Here in the patch, no one knows Julie Toye. But more and more people are hearing about her. Or should we say, reading about her. And they are liking what they are reading.
Toye's blog is fast becoming "must" reading for anyone who wishes to obtain more than a cursory view of what's going on in Fayette County government. It was she -- not the Tribune-Review, not the Daily Courier, not HeraldStandard.com -- who kept on commissioner Vince Zapotosky until he filed his campaign expense report (five months late).
And now it is she who is following up on the last meeting of the Fayette County Election Board -- or rather, a behind-the-scenes but still newsworthy controversy about how that meeting came to fruition.
You can read about it here: http://www.julietoye.com/electionboardemails.html
Nor surprisingly, it appears that commissioner Angela Zimmerlink was an afterthought in this process. By way of Toye's reporting, we discover that Zimmerlink was not even consulted as to her availability for a date and time for the hearing. And her signature was solicited, it appears, after that date and time were set. (Who can blame her for saying thanks, but no thanks, to that sort of second-class treatment?)
This incident provides a great jumping off point to discuss the role of minority commissioner. More specifically, it affords an opportunity to debunk some common and often politically motivated myths.
One is that the "minority" commissioner, whoever that is, just can't get along with anybody. That myth is more often than not promulgated by the two commissioners who are running the show (and their supporters).
It easy for the majority partners (and they don't have to be from the same political party) to point to the one who isn't part of the power-sharing arrangement (or who doesn't wish to be), and portray that person as an undesirable governing partner. But just because that person isn't willing to quietly "play ball" doesn't make them unfit to govern.
The second myth is that the minority commissioner has nothing to offer, because he or she is always voting "no." Anyone who believes this one must first believe that all votes need to be unanimous (which means more often than not that they need to be ironed out ahead of time, away from the public eye). This myth is spread to try to undermine the credibility of the minority commissioner.
But as a tactic, it relies heavily on voter ignorance or apathy for success. It ignores the fact that the minority commissioner just might have a point, or a very good point, that just might sway the public into stopping or slowing down something the other two want to do
If the majority has a good idea -- "We are voting to lower taxes and bring in a new factory" -- not even the protest vote of the minority commissioner will dent public perception that this is a good thing. But if the majority has a bad idea -- "We are voting to hire someone now, and we'll set the salary later," or, "Let's change the ordinance now, we'll get public input and work out the details later" -- then the minority commissioner can and should be a thorn in the majority's paw. That is why the law forbids all three commisioners from being from the same political party.
These tricks of the trade have been used for years. Just ask Democrats Carmine Molinaro, Susanne Teslovich, Sean Cavanagh, Vince Vicites (when Cavanagh and Ron Nehls formed a working alliance), and Republican Zimmerlink. All have been the minority commissioner at one point in time.
Here in the patch, people still remember that these very same things were said about Cavanagh back when he was the odd man out in an administration where Vicites and Republican Harry Albert were running the show. As minority commissioner, Cavanagh used the only tool available to him -- the bully pulpit -- to push for an investigation into alleged voter fraud. It wasn't the majority leading that charge; it was the minority.
In the end -- surprise, surprise! -- voter fraud was documented.
Tactically speaking, there are powerful reasons for a ruling majority on any board to keep information and plans from the minority board member or members. The sooner the minority is informed or gets wind of something, the longer it has to analyze and strategize. The later the minority is informed or gets wind of something, the less time it has to do those things.
The more that the minority can be kept in the dark, and the darker the landscape can be made, the clearer the path for the majority to carry out its wishes.
We are sure that the powers that be don't like Toye, any more than they like us. But we hope that she keeps on asking questions and providing the answers that she gets. She provides valuable information and insight that isn't being supplied elswehere.
No comments:
Post a Comment