Colorado Symphony. It is my hope that Boulder can also ride this wave to become the city she must become for the future.
10-19-11
P.S.
I've decided to use my fifth vote after all ...
Realizing that on the one hand I am statistically reducing the chances of my candidates but on the other hand that the difference is nominal and is more likely to NOT CHANGE what is the most likely outcome that all 3 incumbents get re-elected. As I said above I don't see any reason why the incumbents as individuals deserve to be fired. They have their own voices, their own constituencies, all of whom deserve a voice whether I agree with them or not, and I think all three serve their ideological constiuencies well.
With that said I am going to use my fifth vote for Ken Wilson, though I could easily use it for George to get the same desired effect ... Mayor Ageton.
Lisa represents her constiuency well and is almost certainly going to get re-elected but I don't think she would support Suzy for Mayor which for me is a HUGE litmus test when I look at the potential make-up of the next council.
For those of you who are not from Boulder reading this (or those who are but need a Boulder civics refresher) aside from the already undemocratic all at-large system we have for our City Council which lends itself readily to the council too busy bringing home the bacon for their idelogical special interest constituentcies to be bothered with how to fix their neighborhood potholes, our Mayor is elected by the Council from its members.
The executive powers of the City rest with the City Manager however the Mayor is more than just a figurehead. I have heard folks downplay the role of Mayor, mostly those who support whichever special interest regime that has a strangelhold on the city government at the time but you should be aware of one important thing:
The Mayor and the Deputy Mayor have PERMANENT seats on the Council Agenda Committee. This is a very big deal as it is the "CAC" that decides what issues the council will take up. As an example we have a corporate personhood referendum on the ballot this year. Whether you support it or not, we wouldn't be having the community discussion if Mayor Osborne didn't want to talk about it on council.
Of the current members of the Council I find Suzy Ageton to be the best suited to lead Boulder for the next two years. Her combination of institutional memory, insight to the needs of the broader community and thoughtful, pragmatic approach to problem solving will be exactly what we need as move forward with issues like municipalization (which I suspect will win) and budget reform ...
Not to mention she gets the highest number of votes of all the candidates every time she runs which is the best proxy for who the people might want to have as their Mayor.
The Mayoral election is the most inside baseball Boulder's otherwise transparent government gets. But make no mistake that it is intensely political and the decision which by and large you as a voter are not party to has serious policy outcomes.
So succumbing to the campaign mailer I received with a picture of Ken standing next to Suzy I choose him for my fifth vote for no other reason that he reminded me how important it is for Suzy to become Mayor.
There’s a direct link between the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement and PLAN-Boulder County’s (PBC) vise grip control of Boulder politics. OWS’s primary issue is control of our political system by the financial 1% elite of the US, and their nearly complete lack of accountability to the other 99% rest of us. PBC is an elite 300 member organization, representing 1/3rd of 1% of Boulder’s population, that has controlled Boulder City Council for over 3 decades.
At every level of government, elites have devised electoral systems that result in their continued control. In US elections, it’s through a two party system with an electoral college that advantages rural conservative states, a US Senate based on land not people, gerrymandered districts protecting each party, and big money buying “free speech”. In Boulder, PBC has structured an electoral system that favors slates, at-large seats that overly represent the west side of Boulder, a mayor elected by 5 people, and Republican style voter suppression with low turnout, off-year elections.
Is two-tiered Boulder citizenship with near total control by PBC elitists legitimate? Do PBC’s policies favoring low density urban sprawl, causing more traffic and pollution, make for good, sustainable, environmentally sound urban policy? Do you want more PBC generated regulations and restrictions on your lifestyle, housing and open space? Change starts at home. Please vote to shake up the status quo, and break PBC’s elitist control of Boulder. I'm following Shawn's lead, voting for Mark Gelband, Fenno Hoffman, Kevin Hotaling and Dan King. I would write you in Shawn, except that I'm not sure the Boulder County Clerk could handle it. Maybe next time you'll run (again).
Jesse Kumin
Posted by: Jesse Kumin | October 20, 2011 at 04:47 PM