Third candidate is not necessaryPublished 10:53am Tuesday, May 29, 2012
This is written with a threefold intention. It is addressed to a newly announced candidate for Austin mayor. Appreciation is given for the concern for our city, both in its history and the need for continued dependable leadership. Current city charter requires that if more than two candidates run for this office, a primary election is required. The primary would be for all polling stations to be opened, some weeks before the general election. Does anyone know the expense to taxpayers to fund such a process?
Mr. Jerald Kelly has “thrown his hat into the ring.” It’s an older hat, but for that too, we can be grateful! Our goal: All citizens matter in Austin. I admire your gusto at age 90, Mr. Kelly!
My threefold suggestion gives, I believe, good reason for candidate Jerald Kelly to say, “I’m committed to the well-being of my city, but will withdraw my candidacy.”
One: There are many ways to honor our community and to raise important issues, but recent years have proven that other persons with greater experience may be more suitable for the position.
Two: Many persons like Mr. Kelly, and, I may add myself, have abilities and concerns, but there are other areas where one may be needed. These other opportunities, I suggest, be offered to Mr. Kelly.
Three: Consider the financial arrangement. The other two announced candidates NOW serve our city, and their qualifications place them as very suited for the office of Mayor, To place more than two nominees before the voters, obligates the citizens to, it seems, a burdensome and unnecessary financial expense. Is a primary election with three announced candidates necessary? Feel free to call me, Mr. Kelly. I’m willing to mediate other places where your generous offer can be realized.