It's nice to see something almost resembling a dialog going here. I would ask commenters to start using their real names. It's the decent thing to do, and I'm going to start out by seeking voluntary compliance and see how that goes.
In the comments to yesterday's post, somebody going by "Top of Rutland" wrote:
I don't think the argument that a candidate who ran for office and was not elected was rejected holds much water. I don't know of anyone that voted against any of the candidates for aldermen.
It holds exactly as much water as the argument that the candidate who wasn't elected was "next in line." There is no way of knowing that if Barrett had not been on the ballot, the majority of his votes would have gone to Pemrick and not, say, Thomas Bixby. They might have, but that's an educated guess at best.
In the post from earlier today, we have "Observer":
Gordon: Has a mayor faced with filling a board seat ever appointed the "next in line" candidate? Can you check? I disagree that it's the "fair" thing to do. As you wrote in your last post, the voters did not elect that individual; there's no mandate to do so.
Mayor Louras was just in here, and he said that he has always done what he plans to do here: pick the best candidate. His most recent appointee, Sean Sargeant, had not previously run for office. Before that he appointed Christopher Robinson, who had previously been a unsuccessful candidate, though not in the most recent election and even then he had not been "next in line."
Louras rejected any notion that political or philosophical considerations should play any role in the decision.
"I swore an oath to do what's in my best judgement and that's what I'm going to do," he said.
Comments