Last Friday’s Daily Herald covered the disagreement over whether to hold a debate in the Naperville Mayoral race. Challenger Councilman Doug Krause, who captured just 15.8% of the primary vote February 27th (less than 200 votes separated him from third place Councilman Mary Ellingson), has obvious reasons to debate - what could he possibly lose? But beyond the textbook obvious, it’s also true that Krause’s communication style is more likely to win points in a debate format with incumbent Mayor George Pradel, who captured 70% of the February primary vote. The Mayor says that no debate is needed since the various candidate forums laid out all of the issues in the race. Pradel is playing it smart.
While I certainly support providing more information to voters, the hard political reality is that the underdog in a political race often has to ‘earn’ the debate. Krause offers a good argument when he says, “There’s nothing more important than having an informed public…. And the only way to have an informed public is through open dialogue.” He also makes the case for debate-worthy differences between his policies and the Mayor’s when he says, “If you look at the bottom line, I’m pro-taxpayer, pro-resident and George is pro-developer…. We need to focus on the issues of the residents.” But Krause, despite almost two decades in office and the backing of former primary opponent Councilman Mary Ellingson, needs to offer more than arguments to get his debate, and ultimately to have a serious shot at winning. Doug Krause needs to show he’s a force and power to be reckoned with - something he has not shown thus far in the campaign.
The defeat in the Naperville City Council just days ago of the smoking ban (watch it in broadband or dial-up), whose passage was once thought inevitable, brought Councilman Doug Krause’s problem into stark relief. With the council unable to resolve differences on restaurant outside patio smoking, because it might create an uneven business playing field, and indecisive on outdoor event smoking, Krause suggested tabling the vote indefinitely, which was agreed to by all city council members but Councilman Grant Wehrli. The effect of this, however, was to burn one of Krause’s likely popular constituencies, Smoke Free Naperville, whose president Tony Andrews was quoted in the Naperville Sun saying, “I’m disappointed the finest town in the state can’t do the right thing.” Unfortunately for Doug Krause, who once argued in a candidate forum that he would have effected the smoking ban in Naperville businesses much earlier, he instead gets credit for suggesting the process that may kill the smoking ban. One can argue that given a lack of consensus in the meeting Doug’s proposal was the right governance thing to do. But the governance problem should have never come up (it should have been resolved through coalition-building around issues) - that’s what ‘effective governance’ is all about.
20:20 Hindsight
It is different I’m sure watching a video of a council meeting and being in it. But looking at the votes it seems to me that Doug Krause missed an opportunity to lead, win a vote and become a hero for an important constituency. Council members Jim Boyajian, Kenn Miller, George Pradel, John Rosanova and Grant Wehrli were voting for an indoor ban only, and had five votes (a majority) for it. Mary Ellingson, Dick Furstenau, Doug Krause and Darlene Senger clearly wanted an outdoor component and in the case of at least Ellingson and Furstenau, were clearly concerned about an uneven playing field for restaurants with outdoor patios versus those totally enclosed. It’s also clear that Wehrli had voted against tabling the issue and wanted to get it resolved. He is also asthmatic and stated that he believed that eventually there might be a total smoking ban everywhere.
In over fifty minutes of council debate on the smoking ban, other than voting on three motions and proposing a motion to extend debate by fifteen minutes, Doug Krause was silent until he motioned to table the topic indefinitely. What else could he have done? What about seeking a ban of smoking in all restaurants and businesses serving food but otherwise leaving outdoor issues for another day. He could have made the argument not to sacrifice the good for the perfect. This would have held his block of four votes in all likelihood, addressing unfair competition concerns, while possibly attracting one of the five votes on the other side (could Grant Wehrli be persuaded that this was the first of many “steps” one has to take? Someone else?). While not perfect, it is pretty understandable and simple. Instead members of Smoke Free Naperville heard nothing from the councilman except wait for the state.
What Being A Hero Gets You
As you travel around Naperville there are mainly two non-candidate signs you see on lawns. One sign is the speed limit of 25 miles per hour for neighborhoods, and the other is Smoke Free Naperville’s black and white sign signaling support of a smoking ban.
[Picture from the Smoke-Free Naperville website.]
As a smoking ban hero, Doug Krause could have positioned himself to put his own green sign next to those black and white signs on lawns throughout Naperville, gaining a new constituency and new visibility. Volunteers could easily identify this new constituency dispersed throughout the town and work to secure their vote and active assistance in the campaign. Doug could have expected the organization’s website and (if they have it) email list to acknowledge his stand with them. There are votes to be had, volunteers to gain and sign visibility in some prime areas - it’s a prize worth winning in this race.
Instead…
Councilman Dick Furstenau said at the end of the meeting, “We have shown a lack of leadership. And yes, it’s gonna cause some problems in Springfield…. I’m not too sure the state is going to come through” with a statewide smoking ban (because they were looking at what Naperville would do). And then he voted with Doug Krause and everyone but Councilman Grant Wehrli to table the vote indefinitely.
What happened in the council meeting was bad politics. It reinforced Doug Krause’s problem of operating as an effective opposition force in the Naperville City Council. Being right on the issues isn’t the same as delivering on them. At the least he should have spoken for his side before arguing to table the vote.
Candidate Doug Krause had his work cut out for him trying to defeat the very popular incumbent George Pradel before the smoking ban debacle. To win Krause needs to build constituencies and cobble together voting blocks. You do that by delivering on the issues that matter to the voting blocks that matter. Doug doesn’t have a lot of time left to figure it out. If there’s no meaningful difference on the issues then my guess is Mayor George Pradel wins walking away. A lot of people like George’s gregarious personality and booster spirit and, importantly, enough of Mayor Pradel’s supporters vote.
Post a Comment