Right reasoning, wrong conclusion on Marmie, Guthrie race
On Wednesday, The Advocate endorsed Marc Guthrie in the Newark Council President race. But their conclusion contradicts their reasoning.
They correctly point out that Marmie comes from the Council ranks (Guthrie does not since he was elected directly to the Council President position four years ago). They correctly note that Marmie would operate the position as it is intended to operate. The Council President should be less like a Speaker of the House or a Senate President and more like a parliamentarian, maintaining order, running the meeting and assigning work to committees in a non-partisan manner.
The Advocate even notes that in his role as Council President, Guthrie has been a bit too active in the partisan debate. They reference the recent Regional Income Tax Authority (RITA) issue as an example of Guthrie pursuing his own agenda, since he assigned the issue to a committee that he knew would allow it to die without proper discussion.
Then what does The Advocate conclude? That Guthrie should be elected President of Council. Right reasoning, wrong conclusion.
The fact is that Guthrie is a partisan to his core. In fact, he is so partisan that I am not sure he realizes it. Further he is one of those watch-what-I-do-not-what-I-say people.
He has proposed making Council races non-partisan BECAUSE it would give the Council President even more power, not because it would be good for the City of Newark. Doug Marmie has an excellent editorial on this point here.
When City Treasurer, Bob Lehman, proposed the outsourcing of some elements of the City's tax collection process, Guthrie was opposed because he didn't want any city jobs eliminated. That's a reasonable issue to debate but Guthrie assigned the issue to a committee that he knew would allow the issue to die without a full and fair public discussion. So much for non-partisan and open government.
The Advocate vaguely referenced that Guthrie is a stickler for observation of the city charter. Has Marmie advocated throwing the charter out? Newark has a Law Director who is quite capable of advising the City Council members of the charter contents in the case of controversy.
The fact is that even fellow Democrats recognize Guthrie as a partisan. Marmie, on the other hand, has run a clean race and has traditionally been known as a fair, principled member of Council who knows the difference between running a good meeting and attempting to control one.
They correctly point out that Marmie comes from the Council ranks (Guthrie does not since he was elected directly to the Council President position four years ago). They correctly note that Marmie would operate the position as it is intended to operate. The Council President should be less like a Speaker of the House or a Senate President and more like a parliamentarian, maintaining order, running the meeting and assigning work to committees in a non-partisan manner.
The Advocate even notes that in his role as Council President, Guthrie has been a bit too active in the partisan debate. They reference the recent Regional Income Tax Authority (RITA) issue as an example of Guthrie pursuing his own agenda, since he assigned the issue to a committee that he knew would allow it to die without proper discussion.
Then what does The Advocate conclude? That Guthrie should be elected President of Council. Right reasoning, wrong conclusion.
The fact is that Guthrie is a partisan to his core. In fact, he is so partisan that I am not sure he realizes it. Further he is one of those watch-what-I-do-not-what-I-say people.
He has proposed making Council races non-partisan BECAUSE it would give the Council President even more power, not because it would be good for the City of Newark. Doug Marmie has an excellent editorial on this point here.
When City Treasurer, Bob Lehman, proposed the outsourcing of some elements of the City's tax collection process, Guthrie was opposed because he didn't want any city jobs eliminated. That's a reasonable issue to debate but Guthrie assigned the issue to a committee that he knew would allow the issue to die without a full and fair public discussion. So much for non-partisan and open government.
The Advocate vaguely referenced that Guthrie is a stickler for observation of the city charter. Has Marmie advocated throwing the charter out? Newark has a Law Director who is quite capable of advising the City Council members of the charter contents in the case of controversy.
The fact is that even fellow Democrats recognize Guthrie as a partisan. Marmie, on the other hand, has run a clean race and has traditionally been known as a fair, principled member of Council who knows the difference between running a good meeting and attempting to control one.
Comments