The Spy has taken a particular note of interest in a recent Star Democrat article that three Easton Town Council seats are up for election on May 2; but in all three cases, there will be no opposition to the incumbents.
Normally this would be a pretty dangerous sign of community indifference. To have these many seats up for a vote without other candidates, much debate, nor new points of view aired, is not an especially healthy thing for our democratic process.
A case in point was the remarkable news a few years ago of the unchallenged rule of the mayor and city council of Bell, California (pop. 35,000), who approved such mind blowing acts as setting the town manager’s salary at $1.5 million a year. In the end, seven Bell officials, including the former mayor, four city council members, the town administrator and his assistant, were convicted on graft and corruption charges. Bell is a worse-case scenario that happens when citizens are detached and where election challenges are few.
The good news for Easton is that this kind insouciance is not the case here. Instead, the opposite might be true. The May ballot reflects the subtle, but nonetheless clear indicator that the community supports the status quo and its leaders.
The words “status quo” these days immediately suggest in our increasingly divided political life a bad thing. That by voting for the status quo, or being at peace with it, is somehow a problem or too passive. But literally, it just means “the current state of things.” It doesn’t mean tough issues are being ignored, nor does it mean things can’t improve. In Easton, it means that our current elected officials are doing the very best they can for a town they deeply care about.
As our Spy profiles last year so powerfully indicate, it is hard to see how this town could find more conscientious, thoughtful, and altruistically-motivated individuals in leading Easton then President John Ford, Megan Cook (Ward 4), and Peter Lesher (Ward 2).
Through a combination of well-managed, respectful, and transparent deliberations, as well as a strong impulse against unnecessary drama, these three leaders have carried on the business of government with reassuring results during their last terms in office. It is no wonder that no challenges have come forward.
That does not mean there’s no reason to go to the polls on May 2. For a variety of reasons, including to demonstrate vigilance, show affirmation, and offer a bit of a pat on the back for these office holders, the Spy encourages voters to continue to mark their ballots for this wise leadership. As the town continues to be challenged with economic development needs, as well as a sundry of difficult social issues, including opiate crisis, multiculturalism, and affordable housing, it would be a nice time to send a message to these three that the community is so very grateful that they have Easton’s back.
Megan Cook (Ward 4)
John Ford (Council President)
Peter Lesher (Ward 2)
Carol says
Thank you, John, Megan, and Pete.
Scott Harris says
Your editorial “Voting for the Status Quo in Easton on May 2” brings to mind a running gag on The Simpsons where Krusty the Klown, known for selling shoddy products of all sorts, gives them a seal of approval with the motto, ‘It’s not just good, it’s good enough.’
There is a fine line between status quo and stagnation. The current group of Easton’s council members are hard-working and conscientious, and we can only assume, do their jobs in earnest with the best interests of the town’s residents in mind. However, when Easton’s local elections come up and all three members are unopposed, it is not a validation of the status quo, but a missed opportunity to avoid stagnation and the associated pitfalls that come with a lack of change and ability to transition our community into the changing world we live in now.
When the same group of people continue to make policy, adequate though the policy may be, we lose a wealth of opportunity. Ideas stagnate. Creativity is suppressed. Diversity is non-existent. New ideas and creativity spur growth, both intellectually and fiscally. The town may move forward, but along only one path without ever considering the many avenues available that may lead to prosperity and happiness
Consider a case where a small town has only one restaurant. The food is good. The people eat there regularly. Yet there is no reason to improve quality or offer new selections. When consumers have a choice, there is motivation for competing businesses to improve their products, and consumers win. You may still eat at the local spot, but the food will be better. Competition drives growth. Even if re-elected, the self-examination and public scrutiny that comes with an election campaign forces officials to consider opinions other than their own, and choose from many different paths to the future, perhaps ones that they had not yet considered.
To assume that these three people have the ability, time and motivation to explore every possible idea is naïve. They are smart and well-meaning, yet they have only their personal history and experience from which to draw. Easton is a diverse town, yet none of the diversity of the general population is reflected in the current council.
Residents of small towns must be constantly vigilant for the dangers of drifting into failure. That drift begins with stagnation. We like things small. We like things we know. That’s why we live here. But we must not live in the past, nor allow our elected officials to have free reign to impose their wills without question. That is how a town may drift into corruption.
To compare Easton to a corrupt town such as Bell, CA, and imply that a lack of corruption means that things are going well is akin to comparing something to the worst examples of city management, and saying that as long as it’s not that bad, it must, by default, be good. The analogy misses the finer gradations and subtlety of the issue. All-or-nothing thinking is a prescription for paralysis. Perhaps a better approach would have been to use data of successful communities we would like to learn from and benchmark Easton’s current position against those communities. That type of real reporting, investigation and analysis as part of the editorial writing process would allow our current ballot of status-quo candidates the opportunity to learn from your work.
Perhaps the worst part of maintaining the status quo is the message we send to our children, particularly those preparing for lives as adults in the community. By accepting the status quo as good enough, we tell them it’s acceptable to just be acceptable. We tell them not to strive for better, not to explore the greater world around them, not to challenge accepted ideas. As other communities choose to see their cities in new and different ways, those that simply maintain acceptability will be left behind.
On May 2nd lets remind ourselves that the residents of Easton can do better than Krusty the Klown. Easton should not settle for good enough, we should be a community known for inspiring the best and creating a community that is the envy of cities across the nation.