Chatting About the Upcoming Council Race with Bob and Barb

By Jim Gardner

This is the third in our series in which two residents, Bob and Barb, discuss current issues. Click here to read our first installment - There’s a great exchange between a developer and Bob and Barb. Click here for the second.

BOB: “There’s 1 day left for candidates to file their papers to run for City Council in November.”

BARB: “So far I heard 11 people “pulled” papers from the City Clerk’s office, and 2 filed.”

BOB: “You mean 11 people will run for City Council. That’s a new all-time record. People must be very unhappy.”

BARB: “Usually 1 or 2 people who pull papers don’t actually file, so we can expect a record 8 or 9 candidates.”

BOB: “Huh. Like I said. People must be unhappy. This is the most people ever to pull papers”

BARB: “With so many candidates running, the streets of Lake Forest will be flooded with signs. They’ll clutter the environment, add to the landfills, and cost tens of thousands of dollars.”

BOB: “Yea. I can’t believe all the money they pour into signs.”

BARB: “The proliferation of signs is one of the reasons that elections have become so expensive. And making elections expensive leads to corruption. Council members Voigts, Robinson, and McCullough have a long track record of accepting “campaign contributions” from people and businesses that come before the Council seeking their vote, and they get it.”

BOB: “That doesn’t sound right. You mean they take money from a business and then they vote to give that business a contract?”

BARB: “Sure. Happens all the time in Lake Forest. CR&R got the trash hauling contract after giving money to Mayor Robinson. Remember those developers?”

BOB: “Those guys who are building 250 homes in the old auto center?”

BARB: “They got unprecedented approvals after giving money to Voigts and Robinson. And what about Waltman Properties? They got an ordinance against day laborers after giving money to McCullough.”

BOB: “Boy. I didn’t know that.”

BARB: “Nearly $200,000 has gone to City Council members over the years from vested interests seeking favors from the Council. One of the reasons for this corruption is the need for money to buy campaign signs. By itself, a good sign campaign can cost $5,000 to $10,000 - a big hunk of change for anyone.”

BOB: “But what do campaign signs really accomplish?”

BARB: “They tell you nothing about the person. When you look at a campaign sign you learn nothing about the person’s education, experience, or more importantly how they stand on issues. All we really see is their name, and the hope is that when you see their name again on the ballot, something will stick and they’ll receive your vote.”

BOB: “If campaign signs have no educational purpose, litter the environment using precious resources, and lie at the core of the need for money (which lies at the core of the corruption of the individual members who need the money to pay for the signs), do they serve any purpose at all?

BARB: “As far as I can tell, the only purpose campaign signs have is for someone who supports you to be able to put their sign on their lawn. But more than 75% of the signs are put in public areas, not private homes.”

BOB: “So, should the City limit campaign signs?”

BARB: “Actually the City went the other way. They just broadened the laws regulating campaign signs. So this year we’ll probably have more than ever.”

BOB: “Is there nothing we can do?”

BARB: “Well, if they were concerned about the environment and interested in reducing the corruption, candidates for City Council should voluntarily agree not to use campaign signs.”

BOB: “For this to work, all of them would have to agree. What’s the chances of that?”

BARB: “Why don’t we ask each of them and find out.”

BOB: “Doesn’t this give the advantage to the incumbents who have name recognition?”

BARB: “Yes, but it also lets the others use their money in a positive manner to educate the public about their background and what they want to accomplish. And bear in mind, some of these incumbents may be better known, but they’re known for their short-comings and foibles.”

BOB: “What do you mean?”

BARB: “Take Scott Voigts. He’s known for breaking almost every promise he ever made. And he’s got a pretty long list of lies he’s told. Plus there’s all the money from vested interests he pockets. So he’s better known, but not for doing good.”

BOB: “Hmmm.”

BARB: “And did you read all that stuff about McCullough? She takes her husband with her on trips for the city, pays for his bills with City money, and then has the nerve to lie about it. I don’t know why they haven’t opened a case with the D.A.”

BOB: “So you suggest voluntarily not using signs and instead more public education?”

BARB: “Yes. We can have candidate forums. And we should televise them and make them available online. And the City’s web site could be used too.”

BOB: “But who’s going to do all that?”

BARB: “Hopefully someone who is reading this article. You can be sure the Council isn’t interested in changing the system because it’s the system that put them in there.”

BOB: “And if it’s too late to do anything this time?”

BARB: “It’s never too late. At last we could kick out the incumbents – all 3 of them – and put in 3 new people who are truly interested in reform.”