The Mayor only received $500/mo? The council members less? No wonder the management of the city is so unprofessional. I guess you get what you pay for.

I planned on running but after a lay off a little over a year ago I find myself financially strapped. The cost and time it would take would be taking time from me finding a new employer. With unemployment gone I am now bleeding my savings just to make ends meet. I would hope someone that feels this council is going in the wrong direction would step up and challenge for a seat. The current members are beneiftting from the poor economy.

It's also very difficult to unseat an incumbent--the main reason I think term limits are a good idea. When the incumbents are doing a good job (and I think all three are), it's even harder to unseat them.

The $500 is low but the health benefits must make up for it. May be we can double the $500 and take away the benefits. Will this encourage more involvement?

I know several people who are competent and would make excellent council members, but I think they are dissuaded from serving in public office because the social tenor these days is so cynical and critical. Otherwise fabulous leaders demure because they'd prefer to give to their communities in ways that don't draw direct fire from the more vocal segments of our little town. If everyone could be more constructive and less relentlessly negative, others might step forward. I suppose the same can be said for public office at all levels, for that matter.

Here, here. I agree with you MV Mom, and also that given the thankless job that the position can be, the 3 incumbents up for reelection have done a good job for the City.

Well said, MV Mom! Spot on, too.

Seldon- what a hypocrite! You are one of the most cynical and critical posters here.

At this point there are no serious challengers. Maybe some newcomers will try but they will have little chance without serious commission experience. The only weak incumbent is Jac Siegal who barely edged out Inks 4 years ago and was soundly beaten by the other two women. Last term hopefuls (Chris Clark and John McAlistar) do not want to challenge incumbents. I doubt Alicia Crank will go for the tri-fecta and lose 3 times in a row. My sources tell me Matt Pear is itching to get back into politics but doesn't want to be seen as another Kasperzak who can't move up.

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?