On the suggestion of my good friend Mahkno, I’m going to tear a page out of the Journal-Star-Cue-Section playbook and open up this thread for At-Large City Council Member predictions.

This will be kind of like the Movie Match contest the Journal Star does every year, only there are no prizes — just the satisfaction of knowing you called it right. Here’s how it works:

In the comments section, type who you think will be the five winning candidates in order of finishing in the April 17 general election. After the election, I’ll post the names (or pseudonyms, as the case may be) of those who either got it spot-on or came the closest to the actual results.

Good news: You don’t have to guess how many votes they’ll get or how wide the margin of victory will be. Just the names in the correct order. No wagering, please.

Good luck, everyone, and let the games begin!

I just got this e-mail from Brad Carter:

I just left the East Bluff candidates forum and Dan Gillette was there because Charles Schierer dropped out. He was notified by PJStar.com.

Gillette, of course, finished 11th in the primary, so apparently with the departure of Schierer, he moves up to the general election. The Journal Star quotes Schierer as saying:

“Being in ninth and in looking at the numbers, I think there are some significant hurdles in getting to the top five,” Schierer said. “That being the case, I don’t want to be mucking it up for the other folks. I think I am a realist. It’s probably best to step aside. This wasn’t my time.”

In contrast, Dan Irving called me the day after the primary and said he’s definitely not throwing in the towel — despite coming in eighth with only 27 more votes than Schierer. Instead, he’s going to step up his campaigning and work all the harder to get his name and message out. I found his energy and optimism inspiring, and it made me rethink my initial pessimism about some of the election results.

Well, that saves me a call to Brentwood, Missouri, to find out more about Schierer’s term as alderman there.

I was at the candidates forum Wednesday night (2/7). It was good, but with 14 people running, there was only time to give each person 4 minutes for a speech and 4 minutes of Q&A — not a lot of time to get to know them. But it was a good introduction anyway.

I’m not going to go over all the candidate’s platforms because it’s already been more than adequately covered on the Chamber of Commerce site and in the Community Word. Instead, I’d just like to give a few impressions I had of some of the candidates (sorry, I’m not going to hit them all).

As Gale Thetford got up to speak, I overheard a person sitting behind me whisper to no one in particular, “I sure hope she doesn’t get reelected!” Amen, sister. Thetford said she wants to strengthen older neighborhoods, but she didn’t say her idea of “strengthening neighborhoods” is to allow places like MidTown Plaza to be built. She said she didn’t raise taxes while she was in office, but didn’t mention that she lobbied and voted for the $6 garbage tax fee. She said she was disappointed the city cut funding to District 150 for crossing guards, and one can only wonder where she would have suggested the city get the money for that.

District 150 came up a lot with several of the candidates, actually. While they all made the obligatory caveat that District 150 is its own entity and the city can’t run the district, several spoke of the need for the city to help District 150 any way it can. What most of them didn’t mention was the need for that to be a two-way street. In fact, according to my notes, only Dan Irving made a point of saying helping D150 “should be a two-way street.” Irving also is a supporter of city-wide wi-fi, so I expect he’ll be endorsed by Billy Dennis.

Eric Turner got a cool reception, which I didn’t expect. After he got finished telling everyone that one way the council needs to address neighborhood concerns is to have an at-large councilman team up with the district councilman and meet with the neighborhood leaders to strategize, one audience member said, “Well, you’ve had a long time to work on that.” I guess, while there are benefits to incumbency, there are apparently also pitfalls.

I got to ask George Jacob how he answers those who would criticize his numerous abstentions on liquor-related issues because of his job. He said he had to abstain x-number times (I think it was something like 62 times — he gave me actual figures but I didn’t write them down), and most of those (47, I think) were on the consent agenda, which were unanimous votes. Of the 15 or so remaining votes, 8 were unanimous and the remainder were non-unanimous, but not controversial. The closest vote was 6-4 on the liquor license for the bar on W. Main St. So, he feels it’s a non-issue. I have to admit, I kind of like the guy. He’s unpretentious and he gets out in the neighborhoods. And, of course, he wins the award for “Most Expensive Campaign Materials.” Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Ryan Spain had a lot to say about economic development, but not much to say about anything else (Spain on crime: “Crime is a problem that needs to be dealt with”; Spain on city services: they are “an important commitment we need to live up to”). In fairness, he did only have 4 minutes, so maybe he has some fleshed-out ideas he just didn’t have time to share. But then I picked up his ad flier and saw that he’s endorsed by Ray LaHood, and that raised a red flag. It appears he’s being groomed for bigger and better things in the Republican party, and this is just the first step. He wins the award for “Most Aaron-Schock-ish Campaign.”

Gary Sandberg wore his trademark bow tie and had the crowd in the palm of his hand. I know of no one who lives in an older neighborhood (remember, this forum was held in the 2nd district) that doesn’t like Sandberg (don’t write and tell me you know someone — I know they are bound to be out there; I’m just saying I’ve never met one). He has an impeccable record for putting essential services first and supporting older neighborhoods, and he touted that record Wednesday night. He pointed out that he was the only candidate running in this election who can say he voted for requiring a supermajority to expand institutional zoning boundaries within 20 years of their filed institutional plan. He was also the only candidate who mentioned the Land Development Code, which is near and dear to my heart, of course.

Someone who came across as somewhat similar to Gary was Dan Gillette. He worked for the streets department before taking early retirement. He seemed to be a firm believer in putting essential services first and looking for forms of revenue other than taxes and fees of citizens. He gave the example of providing certain services (such as thermal striping of streets) to nearby cities for a fee. He’s worth further consideration.

Also worth further consideration are Charles Schierer and Brad Carter, with whom I spent a fair amount of time in conversation. Carter came to the last Blogger Bash (2/3), so I know him a little better. He is also an essential-services-first candidate, and he’s in favor of keeping the Kellar Branch a rail line, so obviously he’s clear-thinking. Schierer is a former accountant and current lawyer, which wouldn’t be bad skills to have on the council; he’s also a fan of form-based code. Incidentally, Carter wins the award for “Most Unintentionally-Humorous Campaign Materials.” You’ll have to get your own flier to find out why.

Those are just my initial thoughts, so sorry if they seem a bit sketchy. I’d be interested to hear if anyone else has met the candidates and has any further impressions to share.

In the months leading up to the at-large City Council election, I’ll be occasionally pulling out some pertinent data on Gale Thetford and posting it under the headline “The Thetford Files.” George Santayana said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” and if there’s one part of the past it would be a real shame to repeat, it’s the election of Gale Thetford to the City Council.

So, without any further ado, here’s a quote from the Nov. 22, 2003, City Council minutes:

Council Member Thetford repeated her motion not to hire 11 firefighters this year and not to close Fire Station #11, or any other station, not to fund with overtime, and challenge the Fire Department to decide whether a jump crew would be utilized or putting equipment out of service.

Recovering from a fire can be really difficult, however, we recommend you to look for fire damage repair services to pick up all the damages that this incident have left.

Council Member Ardis questioned Council Member Thetford regarding her motion. He said the recommendation was directly contrary to that of a 20-plus year professional firefighter and head of the City’s Fire Department.

[…]

Motion to not hire 11 firefighters this year, but not to close Fire Station #11, or any other station, not to fund with overtime, and challenge the Fire Department to decide whether a jump crew could be utilized or to put a piece of equipment out of service was approved by roll call vote.

Yeas: Gulley, Morris, Teplitz, Thetford, Turner, Mayor Ransburg – 6;
Nays: Ardis, Grayeb, Nichting, Sandberg, Spears – 5.

Just a reminder, of the six who voted for this motion, three were defeated in the very next election: Ransburg (replaced by Ardis), Teplitz (replaced by Van Auken), and Thetford (replaced by Manning). Of the five nays, all are still currently serving on the council.