With October upon us it’s nearly November and time to elect another batch of fellow residents to City Council to replace those who are quitting for better-paying vineyard jobs, who promised only to serve one term, whose several terms expired and they’re exhausted, and/or whose monthly canasta game conflicted with Council meeting dates.
Candidates deserving of consideration will surely seek to “solve long-standing city problems,” “serve my fellow citizens by managing prudent, effective, and productive city government,” “preserve Sonoma’s charm and expand its economy for future generations,” and (always good for a laugh) “build more affordable housing.”
So who are they? For starters, they are all friends and neighbors deserving of our sincere thanks and appreciation for being willing to devote their time to campaign for and serve on a Council whose job it is to choose Citizen of the Year, hire consultants, and create Commissions to get things done. (Ed. Note: The recently created Parks & Recreation Committee sadly dissolved following insufficient Committee interest in parks and recreation).
This year’s Council hopefuls are a mix: prominent citizens; current Councilmembers; candidates unsuccessful in previous elections; and ‘newbies’ – all willing to risk the humiliation of voter rejection for the sake of our community.
To acquaint voters with the hopefuls, there are the usual Q & A candidate forums hosted by local media and “business interests,” plus individual candidate exposures (a) in local papers, (b) on their own campaign websites, and (c) in private/secret campaign “events” hosted by movers, shakers, and grifters (allegedly) whose sincere expectations are (allegedly) expressed with firm handshakes containing wads of campaign cash.
Of course, the ultimate display of support that binds every Sonoma voter’s good name and reputation to that of a candidate is The Candidate Yard Sign. It is down-home local politics at its American Best, further sanctified by the fact that City Council elections are officially “Non-Partisan.” Per Section 334 of the California Election Code:
“Nonpartisan office” means an office, except for a voter-nominated office, for which no party may nominate a candidate.
This reflects our State Legislature’s (a) firm commitment that rancorous partisan politics should not pollute the local elections so important to allowing our communities to function as The Founders intended, and (b) sense of humor.
Alas, in these trying times of political upheaval; a lingering Plague; mass shootings; the January 6th insurrection against the nation fomented (allegedly) by a defeated (allegedly) former president; the cancellation of women’s right to abortion by the Holy Roman Supreme Court; and an (alleged) nationwide effort by one political party to restrict the right to vote and (allegedly) seize power at every level of government by means fair or foul, PLUS the suspected (alleged) impending “gifting” of Sonoma Developmental Center to “special interests” (allegedly), it is unlikely that sentient voters anywhere seriously believe that anything involving voting – from Senior Class President to the Westminster Kennel Club ‘Best In Show’ – could ever be “non-partisan.”
Given the raging discord among voters nationwide, the most likely question Sonoma’s Council candidates could face is sharply partisan, reminiscent of the darkest days of post-WWII McCarthyism but with an unexpected twist: “Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Republican Party?”
Fortunately, in 2022 the truthfulness of their replies can be instantly checked. Right, Siri?
Be First to Comment