Incumbency: Pluses and Minuses

This coming November 2010 election will have two incumbents running for re-election in each of the two districts, #2 and #4.  As of now, it looks like it will be Commissioner Jennings in District #2 running against Carla Blockson and Commissioner Mulvehill running against Lisa Maxwell.

Interestingly, my tracking software indicates that one of the most popular of recent blog posts in one that has my resignation letter from the Lake Worth Community Redevelopment Agency.  In it, I quote the section of the City Code of Ordinances shown above.  It is relatively new, adopted in 1999, and was in reaction to abuse of one's appointed position on a board and running for office.  

What is the effect of this ordinance?  Well, I can speak from experience in that I was on two boards each of the times I was considering running for a Commission seat.  The first time, I was on the Planning and Zoning Board and at the time of qualifying I had one year left in my appointment.  So, do you  run for an elected office, losing your appointed post and, if you lose, then you are sidelined for a while?  If you do lose, your successful opponent isn't going to be too anxious to appoint you to any other board - at least that's been my experience.  In the final analysis, you are betting that you win. I am sure others have made the choice to stay on the board and not risk running for office.

By the way, the question of whether you write a letter or not when you qualify is moot. I was told that if I didn't submit a resignation letter, it would be done automatically upon qualifying.  The position would be declared vacant.

There are some other unintended consequences of this ordinance and it weighs in favor of any elected incumbent.  One is that they can continue to campaign from the dais all the way up to election day!  We'll continue to see the "jumping in front of parades" and "Official Proclamations" - all in the process of building up the incumbents' "bullet points" for their flashy campaign materials.  

This has come more to the fore now in that one of the potential opponents of an incumbent is on an appointed city board.  People are calling for this person to "follow the spirit of the law" and resign since it is widely accepted that they are campaigning now.  That's not what that section of the ordinance says though.  Talking this way only enforces the strength of the incumbent's hand.  More time out of the "limelight" for the challenger, meanwhile the incumbent can be getting fluff pieces through the Ministry of Information (aka PBP.)  What if the incumbent had to resign to run?  

What other ways does an incumbent benefit?  Name recognition is a key one as is the ability to appear before just about every neighborhood association or civic meeting at a drop of the hat.  That also relates to access - sort of like having the "keys to the King/Queendom."  And, regardless of what you think, they have well-healed supporters that can network and get the funds for campaign coming in regular flows.  There are also those in the community that may benefit and have a good rapport with the incumbent, but may have basic philosophical differences with the incumbent.  While they may actually vote for the opponent based upon their beliefs, they will be reluctant to show public support in terms of yard sign or contribution.  That can make a difference in a close election.  Likewise, there is a bandwagon mentality to go with the "winner" - the person that has proven they can win in a campaign.  They are the likely "bet" that may pay off in the future.  They've also had the benefit of meeting many citizens in the regular day-to-day duties of their elected position.

So, in many ways, instead of adhering to some unwritten "spirit" of the law, if anything, I would like to eliminate the requirement to resign from an appointed board - period.  I think we would get better qualified candidates and it would help level the playing field.  But how likely is that when you have sitting commissioners that will be running again in control of the dais.

In the last election, I was the only one that ran against an incumbent.  I am not suggesting that was the reason for the outcome - there were many, but it did play a part.  And don't discount the importance of the Ministry of Information's (aka PBP) endorsement - even they tilted toward the incumbent.  One of the reasons cited was that she was the incumbent.  Brilliant thinking.

Of course, the negative aspect to being an incumbent, especially in our angry local and national political climate, is that there is a motivation for change.  People are fed up with government as usual and are willing to "throw the bums out" as one candidate kept saying during our last election.  It is also negative for an incumbent to have a poor voting record, but sometimes that depends on the voter's point of view.  But, and this happened to me, if you start talking about your opponent's record, you are immediately charged by their supporters as being negative. Their supporters immediately will take that "information' around to everyone who will listen about how negative their opponent is being.  

Regardless, it is still better to be an incumbent - unless there is some EGREGIOUS (one of the banned words) act that so resonates negatively with the public image of the incumbent.  

Just my opinion, I'd like to hear yours.