The one thing that surprised me was not only is the city spending a lot of money on Don and then supplementing his position by hiring someone to help him out, but they are allowing him to teach during the day at IVCC:

http://www2.ivcc.edu/aleksy/

No wonder he needed help – he must not be working full time if he is driving to Oglesby 3x a week to teach a class at IVCC. And he can’t be making up the hours at night in a position like his and anyway he teaches at night too.

Garry, there’s much merit in your commentary. However, I wish the word “leadership” would be dropped from the political lexicon. It implies those who hold elective office are somehow a cut above the rest of us. Leaders require followers, and in the context of politics the electorate gets cast in the role of followers.

That’s simply wrong-headed. In our republic, authority is vested in the body politic, and officeholders are stewards of the public trust. We aren’t a herd that needs to be led, but a civic body that delegates specifically circumscribed powers to selected representatives.

Office holders are essentially our agents, not our leaders. As such, we have the right to expect functional competence in their delegated duties.

That’s the crux of the current problem. Our already-struggling town is being further hampered by a clear lack of executive competence. It may be inexperience or ineptitude, but despite all of the happy talk coming from City Hall, the current administration is proving to be just one more setback LaSalle can ill afford.

If I recall correctly, the 2009 mayoral election offered us a choice between the incumbent’s “Dignified Leadership” and the challenger’s “Energetic Leadership”. In 2013 I certainly hope we have the opportunity to elect a candidate who’s actually demonstrated real-world executive-level competence, not just another Cliche Meister who beguiles with vague promises of “Fill-in-the-Blank Leadership”.

First, lackluster candidates do little to inspire voter interest. Office seekers who can’t, or won’t, formulate a clear and concise rationale for running need only look in the mirror to explain tepid support. Potential voters need to know why candidates are running and what specifically differentiates them from their opponents.

Next, poorly run campaigns compound the problem. Realistically speaking, how many of the candidates actually developed and delivered a cogent argument for being elected? Rather, there was widespread reliance on the old standbys–door hangers, yard signs, and newspaper ads. None of these is designed to actually inform potential voters; they mostly serve to promote name recognition.

Office seekers are not entitled to our attention, interest, and support merely because their names appear on a ballot; those have to be earned. Therefore, it’s their responsibility as candidates to persuade us, the electorate, that they merit being entrusted with public office. Candidates who appreciate this should develop their campaigns accordingly. Those who don’t should refrain from castigating the electorate for their supposed apathy.

To bastardize a well-known political commentator: The fault, dear Garry, is not in our electorate, but in our candidates themselves and their uninspiring campaigns.

Thank you for your years of service to our town, and best of luck in your future endeavors.