Live blogging the Carrboro interviews

I'm listening in for awhile on WCOM. It's coming in quite clearly this evening.

Mark Chilton is going to randomly select the names for each panel of 4. He's asking the remaining 8 folks move to an overflow room at their discretion as Mark feels that they cannot be compelled to do so otherwise....

Each BOA member (6) will ask a question to each candidate.

WCOM is interrupting weirdly so I might miss some of the detail responses due to their speaking over the BOA folk:

John M
Lydia L
David B (our Price lover ;-) )
James Carnahan

Katrina
Dan C. - that's going to be a contrast
Steve Clossick
Cat D.

Albert V.
Robert
David M.
Alena

Man, WCOM's announcer is stepping all over the audio - ouch!

Herrara is AWOL

Jacqui is up.

Question: Could you please tell us a time ... when you changed your stance based on feedback from the community?

John M. - speaking from his business perspective - is relating his difficulty finding a physician in his professional capacity and changed his opinion based on the feedback during the process

James C. - relating how he was signed up to speak before the BOA on annexation and - whoops - there goes WCOM stepping on the response - sorry James

David B. - relating a case of where the name of his org. was going to be changed but on further feedback he made a set of "wishy washy" votes - and held his decision until the end

Lydia - relating how she changed her email communications because the weekly letter she used to send out was bouncing, etc. - based on the feedback from the tech. she changed her method...

Alex's two part question:

1) (From the IndyWeek) - Identify a principled stand you might take that would cost you politically... [this was fun for me to answer]

2) Where does principle end and idealogue begin?

Lydia - annexation growth decisions - make the hard decisions where commercial growth will occur in the annexed areas go
"This is a decision the Alderman will make that will upset that area..." I'm not sure what the tough decision she would make but.... She skipped part #2.

John M. - speaking to growth - how growth decisions are important to Downtown - measured growth - again, like Lydia, seems to be dodging a specific example of an unpopular stand...

James C. - extending marital rights to all folk - good example
He's answering part #2 - he'll make decisions based on the details....

David B. - Shush WCOM! I believe he's speaking to the Shelter downtown. Doesn't know how he'll answer that question (dodged the stand) because he doesn't understand the current scenario (didn't that get a lot of airing?)

Broun: List the top three characteristics of good leadership?

Lydia: 2nd - visionary, 3rd - be a team leader.

I'm dropping out for awhile - WCOM keeps stepping on the questions and answers so it's a bit tough to 'blog this...

James C. - vision, flexibility, listening, tenacity - you can go to fair with flexibility - you sometimes need to stick with your decisions...

Herrara shows up.

John: In your own words explain good governance ...and what you'll bring to the board for good governance...

James C. - bring a spectrum of ideas - work in an affirmative way with the employees of the Town - knowing that - we represent the folks of the community - we need to get feedback from the citizens - communication

David B. - very communicative, forward thinking - what he's passionate about is the communication element - get as many people involved as possible - municipal decisions seem very detailed to him - he's a good networker

Lydia - elements of good governance - be aware of the paper work, the issues, the details - being available to the citizens - with our diverse population reaching out - be available to the community - showing up physically - understands both sides of many issues

John Marold - always keeping in consideration of the big picture - understand the services - understand their concerns and the resources that can be brought to bear

Haven-O'Donnel: BOA are interested in community building - How do you define the cultural divide? How would you foster [narrowing the divide]?

Oy vey! Channel 18 has cut to the Solar Forum... no WCOM reception out here (unless you want to stand on your head holding the radio at just the right angle) ... guess I'm out of luck... looks like CH programming trumps Carrboro...
I didn't see much, but James Carnahan did the best from what I saw...

John M. sees that taxes are driving the divide. He doesn't want Carrboro to be a white enclave like Chapel Hill

James C. - he's concerned that the divide is widening because the affordability of housing WCOM!!!!

David B. - he sees the divide in older and younger residents. Newer and older neighborhoods. Lack of African-American applicant. WSM's "white" nature. Not just about taxes

Questions

Jacqui:
Could you please tell us a time … when you changed your stance based on feedback from the community?

Alex's two part question:

1) (From the IndyWeek) - Identify a principled stand you might take that would cost you politically… [this was fun for me to answer]

2) Where does principle end and idealogue begin?

Broun:
List the top three characteristics of good leadership?

John
In your own words explain good governance …and what you'll bring to the board for good governance…

Randi
BOA are interested in community building - How do you define the cultural divide? How would you foster [narrowing the divide]?

Mark isn't asking a question.

Mary, you can stream WCOM over the 'net if you want to listen in (and if you can handle their announcer stepping on folks answer and analyzing the clothing choices of the candidates).

Next panel up.

Katrina
Dan C.
Steve Clossick
Cat D.

The sound on my computer doesn't work... I've been meaning to get it fixed!!!

James C., I think, had the best responses for panel 1.

Jacqui:

Could you please tell us a time when you changed your stance n an issue in a community or professional setting based on feedback from the community?

Katrina: She got talked out of being a death penalty proponent back in Texas - she was gung ho for the penalty - after speaking with her Minister and some other kids - she realized it wasn't right...

Cat: She's changed her mind twice on Carolina North. No light rail initially - she said so ... After speaking to folk in the street she was told she was the only opponent - she changed her mind back for a couple days and then --- WCOM !!!!! --

Steve: Gun control.

Dan: Brings up something on his mind in the last couple weeks. For a long time he's been critical of UNC's growth strategies... He read Moeser's sustainability report and was impressed with the number of new techniques they were using on campus he got a bit more optimistic. After reading about the new Broun process he thinks that UNC might have a better outcome for Carolina North if they use the same techniques...

Alex:

Dan: Realizes starting his move into public office might be a bit difficult by starting out with something unpopular. Believes in taxes. He doesn't believe that the role of government is to lower taxes as much as using taxes to invest in the community
to make life better.

Katrina: She's stumbled a bit because she expected someone else to answer. Alex is rereading the question. NOW Dan is finishing the second part of the question and explaining the meaning of ideologue to Katrina.

Ouch Katrina! She's now back on track commenting on taxes as per Dan. She says we need to keep Carrboro's costs down - like cutting the Carrboro Music Fair - so that folk can afford their prescriptions. [I'll need to relisten to follow some of the meanderings + WCOMs interruptions].

Cat: Keeping HWA open. She suggests pay as you go for garbage.

Steve: Weird answer - didn't really address the question.

Broun: List the top three characteristics of good leadership?

Steve: Inarticulate response.

Dan: "You specify three qualities?" Broun: "Yes three". Dan: "That's good, I have three."

Dan: Active listening, synthesis of ideas into a coherent position, communication. Interactive listening and communication.

Dan continues having the most complete and well-thought out responses.

Katrina: [I'm paraphrasing]. To embrace your opponents. To make an objective analysis.

Cat: Patience, humility, vision. She's a rather impatient leader ("I'm just warning you..."). In studying her notes on Vision 2020 she realizes how much they've done. Humility - to realize she might not realize the end objective - to say "I don't know". Vision - doesn't contradict patience - it compliments it...

Herrara: Good governance....

Cat: WCOM!!! Inclusionary... WCOM!!! WCOM!!! WCOM!!! I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR COFFEE BREAKS!!! I believe Cat focused on inclusionary processes.

Steve: Treat everyone fairly - students or longterm residents. Folk to be heard, to be counted equally.

Dan: Democracy means government by the people. It must be a dilemma to sit on a body of 7 people and claim to make decisions for the people. He refers back to his questionnaire answers on how to increase participation and inclusion in government [HE's THE FIRST PERSON TO REFER TO HIS QUESTIONNAIRE ANSWERS].

Katrina: "Absolutely everyone attempts to walk in everyone elses shoes." Instead of breaking everything down we're at a point where we can go beyond tolerance. She thinks there's a solid minority in Carrboro that is scared - old folk that find out that their taxes are twice as much Boone. To paraphrase, she says she represents one pole as distinguished from BOA member Alex Z. and that gap allows a discussion of all possibilities in-between.

Randi: Cultural divide.

Katrina: The 27516 divide. The Northern terroritories aren't part of Carrboro - they need to work on community building to a suburban area than the cultural divide desolves.

Cat: There's a cultural divide that exists. Latino outreach - will partner with John H. to discuss pulling that community in...
Has a strategy to pull in the Northern terroritories - a celebration soon - Jan. 31st or later - welcoming our new neighbors - "not an apology, a celebration" - ask these new folk to join our advisory boards
Suggests that when they put the new Firestation up North that a large meeting room be added to the structure to help those folk get together...

Steve: [Asks for the question to be reread - I guess he lost the thread of discussion] He thinks that the BOA have better things to do than change human nature or the way people think...

Dan: Doesn't think there is a cultural divide. There's differences and it's important that those differences don't become divides. He mentions that he got to know how Katrina thinks during the campaign - it's different than what he thinks but they have common ground. He added a few examples of where he believes Cat and Kat have valid suggestions - different but worth evaluating.

Panel 2 is over.

Of the first two panels, Dan definitely had the most complete, eloquent, coherent responses. He obviously is prepared to move on to the next level. Dan quickly and cogently hit a number of Carrboro issues - and is the only applicant so far to reference his written answers.

James Carnahan. I think, is the second best respondent so far.

Katrina was strongest when speaking on taxes and the Northern terroritories.

Steve, to me, seems, so far, to be the absolute weakest respondent.

Whoa! The WCOM pundits just agreed with me on Dan's eloquence and preparedness.

Panel 3

Albert V.
Robert
David M.
Alena

Jacqui:

Albert: Spoke to a Superfund project he was working on. He thought it would be "a crime" to follow the EPA process after speaking to the community. He fought for redevelopment over the alternative even though 1/2 the Town council was suing him...

Jacqui: Could you please tell us a time when you changed your stance n an issue in a community or professional setting based on feedback from the community?

Alena: Is bringing up a business example based on IBM...
sorry lost the thread because WCOM interrupted, as they did with Albert, to give us a take on what folks are wearing! WCOM!!!!!

David: Talking on tax fairness for Hispanics - a report he wanted to do....

WCOM! Gosh darnit - David's a great speaker but they killed his response with a rundown of his affiliations and what the heck he's wearing! This correspondence is too much - speaking about Robert's pink outfit!

Alex's IndyWeek question - "The unpopular principled stand" and "There's no role for an ideologue in the BOA - where does principle end, ideology begin?"

Robert: What is the right thing to do? - he seems to have lost the thread of the question and is meandering - Alex is rereading the 2nd part of the question AGAIN - Robert responds on not stepping on property rights.... A complete miss....

Albert: Another rereading of the question! WCOM!!! [I think he said "taxes"] Quote: "The primary duty of the Town Council is to make sure the Town has the [resources] to meet its obligations..." Another explanation of what ideologue means is in order...

Alena: Northern Terroritory transition zone or Downtown decisions.

David: Thanks folk for showing up. Kids about he hopes that he answers better than during the campaign as the Indy didn't endorse. David has an excellent and self-deprecating sense of humor! Universal Internet access - knows that it isn't popular with folk but that the service represents the "new encyclopedia".

Of the folk that answered the "Principled stand" only Dan, James, David, Cat brought up specific issues before the Town of Carrboro.

Broun: Leadership

David M. : Mentions his service in the military. Lead by example. Make difficult choices/decisions. "There is no easy choice." --- WCOM!!!!! stomps on David's answer again --- "Putting yourself in the other persons position".

I don't get WCOM's correspondents fascination with what folk are wearing. If the community and BOA was trying to decide based on couture than they've done an excellent service this evening ;-)!

Herrara: Good governance….

Alena (whom WCOM described as "the IBM sales" person): Consider the whole of the community - not a particular segment - make affordable housing available - provide the right services to everyone - make sure we have a tax base...that will allow us to provide services without affecting tax [rates]...

David: To give you some insight of what type of BOA I'd be - [my paraphrase] governance is about reaching inside and employing those skills - brings up law background, his degree in community administration, being a parent, being a single parent - he's a part of this community - governance is about marshalling all your life's experience into helping your community.

Robert: Referencing his being a volunteer fireman - kids about "accidentally" falling into his volunteerism ("I can't get out..."). Don't overstep boundaries.

Albert: ...to work issues so that the community can live their lives without adverse reactions... learned that you can affect folk unintentionally by rules...watch out for unintended consequences of "enthusiastic" governance. To paraphrase, to seem to want the lightest touch necessary.

Randi: Community building - cultural divide.

Albert: Spoke of his upbringing in NYC.

WCOM!!!! Missed Alena's answer.

David: Says that the campaign trail was a great education in democracy...hadn't internalized the lessons until he ran...
walkable communities - coming together - about having amicable conflict - to heal the breach between the North region and Carrboro.

Robert: Carrboro is a diversified community - see s it as a strength - approach folk in order to get feedback - asking the questions - sense of trying to be inclusive

The panel is done and the BOA is wrapping up.

Jacqui is saying she hasn't been as proud as tonight...that she might cry...

A quick recap of my impressions.

In terms of eloquence, completeness, preparedness, overarching coherence, I think Dan did quite well - the best of anyone this evening. He was the only candidate to reference his written material. He built on several themes over the 6 questions. He also brought the questions back to Carrboro specifics.

I'd say David did well on eloquence, building themes, bringing in Carrboro specifics. His colloquial style was quite appealing. He introduced more of his backstory to the public than anyone else and brought forth something I'd admired quite a bit on the campaign trail - his big heart.

James and Cat, are the next notables. They both answered the "principled" question directly - using specific Carrboro examples. Cat, as she did on the campaign trail, bubbled with ideas and enthusiasm - one of the few speakers tonight to introduce a specific action item. James did well presenting his service and established his sense of stability in the community.

OK, Katrina was up and down - made some flubs - had to ask for a question to be reread but...she hit some of the same themes she introduced in the campaign - but with not quite the specificity as before. During the campaign she honed her message on taxes and the Northern Terroritories but tonight she seemed off her game. For instance, she missed bringing up her strong business background. And she did take on the tax issue - though not with the same resonance she had during some of our joint campaign appearances.

Given that Dan and James didn't have the chance to hone their rhetorical skills during the campaign, their performances were that much more impressive. Kudos to David and Cat for running in the first place and continuing their strong advocacies through the current process - I hope they get a bit of credit from the BOA for not slinking away.

Overall, I'd say the short list after this evening, based on this evening's performance and the questionnaires has to include: Dan, David, Cat, James.

The session closed with a discussion of how a decision would be made. Randee was overwhelmed with everything she heard tonight and needs time to work through--not sure if she has the attention left to decide on process. John suggested identifying some common criteria, but Jacqui isn't a matrix kind of girl; they are a complex group of people; won't all have the same values, etc etc all to get to the point that each will make his/her decision independently but there may be more discussion about process even as late as Jan 31. There was some discussion about using a paper ballot, but Alex stepped up and said that the public deserves to hear all the discussion. Mark agreed. The CHCCS adopted Carrboro High--session ended on an up beat.

Difficult to say I was "dodging" the question, it was more like I forgot the second or third part of the question. I should have brought pen and paper. I didn't expect three part questions. That was my fault.

Nice coverage of the interviews! Thanks for having it up so quickly.

Thanks John, I know how difficult the forum format can be. At least you had 2 mins. ;-).

Tom Jensen is the king of OP liveblogging. I hope that I didn't mess up the words too much.

Oh, I also wanted to add that the three candidates in the panel with me were very strong candidates: articulate, well spoken, good backgrounds, and very smart. I look forward to hearing more information about the candidates in the other two panels, which I know very little about.

I had a completely different take on the evening than Will did. While I came in late and missed a big chunk of the first group, I liked David Beck's style. While everyone emphasized the need for good communication skills, I thought his direct and minimalistic responses were probably the most accessible to the largest spectrum of listeners.

I also thought Katrina did well. She didn't follow the pack with pat answers, didn't rely on overly theoretical responses, and showed her knowledge of Carrboro and her understanding of the economic culture divide within the community. Will's audio problems may have made his reporting on the music festival comment a bit misleading. The question was about what decision you might make that would be unpopular. Her response was that taxes are an issue (Dan had just said he supports taxation) for many Carrboro residents and that if she had to make a choice between allocating additional budget funds to pay overtime for police, etc., she would opt to forego the music festival for one year.

James clearly has the best understanding of Carrboro ordinances, a vision for urbanization, and a realistic grasp on the reality of governing old Carrboro (aka before the annexation). I didn't hear enough of that early panel to get a good feel for preparedness for the new Carrboro. Dan was well prepared and has clearly benefitted from his many years of moderating political panels and working on the campaigns of others (most recently Chilton and Gist, with some contribution to Herrara, Haven-O'Donnell, and Marshall as well as Raymond in Chapel Hill).

It might've been during the middle of Katrina's "principled question" when the WCOM interjected a comment about her pink outfit. I thought her response was great, I don't think I wrote it up well. I made the same point in Chapel Hill when I suggested delaying the new swim complex might be the most budgetary prudent move to make - tough choices as David M. underlined.

As far as David Beck, I totally disagree.

Having spent 3 months campaigning, hundreds of hours reaching out the public in numerous venues and forums, you might think I have a skewed view of David's responsibility but.... Here was his chance to express to Carrboro's citizenry where he stands on the issues, what's the "cut of his jib", to build on his public profile.

To not try to build a bit of a thematic response to the questions was a waste of an opportunity.

If I didn't know David B. I might think that his tenure on the BOA would be marked by terse, un-nuanced responses. I'm pretty sure no candidate (or applicant) wants folk to think they're brief in their decision making.

Thanks Will... WCOM owes you something for making the broadcast hard to blog... a pink shirt...

WCOM does deserve credit for covering the meeting live on the 'net. I just wished they correspondent hadn't stepped on some of the folks answers!

Mary, maybe someone will listen to the podcast and sort out how many minutes were spent on clothing. Oh, and I'd suck in pink - it'll clash with the grey in my beard ;-)

I give leeway to those applicants who haven't had practice with the forum format. The questions were a bit too academic for my tastes and that put some of the applicants at a distinct disadvantage. I'm also feeling rather Pollyannish today and felt like each and everyone of these applicants have something special and unique to offer Carrboro. Some have a better command of the English language and more polish in the public arena. Some are taking more of a risk by putting themselves through this public scrutiny. Some showed more heart than head.

And for the record, I think it would be great if Dan wants to run for an elected seat; he has many positive qualities. But he's been too active in the campaigns of others too recently for me to feel comfortable with him being appointed. And I happen to believe that if Dan was on the other side watching, he would be saying the same thing.

About David Beck, Will writes "Here was his chance to express to Carrboro's citizenry where he stands on the issues.."

I thought the point was to express to the Mayor and five current members of the Board of Aldermen where he stands!

Fred, I didn't time him out so I'll go with Terri's impression of terseness. Terri thinks his minimalistic style was a plus. If this was one of several opportunities, I might agree with her but it wasn't, this was his one and only "big" chance.

He had 12 minutes to communicate to his audience - seems like he'd want to use that resource effectively.

Terri,

What is it about being involved in campaigns that makes you feel disqualifies someone from being appointed?

Thanks so much for blogging about this. I'm out of town and appreciate this info.

A few questions:
Didn't James write a very nice editorial last summer about why he decided not to run for BOA? I couldn't find it online or through library databases, so perhaps my memory is in error. Should that have any bearing on this issue?

And here's another question: would anyone be upset if Alex never said "ideologue" again? As someone who doesn't know a lot about how the BOA works (though I did know enough to guess all the winners in November!), I think it makes him seem bitter and reflects poorly on him, which I suspect is not his intention. Was his question about learning about candidates or taking a potshot at the mayor? (Obviously these are questions from someone who has no intention of running for office!)

It's interesting, I guess, to read that some people think that taxes are a reason people can't afford to live in Carrboro. That seems like a skewed perspective to me. Affordable housing strikes me as a much more pressing issue.

Ah-ha! The editorial was in the Chapel Hill News. I'd link to the article but it requires that darn N&O login.

Gee, I can't wait to hear what I was wearing.

Joan,

James did write a thoughtful column explaining his decision not to run for election. It appeared during the filing period in July.

Alex enjoys philosophical discourse. His question tested the applicants' powers of interpretation, probably by design. It didn't reflect poorly on him.

Property tax impacts housing cost considerably -- not a skewed perspective.

Mark M,

I don't think being involved in campaigning disqualifies anyone from office. In fact, I believe helping on others campaign is a good way to prepare for one's own campaign. I do, however, think that after working on a number of campaigns within a single board and then putting one's self forward for appointment to that board immediately after the election creates an awkward situation. As I explained to Dan when I shared this concern with him a couple of weeks ago, I think he will make a formidable candidate in an election.

Joan--Alex used a question, posed by the Independent on their questionnaire, that he found challenging. What's the problem with that?

Terri, I actually think part 1 the question is a good one, make that a great one. It was part 2 that seemed unnecessary. Or was that part of the Independent's questions too? In which case, my bad.

In regard to involvement in campaigns, so many of the candidates were involved - either by volunteering, otherwise supporting, or actually running and forming some sort of relationship with the other candidates. It's a tangle fo relationships of varying degrees of importance. In the end, I think a lot is lost if the most involved people are deemed unqualified because of this. I think the solution, as is usually the case, is to just see the political landscape and the web of relationships and make a decision based on what that person brings to the job. We can't ever avoid the personal in the political and its not fair to make judgments on the degree of the various relationships among the applicants and Board members. In the end, Board members will have to make cogent arguments as to why they chose a particular person.

And to me, it always gets back to what is the best way to choose a representative in a democracy? By vote of course. Every other jack-leg method falls short & we are dealing with the clumsy consequences of a goofy system.

Joan, Part 2 of Alex's question didn't come from the Independent survey -- only Part 1. Former candidates had a slight leg-up, having completed the Indy survey during the campaign.

I thought all the questions were very good and thought-provoking and remarkably reflective of the aldermen who asked them. I thought the process was about as organized and as fair as one could hope for. If there was a flaw, perhaps it was that there wasn't a lot of time for expounding outside the parameters of the question. Perhaps an opening or closing statement would've been instructive. But I think the whole process served its purpose in that whoever the aldermen pick, everyone will pretty much know who and what they are getting.

WillR, if I read correctly, I think you imply above that you know me, but I don't recall us ever meeting. Perhaps it would be worthwhile sometime.

David B.,
I would have liked to hear prepared statements from the candidates myself.

Joan,
I thought the clear, right answer to Alex's ‘ideologue versus principled stand' question was, “It depends on whose ox is getting gored.”

Hearing the question repeated over and over again was interesting… Perhaps the repetition has driven home the message that it is always better to state a specific grievance against a candidate rather than call a candidate a destructive name…

Also, I vaguely remember James C.'s letter. I have no problem believing that much can change in one's life between July and January… It's the way life is…

Ruby,
I will be totally amazed if someone from the north part of town gets the appointment-- even though there are five candidates from out here.

Also, it turns out that close to midnight I ran across the forum on Channel 18. Katrina was just about finished answering the question about cultural divide and was saying things I agree with. Catherine and Dan answered that question well.

Next, the final four came on. What I really liked about the final four is that they are all so far removed from the fray… even Marshall still seems his own man and on the outside…

I wish I had a clearer sense of where Vickers, Callamanis, Marold, and Kirschner stand on the continuum of ‘strict father, lower taxes, and small government' versus ‘broad prosperity and mutual responsibility' I don't feel like I know enough about these four candidates.

One more thing— there must be some way to rebroadcast the forum and not cut out the segments that are taped during the 10 minute blue-outs…

Mary - I think it's gonna be streamed on the town website in the next coupla days and I presume that would be w/o any interruption. So you may want to go ahead and get those speakers fixed.

Mary, feel free to ask me any questions you may want. If you prefer to do it privately, you may email me at alenac@us.ibm.com (or walk down the block...).

David B. I've read your other responses on OP and they've been less than terse. Good idea about an opening and closing statement - that would've been quite effective in setting the tone for what really is a very short "candidacy".

I think everyone should listen or watch the forum if you get a chance. My notes suffer from slow typing, WCOM interjections, audio fadeouts and the necessity for paraphrasing.

For instance, I think Katrina did well comparatively to most other applicants, it's just that I've heard her be much more effective during the campaign. So, in isolation, good enough - compared to some of the clear,direct, heartfelt answers she made on the campaign trail - not quite on game.

Mary, I listened closely to the applicants I'd never been exposed to - Stephen, John, Lydia, Alena, Robert, Albert - in order to get a better sense of where they were coming from. I think everyone except Stephen, at least for me, created a strong "mental image" of their future "BOA character" - a good first step. I got a sense of how each of them would work with the BOA and Carrboro's folk. For instance, direct action - walking up to folk - or indirect action - waiting for folk to come to them.

BTW, as far as Stephen, it was difficult to both hear and understand what he was saying. Maybe the streaming video/audio will do a better job.

Will writes, "I think everyone should listen or watch the forum if you get a chance."

Why? Will those who do then have more legitimate grounds for supporting or disagreeing with the decision made by the Mayor and the five Board members? Like Mark M. wrote above, "we are dealing with the clumsy consequences of a goofy system!"

Good point Fred. The constituency is the BOA - what citizens want is not important (oh, unless the current BOA listens to their existing or soon-to-be-new constituencies).