ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL
Campaign events are scattered throughout the community as we race toward election day. Candidates will soon release statements about how much money they've raised at the events they've held, and the serious ones are knocking on doors in their districts. Even the cold weather cannot deter our adventurous office seekers from meeting the folks they hope to serve. The folks of Riverwest held their 3rd district aldermanic candidate forum on Tuesday, January 29th, 2008, and the Brady Street Association followed the day later. Both were full house events, and there were still some hangers-on at the Hi-Hat on the 30th, long after the debate had ended.
The Riverwest event conflicted with the City of Milwaukee Birthday Party celebration at the Pfister Hotel keeping us away, but milwaukeeworld friend and Riverwest resident Tea Krulos was there and he shares his impression of the night and the candidates with us here. Take it away, Tea!
--Michael Horne
MEET THE CANDIDATES FOR 3rd DISTRICT ALDERMAN
By Tea Krulos, 3rd district resident
January 29 is a cold and stormy night, but that doesn’t stop a standing room only crowd of the people, 150 plus, from showing up at the Gordon Park pavilion for a 3rd district aldermanic forum. The Riverwest Currents and the Riverwest Neighborhood Association sponsor the event, and indeed most of the audience appears to be long time Riverwest citizens.
To start, each candidate is given two minutes to explain why he or she would be best suited for alderman.
John Connelly starts. He is an organized speaker with a comprehensive plan, but not enthusiastic. He cites his past experience in city government, including his work with District Attorney John Chisholm.
Sura Faraj has brought a group of vocal supporters and boldly asks
“People who support me, please raise your hand.” About thirty or so hands shoot up with some whooping. Faraj’s pitch is “I am one of you.” And she mentions her neighborhood, environmental, and arts work.
Patrick Flaherty promises to “regain your trust” to the alderman’s office and “return your phone calls”. He seems to speak from the heart but is awkward at times.
Dan Fouliard is certainly an eccentric candidate, his ideas veer wildly and are hard to follow. He steps from the table and addresses the audience floor level without a mic. He speaks about how he recently took the Urban Plunge, a program in which participants go homeless for the weekend to bring attention to the issue. Next up he will be publishing a newspaper called The Advocate For Milwaukee, which is due out February 8 and will outline his platform in great detail. The paper has only cost him ten cents per copy and “This is the type of thinking I’ll bring to City Hall.” Fouliard’s ideas seem to be a coin toss between the ambitious and the ridiculous.
“I love this city, but I know it could be better.” Nik Kovac states. He mentions he a lifelong eastsider who has participated in many local organizations.
Sam McGovern-Rowen says that as legislative assistant to 3rd district alderman Mike D’Amato he has “rolled his sleeves up, standing on the street corners, working for you, and I love my job.” McGovern-Rowen certainly has detractors due to his association with Mike D’Amato, the ultimate baddie in some people’s book. The crowd here is generally fair to him, only offering him some low grumbling and one person overthrowing the moderator with their own snippy question.
Matt Nelson appears to be the youngest candidate. He stands up and speaks painfully loudly into the mic. “Put your hand up if you’re for more economical stability!” he instructs the crowd, and a few people skeptically indulge him. He then reads a poem by Langston Hughes.
David Schroeder is a gruff straight shooter. He spends a great deal of time railing against a recent column by Milwaukee Journal Sentinel writer Daniel Bice, which is strange because that column focuses mostly on an odd legal fight by Dan Fouliard. “Take me or leave me, I’m going to run.” He tells the audience.
The second question for the candidates is certainly a concern to us all. “What ideas do you have regarding keeping our streets safe in Riverwest?”
Schroeder goes for prevention and deterrence and Nelson loudly cites “solving economic conditions.”
McGovern-Rowen mentions nuisance properties and businesses, citing specifically Montell’s Lounge on Holton Street. “You have to look these people in the eye and say, we’re shutting your drug bar down today.”
Kovac speaks on the importance of block watches, speeding his spiel up to slide in under the two minutes allocated each candidate for an answer.
“Most violent crimes happen at bar time and the people involved are intoxicated.” Fouliard says, urging a need for increased police presence at last call.
Flaherty has helped organize walking groups and also mentions targeting nuisance properties and using “city policy in creative ways.”
Faraj says it’s important to set “short term, mid range, and long term plans.” She also mentions having a healthy, honest relationship with the police.
Connelly stresses the importance of collaborative efforts between the community and police and suggests setting up community prosecutors for districts one and five.
The third and final question directed to all candidates is “What common council committee would you join?”
Kovac says Zoning and Neighborhood Development (ZND) and Nelson goes for Finance.
Schroeder says he would initially go for ZND because “there is a lot of stuff going on under the table that needs to be stopped.” This receives a lot of amens from the audience.
Faraj jokes on the square that she wants to be chair of ZND. She has gone to their meetings before, she says, and was dismayed by apathy on the committee. “Zoning might not be a sexy thing, but it’s a necessary, public thing.”
Flaherty and McGovern-Rowen would choose the Judiciary Legislative committee and McGovern-Rowen says he “wakes up in the morning thinking how can I fight urban sprawl today.”
Connelly lists Public Safety, Licensing, Financing and Personnel, and ZND as interests.
Foliard says Finance, Art, and ZND as his favorites and also suggests the new positions of vice-alderman and six aldermanic advisors. This posse of eight would apparently split the alderman’s salary pot between them.
The candidates must now face questions written by the audience, directed at individuals, or in general.
McGovern-Rowen is asked the question that everyone expects, “What separates you from alderman D’Amato?” He responds by assuring “I am a completely different person.” “I am not Mike D’Amato.”
Flaherty is asked is he can shift focus from LGBT issues to wider ones, and he points out his endorsements from a variety of groups.
Schroeder is asked about what can be done about the litter problem in Riverwest, and he admits he is not sure what can be done. “Pick up your garbage. Teach your kids to pick up your garbage.” Mama, don’t let your babies grow up to be litterbugs?
Faraj suggests using local talent to make anti littering public service announcements to the same question.
All the candidates seem to be pro-commuter rail, and the entire room has strong resentment for Scott Walker. More questions follow on developing Garden Park and race relations.
Lastly, the candidates are given a one minute closing statement, and I’ve summed up the key messages here.
Connelly: I have experience.
Faraj: Do we want an insider or one of us?
Flaherty: I have the endorsements to back me up.
Foliard: Who is the better leader? He mentions his forthcoming newspaper will outline his “comprehensive plan”.
Kovac: We deserve better government and representation.
McGovern-Rowen: I’m just a public servant raising my family in this district.
Nelson: “I could be here another two or three hours talking. People say, you have great ideas but how are you going to do them? I’ve already done them.”
Schroeder: He says he is impressed with his colleagues and would let the people decide what they want. Schroeder says something earlier in the night that seems like a good warning to all.
“Look, I don’t have all the answers and if anyone up here says they do, they’re lying to you.” I contemplate that as I push through a sea of campaign workers handing out literature and swag, into the freezing cold night.
posted by Michael Horne @ 4:56 PM
7 comments
links to this post
7 Comments:
do they really think they get to PICK their own committee assignments?
god what a bunch of rubes. the current aldermen would eat them for lunch.
Response to Michael Horne about candidate forums by: Daniel Fouliard
Perhaps what Michael Horne is really asking— is . . . is a change in city government ambitious or ridiculous? I, Daniel Fouliard, represent a change in city government. And, certainly I would argue that to change City government is ambitious-- not ridiculous.
The “status quo” is broke. If you want more crime, higher taxes, worse schools, and to still—suffer from the inability to park your car—all you need to as a voter is keep the “status quo”—go ahead elect Sam.
Ask yourself, are you happy about the rising crime, higher taxes, worsening schools, and the inability to find a parking spot. When we are living in poverty, misery, fear, vandalism, public official corruption—why is it so ridiculous to suggest a change.
Have you ever heard that the March 30, 1867, purchase of Alaska by Secretary of State William H. Seward for 7.2 million dollars was a mistake—they actually called it “Seward’s Folly”.
The same thing happened to Frederick Law Olmstead in 1858 when he unveiled his design for Central Park in New York City—it was too ambitious of a plan-- the park was so big it was ridiculous.
The odd thing about citing examples like this is that people are so convinced that they are right that rather than seeing that I have done my “homework”—they see me as being eccentric. Please. Do you know how humble, dedicated and driven you have to be to be able to help people change their thinking as so to bring about a change in the community.
The change doesn’t actually start in City Hall. Nope. Not at all. The change starts with you—the everyday citizen. In order to elect me as your Alderman you are going to have to ask yourself a different question at the polls. You are going to have to ask yourself --who out of the candidates on the ballot could change our City Government.
If you ask that question, you will be putting a pencil mark next to my name. Indeed, it is an ambitious task to go into the City Government and help the actual structure of government to change. But certainly what I am suggesting is not ridiculous.
The problem is that it is very difficult to change people’s minds, but if I can communicate my message and if people are willing to listen-- there is a great incentive to elect, Daniel Fouliard: less crime, lower or stabile taxes, better schools, and more parking.
Is it ridiculous to vote for a person who can publish a newspaper and deliver it to every door in the district. Not only did The Advocate of Milwaukee in part pay for itself because I sold ads in it, I have also written a dozen articles to help you understand that I have the ability to make changes.
Certainly, no other candidate decided to campaign this way. I’m different—true. But, if you don’t elect someone who is different you are going to get more of the same--and things in Milwaukee will get worse. Please read my newspaper and ask yourself the better question at the polls.
Daniel Fouliard is insane.
Sam McGovern-Rowen has, so far, offered the most reasonable and effective solutions to the problems posed to him, next would be John, and after that I find it harder to differentiate (partially due to everyone else's total lack of experience in the public sector).
I hope people realize how vital a knowledgeable (soon to be) Alderman is. Any on the job training that people would have to go through in this position means that tax dollars are being wasted and people are not being adequately represented.
I also heard that Sura actually lives in the 6th district but refused to run there. Is this true? Mr. Horne?
Let us say that Sura chose to run in the 3rd district rather than refused to run in the 6th district where she lives, at 3029 N. Booth St. in a house she owns with her partner.
Under Wisconsin law, a person may run for office while residing anywhere in the state, but must move into the district upon election.
Sura and her partner will not have to face this eventuality until April, but it might become a moot point by February 20th, eh?
Horne
riverwestrepresent only represents the limited view that the way to get things done is with the same people doing the same things. This is an outdated, minority view, the application of which results in continually making the same mistakes over and over. What is needed in city government is fresh, creative thinking and new ideas; it was experienced insiders brought us to where we are today.
If D'Amato thought he could be elected for another term, he'd be running; the polling he did last year made it clear that he was no longer the golden boy with "a mandate from the people".
Sam is endorsed by D'Amato, and D'Amato has made it clear to the few supporters he still has that electing Sam will result in business as usual for the 3rd district. The 3rd district doesn't want business as usual, or the poll results would have been better. He could only burn so many bridges without consequences, and people are ready for change. More white men, marching to the same tired tune, can't affect real change.
Sura's residence was in the 3rd district for years, until district lines were redrawn; now it is 1/2 block outside.
Hey, you anon up there - the question was:
The third and final question directed to all candidates is “What common council committee would you join?”
So... they were answering the question.
Post by Daniel Fouliard
It is not the first time someone has attacked me. Ghandi said, "First they ignor you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you". The system is merely attacking me now. And, the person writing "Daniel Fouliard is insane" is too cowardly to even sign their name.
Who ever you are you should never say or write anything that you will not sign your name to. You are only indicating that you are threatened by me, and it's a bit sad and a bit pathetic.
The only thing we know about the candidates is how they campaigned. My campaign is the most efficient. At .10 a copy the newspaper The Advocate of Milwaukee provided the most information for the least amount of money -- and I had never produced a newspaper before. I have proven that I can deliver result better, and cheaper than my competitors. Is that threatening to Mcgovern-Rowan -- you bet.
I believe Mcgovern-Rowan and myself will get through the primary. See you on the other side of the primary ;)
Daniel Fouliard
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home