Like many people, I’ve seriously considered running for public
office. In fact, several weeks back I took the first baby steps
required to run for the Hollister City Council; I opened a small
campaign account with a few hundred bucks of my own money. In the
meantime, I have not solicited any contributions
– nor have I campaigned except to discuss my ideas with some
groups and individuals whose opinion I respect and whose
endorsement I would seek if I ran. Some of them encouraged me to
run; others thought I’d more effective as a commentator.
Like many people, I’ve seriously considered running for public office. In fact, several weeks back I took the first baby steps required to run for the Hollister City Council; I opened a small campaign account with a few hundred bucks of my own money. In the meantime, I have not solicited any contributions – nor have I campaigned except to discuss my ideas with some groups and individuals whose opinion I respect and whose endorsement I would seek if I ran. Some of them encouraged me to run; others thought I’d more effective as a commentator.
The filing period for the November Hollister City Council election will open in less than a week, so it was time for me to make a decision and I’ve made it – I won’t be running for public office. Since this column and its readers were a major part of this decision, I decided I’d share my reasons with you.
The one thing that was not a factor in my decision was the odds of winning. There was no good way to determine my chances; therefore, I just put that issue aside. If I had run, I would have run to win, but obviously, there are no guarantees; much would depend on my opponents – probably the incumbent – and my ability to gain the confidence of the voters.
The strongest argument for running was governance. If I had won, I would have had a vote on the council and I could try to implement some of my ideas for improving both the city and the city government.
The strongest arguments for not running were also related to governance. If I had won a seat on the council, I would be only one vote of five and my ability to communicate with the general public via a regular column, or to communicate with other politicians, would be limited due fairness and The Brown Act. It did not escape my notice that there is little initiative for reform on the current council; their motto is “go along to get along” and unanimous votes are their stock in trade. Rocking the boat or asking tough questions has not been their strong point and doing so would not be likely to gain me allies.
I’ve been a regular attendee at both the city council and county board of supervisors meetings for almost two years; I’ve expressed my opinions openly, and probably more frankly than the members of those two bodies would like. If I were member of the city government, I’d have to tread more lightly and worry more about relationships and less about issues and that does not suit my personality.
If the city council meetings were well attended that might have influenced me to run, but they are not, and that is probably the biggest challenge – how to get the citizens interested in their government? Talking to a nearly empty chamber is not my idea of contributing to the city’s future. The truth is that writing a weekly column affords me a better opportunity to cover more issues in detail and provides a larger audience than a few meetings a month. One cannot underestimate the value I place on this. Many of the issues we face as a community are complex and deserve in-depth analysis and discussion and I cherish the ability to contribute in that way. Above all, I did not want to give up the chance for access and intellect; in the end, that was the deciding factor.
To those who choose to take on the heavy responsibility of elected office I wish them well – naturally, I’ll be saying more than that as time goes along.
