quote:

Originally posted by Candidate:
T.A.
I don't think the board has seen your letter yet but I expect to see every last one. I think Diane from Go Downtown has been banned from this board for speaking out against the EDC but she called Berwyn and Robbins and both stated that the plans put together for them from Town Builders were not realistically implementable. On a different note, is that Ultra Man on your Avatar?

quote:

Hase defended her handling of the vote, saying it would be unfair to criticize her for what happened when she was just as uncertain as the trustees on how to proceed.


“I’m sorry if I don’t think fast enough, but that’s the reality of what happened,” Hase said.
But her justifications were not enough to assuage the three trustees’ concerns, as Ladesic called into question the fairness of the entire hiring process.

quote:

Originally posted by farber55:
What's most interesting about this is the fact that the village seems always to pick the worst decision possible -- given a situation where better decisions are available.

The "8mm-to-DVD" conversion store idea is just plain weird. Actually, it's more than weird. It's wonderfully *incorrect* -- and yet inevitably is (or will be) the one chosen. (What, did they forget about PJ's? Hands down one of the best photographic supply/service stores in the 'burbs. Where in the world can you still pick up Kodak D76 or a little can of Acufine, for chrissake?! Central Camera, sure -- but when you're not downtown, it's nice to have a place nearby that sells actual Tri-X for those of us still shooting film. But I digress...)

Throw up an incorrect idea -- and the village will say, yeah, that's good. I like that. Do you like that? Sure. We like it. Damn, that's the right one. Friend, it doesn't get any better. How can it? It can't. Is that the one? That, my friend, is the *one*.

I keep thinking of a table of poker players when I read these stories about the Village cabal. Our cabal are the guys (and gals) sitting at the table who always -- like clockwork -- happily misread strength of their opponents -- and then are more than willing to throw good money into the pot. But they don't do it out of ignorance. They do it out of contempt. They do it because they're so peeved at the rightness of the right play that they get all aggressive with the wrong play -- out of principle. For them, the wrong play is righter -- more righteous -- than the right simply because the dudes across the table playing correctly can't possibly be *that* correct. It's sort of a fascist hubris, really.

What's interesting isn't the hubris -- fascist or no. I mean, that's always a given when the powerless suddenly become powerful and endowed with what they consider to be a kind of visionary authority. (We can look to Springfield and Blagojevich to see proof of this.)

What's interesting is the almost mathematical inevitibility of the *wrong* choice. Why is this? Why is Glen Ellyn like this?

And about the poker table: the village cabal gives the short-term appearance of success. They're so weirdly aggressive -- and consistently inconsistent -- that they scare most folks out of the pot. In the short-term, they tend to win -- but not in the long-term. Probability still -- eventually -- drops its heavy hammer.

So there's hope. In theory. Right?

quote:

Originally posted by MaybeNotSoCoveted:
I'd be surprised if that clique didn't see more competition next time from candidates running as Independents. Only next time they won't be able to say that anyone is attempting to 'buy the election.' IMO we finally have some Trustees with an independent spirit that are willing to speak up.

quote:

Originally posted by Clamato:
I think we should figure out who that Jim Burket guy is. Seems super insightful.

If you're out there, Mr. Burket. . . please, join us.

quote:

Originally posted by JRPotts:

I'll take that as a personal shot against me. I did say that he was buying the election...and so what. If you look at expenditures...in every race across the US, the winner is usually the CANDIDATE with the most money and who spends the most money. It's a fact of life and certainly a fact of politics.

I will always stand by my previous statements that the CBP was a good organization because it permitted people to run for office without expending a lot of money on campaigning and without creating factions in the community. Obviously, what we have seen is proof positive that it isn't the best indicator of future success, but in theory, it made sense to me...not so much anymore.

quote:

Originally posted by farber55:
So there's hope. In theory. Right?

quote:

Originally posted by farber55:
What's most interesting about this is the fact that the village seems always to pick the worst decision possible -- given a situation where better decisions are available.