IMO maybe Danno should’ve have taken his $12,711.49 and risked it at the casino. But that would have indirectly helped Ms. Green win. My. How everything in this ‘burg is interconnected.

She spent what she needed to get elected. Good for her! Now she needs time to prove she can do a good job!!!

Do a good job in whose eyes? Obviously there will be differing opinions of what a “good job” is. However, if you count ignoring basic infrastructure (roads) in favour of throwing money at a dike and getting the taxpayer further into debt,telling the voters BEFORE the election that cuts won’t be made then laying off city staff so that you can contract work out (at what expense), publicly trashing the head of IPG and throwing him under the bus, supporting the purchasing of “air”, and on and on its goes, then I’d say she’s off to a pretty crappy start. She should remember that SHE works for EVERY TAXPAYER THAT PAYS HER SALARY. The taxpayer is her boss.

Let me say this about that…..

1. Incumbents (Dan Rogers) ALWAYS spend less that serious challengers.

A.

The reason for this is that incumbents, having already run at least once, have the signs that they need from the previous campaigns. They don’t need to declare the cost of those signs on the current campaign. the estimated cost of those signs is approximately $20,000 they just put a “re-elect” sticker on them. So I would say that brings the value of Dans campaign up to about $60,000.

B.

The incumbent keeps their web site from the previous campaign. They do not need to declare the cost from the previous campaign. Lets be conservative and say that this cost would be about $5,000 remembering that these are commercial sites and require artwork, donation buttons etc. This would bring the value of Dans campaign to about $65,000.

So in actual fact…..we have a difference of about 15,000!

I like Dan Rogers, I really look forward to his return from the post election blues….Dan deserves to hold a great position in our community that is reflective of his dedication to service.

I know it doesn’t sound as sensational……but thats the reality. Should there be limits placed on municipal campaigns….maybe….should there be a ban on union or corporate donations….maybe…..should there be a limit to the amount that anyone individual can contribute….maybe.

These are the debates that we should really be having in our community. One thing is for sure……it would be great to find a way to make democracy less expensive!

“…they don’t need to declare…”? It is my understanding that there need be “receipts upon request”. Proof. Any “messing around” with the disclosure of these costs would be fraught with penalties.

Harbinger….

if you look at Rogers expenses….he claims $5000 for “signs” if you look at Greens expenses she spent $21000 on signs.

Despite the fact that Rogers had MANY MANY more signs than Green.

The reason for this discrepancy is that Rogers reused the signs from the previous election since he was the incumbent…..he did not have to have NEW signs made.

Candidates almost always reuse their signs…..that is only one reason that incumbents have an institutional advantage……there are many more reasons.

For this reason….candidates should be declaring the VALUE of what they use on their campaign NOT JUST what they SPENT on the campaign.

passtheveggies….

I don’t know what you’re point is, but I don’t think you can seriously say that Rogers had “MANY MANY” more signs that Green. Did you go out and count them? I didn’t, but I can tell you one thing, Rogers did not have “MANY MANY” more signs then Green. In reality it was the other way around, most everywhere I went I could find Shari’s smiling face telling me how great a job she will do. What a joke that was (maybe that’s the reason for the smile) On top of that Green had a front page advertisement in the local Citizen just about every day of the campaign at over a thousand dollars a pop! On top of that, just before election day she had the local citizen wrapped with her advertising. Green had a lot of green behind her, now it’s payback time, so folks, sit back and watch the show.

Why is there such an appetite to embarrass Ms. Green?

So all they had to do was slap a
“For Mayor” bumper sticker on Green’s signs from the previous election to bring it up to date and use in the 2011 campaign, thereby saving 2011 costs?

In the final analysis, money wins elections–not people or promises. It’s the way of democracy.

“Why is there such an appetite to embarrass Ms. Green?”

I think people just want to make sure she gets equal treatment on this site … make sure she becomes part of the in-crowd and joins all the other Mayors who get similar treatment. ;-)

I don’t care if they spend a million dollars as long as its not tax payer money. Having said that it does show that she’s not afraid to spend spend spend. That’s not a good trait for a mayor. You want to impress the taxpayer Mrs Green.. Scrap the dike plans and fix our 30 year old failing infrastructure. Nobody will mind spending money on that.

“Why is there such an appetite to embarrass Ms. Green?” .. where have you been? Haven’t you been reading the headlines lately? She is so all over the place in decision making so early in her tenure that it is very obvious to me she isn’t the one calling the shots. It begs the question, who is?

Thanks, Cheetos.