Those members of the Board felt that given their own lack of information
about the city council candidates and concerns raised, outside of the
endorsement question, that they could not justify going against the
membership recommendations.
In addition to screening candidates on issues unique to the GLBT community
we also raised questions about the Minneapolis Police Department, Housing,
etc. We evaluate candidates as to not only are the good on GLBT issues but
whether or not they would be good council members for the broader community.
Sometimes there are specific instances where it comes down to a gut feeling
of if that candidate would do a good job.
Believe it or not GLBT people pay taxes, own/rent homes, use city roads,
require police protection and so on. We want someone we can trust in
elected positions who will be effective and good advocates for us as whole
citizens.
Having these in mind it follows that a person's sexuality does not guarantee
them a positive rating from the caucus. it does us no good as members of the
community and as GLBT people to have elected officials who are not effective
in their jobs.
Now, speaking for myself and myself only, in the case of Ms Lickness I think
it did come down to the old "gut instinct" and a different aspect of the
"endorsement question". I will quote her answer to that question as posted
in the MPLS Election Toolkit site
"2. Are you willing to make a commitment NOT to run against a DFL-endorsed
candidate?
I am expecting to win endorsement in the upcoming DFL endorsing convention
in the 6th ward or cause a no endorsement situation. My current delegate
count gives me confidence that one of these situations would be the case.
If I cannot win the DFL endorsement or cause a no endorsement situation, I
would have to reassess the future of my campaign and in all likelihood, I
would not continue to run."
Now, it is one thing to respectfully state that you will run in a primary
election regardless of the convention results. It is another thing entirely
to state that if you do not win you are going to try to sabatoge the
process. That indicates someone that "does not play well with others" and is
an important factor in deciding whether this person is going to be a good
council member and work well with the other members and other city
departments. At the very least it shows a lack of strategic thought to lay
out your strategy in a forum where your opponents have access to the
information.
Megan Thomas
West Seventh
> From: Barbara Lickness <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 06:25:45 -0800 (PST)
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [Mpls] Stonewall DFL
>
> You are right Fred, my name is missing from the "new"
> ratings roster. So are Robert Lilligrens and Walt
> Gutzmer. Both are openly gay men who I am assuming
> other than for the "loyalty" question, would have
> received an acceptable rating.
>
> I would hope that Stonewall would now apply the same
> criteria for the Council Candidates as they did for
> the Mayoral candidates.
>
> Barb Lickness
> Whittier
> Ward 6
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
> http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
> _______________________________________________
> Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
> Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
> http://e-democracy.org/mpls
_______________________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
