Vote Them Out? Not So Fast…
This week’s Courier Herald column:
A bit over a week ago I was scanning my Facebook timeline and saw a post from one of my friends. In it she urged “… if you want to start sending a message about everything that is not working, don’t vote for the folks that have gotten us in this mess. Vote them out!!” She continued to note this was important at every level, even down to our county commission.
I found this noteworthy because she’s not one of my “political friends”, but an actual friend. I’ve known her for a quarter century now, since I went to work for a bank in Marietta as my first job out of college.
Her Mom trained me to be both a teller and a customer service agent. When I was promoted to be a Branch Manager a couple of years later I asked her if she would leave the training department and be my Assistant Manager. I knew I still had a lot to learn. She continued to teach me.
Our assignment was a challenging one made more difficult by both our local management and our Florida based holding company. The guys in charge were tough, and sometimes downright ruthless. Managers played games with employees for what seemed like the sheer sake of it. While technically proficient, many of our management team thought those of us working in the trenches seemed almost incidental to the success of the bank. Then, one day, we got a notice that our Atlanta branches were being divested.
Just before the spinoff we got a typically annoying call from bank operations in Florida that wanted us to re-document something they found in one of their reports. I don’t remember the exchange, all I remember is my assistant manager ending the call by yelling, “You know, we’re not going to miss you people at all!” Then she slammed the phone down.
The merger closed a week or so later, and our branch absorbed two additional branches into our facility. We were only given two new staff members to cover the new volume. Then the real problems started. While our new management was composed of much nicer people, they weren’t very good at the fundamentals. I went from making loans to looking for lost deposits. Our HR department wasn’t able to fill positions. Nothing seemed to be working right.
It took a while for either of us to want to admit it, but we did eventually. The folks we used to work for may have been tough or even mean. But they did know how to run a bank. The new guys did not, and we and all of those that reported to us, as well as our customers, suffered for it.
As fate would have it I was back in that same building where we met and I was trained to be a bank teller last Tuesday. It’s now the Cobb County Commissioners building, and I was there to help question candidates for two State House races and two County Commission races. All four races have an incumbent facing at least one challenger. The differences in answers from the incumbents and their challengers were striking.
The two challengers running against first term Representative Bert Reeves and ten term incumbent Sharon Cooper seemed like they were running against a generic “they”. Neither challenger demonstrated the intellectual curiosity to have learned what either opponent has or has not done on the issues they spoke of.
Reeves’ challenger started by saying he was running because all of our problems are being ignored, specifically citing that our roads are bad, and no one is doing anything about it. Perhaps he missed the bill that provided a roughly 50% increase in state raised transportation revenue passed in 2015, or the follow up ten-year plan to rebuild our existing roads while increasing mobility.
Cooper’s challenger used his closing to say that “they” spent so much time as insiders that “they” didn’t take any time to look at problems real Georgians are facing, citing the heroin epidemic that counts the East Cobb County district as ground zero. Cooper was able to restrain herself as she recounted multiple bills that she not only sponsored but have become law addressing that issue specifically. She’s my Rep, and this debate offered me no reason to exchange experience and results for uninformed anger.
On the commission side, we had one challenger who refused to answer any specifics on questions, instead taking a Trump like “I will find the smart people and ask them” tack to solving local transportation questions, and otherwise stated he wouldn’t be on the losing side of 4-1 votes like the incumbent because “he was tired of losing”. These are answers that insult the intelligence of a voter trying to learn what to expect from someone running for office, and earned a vote from me for his challenger, incumbent Commissioner Bob Ott.
In our Commission Chairman’s race, both challengers wanted to make sure their opposition to the process that brought us the Braves Stadium was noted. One still contends that the financing is illegal, despite the Georgia Supreme Court saying otherwise. I can’t see myself voting for someone that wishes to fight lost battles. The other challenger chose to use a question about moving on from the Braves vote to again complain about the vote. It was frustrating. Advantage here for Tim Lee.
In the end, we are all faced with a stark reality: We may question some of the decisions about our incumbent elected officials. We may not even like some of them. But we should approach every decision about whether we vote to keep them or send them packing with a careful evaluation of the person who would replace them – on their positions and motives.
There are many seeking power this election cycle who understand the electorate is angry, and all they have to do is “don’t be the incumbent”. This puts all citizens in quite the vulnerable spot. Because if we all decide that “we’re not going to miss any of these incumbents at all”, we may just look back in a year or so and realize that things, in fact, can actually get worse.
About Author
Charlie
Founder of GeorgiaPol.com; Now weekly columnist Very interested in Georgia and Georginas. Interest in politics is waning daily.
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Is there ever an example of one of these ‘angry’ challengers being useful for changing a recalcitrant incumbent’s ways? Or does the challenge, once overcome, mostly serve to make an incumbent more confident of his position and leave the people with even less recourse to be heard during the next term?
You make a valid point. That being said I would vote for the yellow dog, not just a yellow dog democrat over any current member of the PSC.
As much as my better judgment tells me not to ask, I can’t resist, what is your issue with the PSC?
I cant speak for anyone but myself, but my problem with the PSC boils down to
Stan Wise and anyone like him. That a good enough answer?
Actually, I think you deserve a better more thorough answer. Lets start with the mission statement
The mission of the Georgia Public Service Commission is to exercise its authority and influence to ensure that consumers receive safe, reliable and reasonably priced telecommunications, electric and natural gas services from financially viable and technically competent companies.
The PSC is a REGULATORY agency. Its mission is not to provide for those they regulate, such as making consumers (the ones you are supposed to be protecting) pay for a nuclear plant up front that is wildly over budget giving the one who should be regulated no real incentive to keep cost over runs down (why should they? Their customers are already paying the bill up front.). That NEVER should have been enacted by an agency whose mission is to be pro consumer protection…not one in the business of protecting those they regulate.
A good start to that would be a total ban on any kind of contribution to a commissioner from anyone they regulate…sounds common sense…in theory since it doesnt happen in practice for some.
Completely agree.
I pretty much share your views on the PSC but I think they’re clear on the Vogtle pre-pay deal. My recollection is GP took the issue directly to the legislature, by-passing the PSC entirely. Of course, they couldn’t do that without the active connivance of the governor and legislative leaders and all the business community, but when’s the last time any of them told GP no?
Sorry, I didn’t mean to post and run but was invited to fish Lake Burton yesterday. Quite the coincidence given the subject at hand.
As noted by others Plant Vogtle is my primary objection to the current members of the PSC. I know the blame assignment can be spread to some key legislators for the concept of paying Georgia Power, well, just because they are Georgia Power. That being said the PSC did their part with the most galling part being an override of their staff’s recommendations. By putting the rate payers on the hook for advance payments through at least 3 years of delays. The longer Georgia Power delays the project the more we pay in advance for electricity not provided.
I’m a traditionalist and firmly believe that payments to utilities should strictly be for goods and services provided. Consumers are given a rate that traditionally was arrived at by Georgia Power asking for twice what they wanted. The PSC would then hem and haw and cut that in half looking as if they had done their job. Everybody gets reelected and everyone is then happy. I object to paying for electricity not provided just as much as I object to paying corporations not to grow soybeans. I don’t feel it is the place of the consumer who can’t go elsewhere without moving out of state to be unwilling venture capitalists. I strenuously object to paying additional monies for construction delays and cost overruns that were almost guaranteed when this project was resurrected.
And yes I am aware that Mr. Echols wasn’t around at the time. I wouldn’t vote for him for many other reasons. Soliciting Masters tickets, Dan Becker…
I think that having people that are intelligent and know how the process works would help a great deal. As an example, I recently told a candidate for judge that was trying to hand me a palm card that I had already voted for him and to save his materials for someone else. He said that he had never run before and that the election wasn’t until May. I politely told him while that was true, but that I always vote absentee so that I can research everyone on the ballot. Absentee ballots have already been mailed out. He had never heard of someone voting absentee that wasn’t in the military and I know he didn’t believe me when I said I had already voted. I’m assuming he didn’t have an absentee ballot chaser plan to target those guaranteed primary voters. I immediately regretted casting my vote for him.
From my view that process would start with leaders toning down the whole “government is evil, government can’t do anything right” rhetoric. That’s got to be discouraging to a lot of people. Plus it’s an easy way out; why should I spend time and trouble learning about candidates or the process or even running when it’s all BS anyway. If leaders would just say the process does need to be better but the way to do that is to be more informed we would be on our way.
But of course many (or most) of the leaders who say that government sucks are purposely trying to drive down voter turnout.
“I immediately regretted casting my vote for him.” Nothing to feel bad about—I’ve had that same feeling too many times.
Few run for the first time for commissioner or state houses with deep expertise, many run with preconceived answers that will not be modified, while I prefer to listen carefully for signs of an open mind, care for the general welfare and common sense, very rare these days.
Another flag: In business nothing is worse than trading an unmotivated incompetent for a motivated incompetent.
In some cases, the cure is worse than the disease.
I would say generally none of these arguments apply to Dekalb Co Commissioners. A rabid squirrel would do a better job than half the commission as is. I know they’d have better ethics, even being rabid and all.
I might jump into that race. My campaign slogan would be “At least I don’t have rabies!”