If You Ask Me / By Martha Knight

The election is over, and the dust has about settled.

The odd-numbered year municipal elections seem less frenetic than the even-numbered Congressional and quadrennial Presidential elections do.

We do not have a huge volume of commercials by this candidate and that’s committees-to-elect and those PACs. There isn’t much in the way of newspaper advertising. Few candidates go door to door. We don’t see lots of posters and signs. I didn’t notice many emails for local candidates.

They may be relatively quiet, but local elections are important. These offices—borough council, township supervisor, school board and others—impact their communities in significant ways, and it can make a difference who hold those offices, what their motives are in seeking office, what loyalties they hold, what abilities they have. And yes, character and personality do matter.

Some candidates have built-in support bases that have little to do with their qualifications for office. We like to see members of “our group” receive recognition; we are more comfortable with people “like us” in charge. There’s some team feeling involved: we root for our side. So people with church connections and those who are in certain “solid” service or fraternal organizations are seen by their fellow members as right-thinking. They are known better by similarly associated voters, and we tend to prefer those we know (and do not dislike) to those we don’t.

There are some natural progressions in public service. District attorneys are thought to aspire to be judges, and some do become judges. County line offices often are held by those who have served as employees in those offices. .Those who were clerks, deputies or assistants must know more about the workings of an office than an outsider, we would suppose. Having served with a long-time, well thought of official seems like a fine qualification. Surely that official would not have tolerated anything less than excellent performance!

It seems voters do not have the same tastes as vampires, always wanting new blood. So, short of an incumbent being associated with some highly controversial decision, current office holders usually have an edge.

Ballot placement is a factor, too. It’s strange, but we see it working that way time after time: the higher a name is on a list of those where we get several picks, the top name gets the most votes, and the others are ranked accordingly the farther down the voter must look.

Former office holders who have lost a recent election often try for a come-back. Previous service that was generally well received would seem to be worth some points. It turns out that many people do enjoy holding local offices, and miss being part of that scene if they lose an election. Often they are told by friends and supporters that they should have won, but never mind, next time they will.

Having led the body in question, as president or chairman, is another plus when it comes to re-election or an attempt to regain office.

The largely ceremonial office of mayor is one where there has often been a progression from police chief. Mayors serve as liaison between the police department and the borough or city council. The chief reports to the mayor. The mayor calls a lot of the shots. Prior experience as chief would seem like a good qualification for mayor.

So it has seemed, as Don Carley has served as mayor for most of the time since he retired as chief. But now that he is about to retire as mayor, and George Riley is mayor-elect, a different kind of skill set will be brought to bear.

Riley has been a teacher for quite a while, but before that, if memory serves, he was a substance abuse counselor. Teachers have to know lots of stuff, and they deal with young people and their families, and they are subject to certain authority and hold authority too, and they involved in administration of discipline. Now more than ever, they deal with regulations and standards.

Drug and alcohol abuse figure heavily in police work, in our little town as well as elsewhere. It won’t hurt that Riley has had training and experience related to those problems.

Chuck Safford lost his bid for a second term as Liberty Township Supervisor. No doubt that feels disappointing, but in my opinion, he should not feel like a “loser.”

Six years ago, when he won, it was considered an upset and a long shot. For goodness sake, he’s a Democrat! Liberty Township doesn’t elect many Democrats.

Sometimes detractors would complain that, what with Gary Turner and Safford both on the township board, the township was being run by Pierce Glass (often the name still used after all these years, for Saint-Gobain/Verallia).

Safford worked hard to get Bruce Klein elected, two years ago. And that was a write-in campaign, and we know those almost never win.

Safford has been defeated by a Republican who is also a former supervisor. Current chairman Turner has said he will not run after his current term ends, in two years. Perhaps Safford will run again then. Like U.S. Senators, township supervisors serve six-year terms. But we don’t get to pick a Senator ever two years—each state has only two. Townships have three supervisors and can elect one of them every other year.

It has been my impression that Safford has been conscientious and diligent as a supervisor, and has helped the township improve road and bridge/sluice work in an impressive burst of progress the past while. Supervisor cooperation has been good, too. I hope that can be sustained even with a change in membership.

“Sonny” Duell almost made it back onto the borough council. He had many years of past service, including some as president, and many Moose Club and other friends pulling for him.  But then, he is a Democrat! Stick around, Sonny. It’s just two years before we get to elect three council members, right?

Peace.