Archived Story

Third candidate is not necessary

Published 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.

 

Marvin Repinski
Austin


Sign in to Comment | Need help commenting? Click here

  • factchecker

    Repinski, who the h#ll do you think you are to try to tell someone to not run for public office? I commend him for standing up for what he thinks, right or wrong. I wish more people would have the courage to run for positions in city, county office. That is what this country was founded on, local government on up, that ANYBODY can run for office.

    We dont all care to listen to a self righteous, self proclaimed so called preacher state his opinions all the time. I could say “i wish you would sit down & shut up” but that wouldnt be right of me.

    Report comment

  • scottb

    Misguided commentary. It’s the charter that should be reviewed, not the fact that we have a third choice. The expense of the election process is something we all need to accept. If the charter calls for a primary then we pay for a primary. Pure and simple. That’s the law. You give the impression that once two people are running there shouldn’t be a third.

    And saying the other two choices are “qualified” and well suited for the office of mayor is laughable if you read some of the on line comments of this very paper. Did the current mayor serve an elected position before he got elected? If I remember correctly, he beat a long serving public figure for the spot. That would seem to indicate that previous elected service does NOT make you automatically better qualified for the job.

    Look at many of the elected politicians of all levels and you’ll see a HUGE variety of backgrounds. One of the sitting Senators in DC used to be a comic on Saturday Night Live!!! I guess he’s the most qualified man in MN to write and vote on National level laws and treaties.

    Report comment

  • scottb

    one more thing–according to other sources, it appears there is a 4th candidate who has filed….

    Report comment

  • LogicMan

    If three or more candidates implies a primary election, then sobeit. We should not shy away from the democratic process simply because it implies an expense. That would be un-American.

    Report comment

Editor's Picks