Ald. Stone Gets Big Raise!

The ever-watchful Hugh Devlin makes a good point on the local West Rogers Park Yahoo group: Ald. Stone now receives $104,101.00 for his PART-TIME job as our alderman.

Don't you wonder what he does in all his spare time?

Me, too.

Ira Wins Lottery!

St. Sen. Silverstein, having filed his petitions at 9:00am on October 29, will be listed first on the February ballot. Ald. Stone also was in line and filed at 9:00am, which necessitated the lottery. Ira won the lottery for the first position on the ballot.

My dad, brilliant political mind that he has, says that winning the lottery is just like winning the lottery. There are extra votes to be had by being first on the ballot. That's why candidates get up and stand in line on the morning of the first day of filing. Given how close Stone's election was in April, a few extra votes for his opponent may be all that's needed to send Berny packing. It is interesting that he was one of the few incumbents who lost the ballot lottery. Maybe the stars are finally aligning in our favor!

Happy Thanksgiving, Dear Readers. I hope you cherish this time with your families and loved ones.

Ira Silverstein Runs for Committeeman

Today, Illinois State Senator Ira Silverstein did Ald. Stone the courtesy of telling him that he would run against Stone for 50th Ward Democratic Committeeman. Stone has held the Committeeman's job since 1999, when Howie Carroll resigned.

The role of the Committeeman is to run the local party, including encouraging voting, registration and filling the party's election judges, as well as participate in running the city and county party organizations. In Chicago, being the alderman and committeeman has been a powerful combination - and few are respected unless they serve both functions. But Stone has been a lackluster committeeman, to say the least.

All three of the Cook County Democratic meetings that I've attended, Stone didn't show. Regulars who attend party meetings know that Stone will fall asleep if he does come, and he rarely has input anyway. He does what he is told. When the party choose Todd Stroger to fill in for his ailing father for County Commission Board President, Stone sent a proxy - in support of Todd. Just like he was told.

Voter registration in the ward is among the lowest in the city. There are very good reasons for this: it's too much work for Stone and his organization and it would dilute the power Stone has in the ward. For want of a good party organization, Democrats in West Rogers Park have to look elsewhere.

Stone has created a culture of corruption around his party organization. He demanded that election judges pass his petitions during the general election in 2006. There were repeated calls to the State's Attorney and Chicago Board of Elections because of the numerous violations by Stone's workers.

By contrast, Ira Silverstein was the first Democrat not endorsed (or slated) by the Democratic organization to win a Northside Senate seat since 1972. He has served us ably in the state legislature, and now offers himself up to lend his good name to the Democratic label here in the 50th. A strong family man with good values has to be a better choice than what we have now.

Stone Slept Here

Ald. Stone and his family have spent a lot of time denying that he takes naps frequently in public. I know that the last few times that I've seen him, he fell asleep.

Some people were even offended that Stone's opponents used the famous picture of him asleep during City Council this spring. "He was just resting his eyes," is the common refrain.

For some unknown reason, the fact that Stone in known to sleep at work, in public, and often is something that he wants to cover up. Now we have new pictures of Stone asleep at a public meeting taken by the person sitting next to him. We have first hand testimony to the fact that Stone was asleep. [These pictures are clearly from Mr. Gernhardt's cell phone. I was wrong; see comments.]

It wouldn't be so disturbing that Stone falls asleep if he didn't do it so often and didn't try to deny it. Why lie about it? We all wish that we could get paid for sleeping on the job. If you are our alderman, you can! No wonder so many people want to be alderman. But don't lie about it.

hat tip: The 'Broken Heart' of Rogers Park

The Arrogance of Power

I had an interesting conversation with a worker from Streets & Sans last night. He was sort of laughing at me for using the blue bags and my defense of recycling. It's not separated, he said. Our garbage doesn't go to one of the city's MRF's. It goes straight to the landfill. The blue bags that are collected in the 50th don't get removed beforehand.

What was insulting, as I thought about this more, is that they are just laughing at us. It costs us money, real money, to take our trash to the landfill. With recycling, the city actually makes money. Maybe not much, but when you add together what we make from recycling and the reduced costs from not having to pay to add more to the landfill, the savings could be considerable.

Chicago built three or four state of the art recycling facilities in the 1990s. Granted, we are on the edge of the city, but it sounds like it was the alderman or Ward Superintendent who made the decision not to use these facilities.

They must not care if our taxes go up. We wouldn't want to inconvenience them to actually do their jobs! Besides, Stone was probably asleep when the subject came up.

We've been misled. I'm going to blame Stone because he's our point of contact with the city. He doesn't have to be. No one asked him to. He took the blame on his shoulders all by himself. And I'm going to blame Stone because he always tells us that it's his decision (except when it makes him look bad - anybody else ever notice that?)

But I'm not going to stop recycling. Ald. Stone, who has a cushy part-time job (where you can sleep on the job!) that pays more than $100,000, may not care if our taxes go up, but I do. Stone is probably too old to care about the health and beauty of our city, but I do. There's a recycling center at 6441 N. Ravenswood. That's where I'll be taking my blue bags.

Mostly, though, I came away from this conversation amazed at the arrogance of Berny Stone and his people. They truly don't care about us. They just don't get it. They think it's THEIR ward, and that we are fools. Accountability is not a once every four years thing.

The Real Power in Chicago

Mayor Richard Daley has gathered enough power to the Fifth Floor that he talks about "one stop" shopping for business and interest groups who want to do something in Chicago. This is a bit of a misnomer. Daley is clearly the major power center in Chicago, but he's not the only one.

There are other "power centers" in city hall, people who have power and influence independent of Daley. They don't include Ald. Stone.

Berny Stone is the Mayor's poodle. Stone owes everything to da Mayor.

Stone has made much of being the "Vice Mayor," an honorific that has gone to aldermen in their second terms, not (usually) their eighth. This position is usually a stepping stone to something much more powerful, not a final destination. The Vice Mayor's position has no power, no influence on the direction of the city (even if the Mayor died in office). But it fits Stone's inflated sense of himself and someone has to fill the position anyway.

Then there are the powers of the Chicago City Council. Stone is one of 19 committee chairman, but he's not one of the powerful committee chairs. Those go to people who really count in the council chambers.

Only one, Ed Burke, was elected before Stone. Another, Ike Carothers, is only in his third term as alderman. If Stone has age on all of them, these people are considered to be the wise in the council.

Ed Burke (first elected 1969) chairs the Finance Committee. The Finance Committee is widely acknowledged as the most powerful committee in the City Council. Stone sits on this committee.

Carrie Austin (1994) was just elevated to chair the Budget Committee. As the linked story indicates, the Budget Committee is considered the second most powerful committee in the city council. Stone also sits on this committee. No one thought he was in line to assume its powerful chairmanship.

Ike Carothers (1999) is the chair of the Police and Fire Committee. It only took Carothers two years to be elevated to it's chairman, appointed by Daley in 2001. Now that's clout.

William Banks (1983) is the chair of the Zoning Committee. Stone also sits on this committee.

Finally, Richard Mell (1975) chairs the Committee on Committees, Rules and Ethics. Stone also sits on this committee.

These are the powerhouses in the Chicago City Council, the people who have gained power and stature by knowing the rules and procedures (independent off their staffs) and using them effectively to get what they want. These are the people before whom city workers tremble if they get called unexpectedly. (City workers outside the 50th Ward just "laugh it off" if Berny Stone says something cross to them.)

Stone may be the oldest member of the Chicago City Council. But he's hardly gathered power or influence in his years, as its second longest-serving member.

But at least he's the Mayor's poodle. That's something.

Stone's Corrupt Practices Continue

I remember during the course of the campaign, I saw a video clip somewhere, where Ald. Stone described his pattern of corruption along the lines of, "I do something for them, and they do something for me. What's the matter with that?" I'm paraphrasing here from memory.

One of the problems (aside from the outright corruption involved) is that this isn't what Stone practices.

Perhaps my definition of corruption and is a little different than Stone's. Stone seems to think that he has to be caught (by the Feds) with money in his freezer to be called corrupt. I disagree.

But we have a perfect example of why I think Stone is corrupt right now. A prospective new business owner took possession of 6969 Western Ave in January. According to him, he cleaned out the building, which he believed he had to do before he could apply for the necessary permits. When I talked to him about this, he didn't seem to think that he needed a zoning change when he moved in. He suggested that he had talked to the city about all the costs that were involved before he took possession.

It appears that he talked to the wrong person.

Because now he has applied for a zoning change that he isn't required to have. In Chicago, this has notoriously meant that some kind of money changes hands, whether directly or to the alderman's campaign committee. But what interests me about this example is how it is different from the alderman's own words. Unlike the alderman's simplistic description of his corruption above, the alderman expected something upfront, before he'd do anything for the person asking for help. What Stone expected first, before he'd even help this prospective business owner, was control over his window space.

You see, when this person started renting this space on Western Ave, he had no idea he was renting next to (actually, near) Stone's main opponent. And Stone's campaign wanted to use that empty storefront to send a signal to his opponents and the voters in the ward. So instead of helping this gentleman, walking him through the permit process, it was suggested that it would be wiser to wait until the election was over. "Don't want to stir up trouble."

Instead of opening up his business, the alderman interfered and took control of this property. He required something first, before he'd use his office to help start a new business in the ward. This is, to my way of thinking, corrupt. We already pay the alderman almost $100,000 (for part time work) to help the people who live and work in the 50th Ward. They shouldn't be required to bribe or do favors for the alderman to get him to do his job. If Stone needs to be bribed, then he shouldn't be drawing a salary from the city at all.

Outside of Chicago, bribery is most rampant in places where people do not make an adequate living, and they use their office or power for personal gain. No one can argue that Stone is underpaid, that he can't live quite comfortably off of $100,000 a year.

But Stone argues this is how Chicago works. I'd suggest that it is evidence of how Chicago doesn't work. These kind of impediments to starting a business or improving a home (or whole neighborhood) hurt the ward and hurt the whole city. They don't help it. When you walk or drive around the ward and wonder why there is so little business activity here, you will understand. Stone won't help new businesses move into the ward without a little something, something first. So why should they want to move in here? There's lots of better business environments very close to the 50th, without all the political obstacles.

It seems to me that only in Berny Stone's mind can Stone not be considered corrupt. I've tried to convince people to take these kinds of things to Patrick Fitzgerald (after all, the alderman has dared us to do so!). There's more to this story, but I wanted to focus on one aspect: evidence of Stone's unethical behavior and his resistance to change and growth in the neighborhood (that doesn't directly benefit him). Ald. Stone is corrupt, no question about it.

Ald. Stone wears a woman's hat

I'll just leave you with that thought.

Voter Registration Effort Favored Stone

When I first learned that the 50th Ward had 578 new voters on the rolls for the April run-off election, I thought that this would benefit Naisy Dolar. Dolar had been involved in efforts to register new voters for ICIRR in the past few years. This had been an early emphasis of her campaign. But precinct by precinct totals suggest that efforts by Jewish groups and Ald. Stone's precinct captains were more successful than anything Dolar's campaign might have attempted.

2007 saw Jewish groups begin to refocus on voter registration. Young people who recently turned of age and new residents were sought out and registered. People were reminded of the importance of voting. Voter history was used to remind infrequent voters that there was an upcoming election, and that their vote was important. These efforts clearly paid off.

But voter registration was not confined to the Jewish areas. Precinct 13, which has a highly transient population, was the biggest contributor to the increase in voters, and gave Stone a bigger net increase over February results compared to Dolar/Brewer's vote. This seems to be the pattern throughout the ward. In the seven Red precincts, each of which saw more than 20 new voters registered between February and April, only one (Pr 22) saw Stone with a smaller increase than the February Dolar/Brewer vote. In these precincts, there were 192 new voters register, 242 more voters turned out, 272 more for Stone and only 99 additional voters over the Dolar/Brewer total.

21+ New Voters (Red): 13, 25, 22, 40, 18, 11, 2
16-20 New Voters (Dk Green): 5, 19, 44, 34, 1, 26, 10, 41, 28, 24
11-15 New Voters (Light Green): 33, 17, 23, 43, 32, 37, 45, 8
6-10 New Voters (Light Blue): 42, 16, 30, 6, 31, 36, 29, 35
0-5 New Voters (Yellow): 39, 15, 27, 9, 12, 4, 21, 3, 20, 14, 7, 38

Ten precincts, represented by the Dark Green, saw voter registration numbers increase by 16-20 new voters. These precincts saw an increase of 177 new voters, with 197 more voters than February, of which 216 more votes went to Stone and 131 more went to Dolar (above the Dolar/Brewer February number). Out of the Red and Dark Green areas, Dolar only won two precincts (13 and 22).

It is also interesting to observe that it appears that everyone who could be registered in Winston Towers is registered.

It was a Turn-Out Election

Ald. Stone was right to credit Mike Noonan and the Daley forces for his victory. As Dick Vitale would say, It Was All About Turnout, Baby!

The 50th Ward had a net increase in registered voters (24,709 > 25,287) as well as people who voted in the April 17th election (10,489 > 11,269). The additional 780 people who voted in the April runoff increased turnout from 42.5% to 45%. But what is interesting is where this increase in turnout came.

Of the 24 precincts that gained in turnout above the ward average, all but 6 (Precincts 15, 42, 35, 13, 4 and 7) of them gave Ald. Stone a majority of their votes. The top 12 precincts that gained in turnout all went to Stone, and the top 3 (45, 39 amd 40) each voted more the 73% for Stone. These 18 precincts gave Stone an additional 564 (out of his gain of 896) over what he got out of them in February.

Red: Turnout > 65% (4): 38, 12, 16, 14
Dark Green: Turnout 55-64% (10): 1, 3, 31, 27, 41, 15, 45, 11, 5, 40
Light Green: Turnout 45-54% (12): 30, 7, 42, 21, 36, 2, 39, 25, 18, 44, 35, 10
Light Blue: Turnout 35-44% (12): 4, 19, 37, 20, 6, 9, 33, 28, 29, 34, 23, 43
Yellow: Turnout 25-34% (7): 13, 17, 26, 22, 8, 24, 32

The difference between the Stone campaign's to turnout voters and Dolar's is clear. Outside of Precinct 15, all of the dark hues are west of California, in Stone precincts. This is why Stone won. Stone had a much better Election Day than Dolar. Given the charges that Dolar supporters are making, it appears that Stone was much better prepared, as well.

In contrast, Dolar only got 86 (out of 432) additional votes out of the six precincts that gained in turnout above the ward average. This column combined the votes that Dolar received in February with those of Greg Brewer, who endorsed Dolar in the run-off, which was then subtracted from the April numbers. The working assumption is that a vote for Brewer was also a vote against Stone and thus would transfer to Dolar (if they came out to vote).

Despite gaining 432 more votes than the two received in February, Dolar still suffered a net decline in some precincts. Nine precincts, all but two west of California, gave Dolar fewer votes than she and Brewer combined received in February. Another three, only one west of California, gave Dolar no net increase but exactly what the two of them combined did in February.

Blue: Dolar Decline in April Vote over Feb Dolar+Brewer votes
Green: No Increase in Dolar Vote in April over Feb Dolar+Brewer votes

Finally, seven precincts, all but two east of California, showed actual declines in voter turnout in April. While the rest of the ward was showing up in greater numbers, these precincts (6, 34, 17, 24, 21, 37, 32) had fewer voters turn out.


What we see here is that the SEIU poll correctly predicted that some Brewer voters would not vote for Naisy Dolar. For whatever reason, some voters who were drawn to Greg Brewer could not come out and vote for Dolar. That same poll also predicted that Dolar's voters would turn out for Brewer, which is why SEIU tried to convince Dolar to drop out of the race. The April results seem to support SEIU here.

A Vote Divided

April 17 exposed the wounds. The 50th Ward is unusually divided, and this election showed that.

The final result, with Stone getting 53% and Dolar receiving 47%, seemed like a close election, but that was true mostly in the totals. Close elections tend to bunch up in the middle, with a large percentage of electoral districts returning results between 55% to 45% for two candidates. For example, the 2004 Presidential Election followed the normal pattern, with fully 20 states bunching up in the middle. The April 17th runoff election, in contrast, had 4 precincts bunched up in the middle, between 55% to 45% for Stone (or Dolar).

The 2004 Presidential Election saw one "state," the District of Columbia, with the winner over 75% of the vote in that electoral district. The April 17th election had 14 precincts where the winner had 75% or more of votes (seven for Stone and seven for Dolar). Instead of the Bell Curve that we are all familiar with, the April 17th election had a decidedly inverted Bell Curve, with an overwhelming majority of precincts returning a winner of 65% or more. Only 14 precincts had a winner with less than 65% of the votes. The 2004 Presidential Election had only 6 states return a winner with 65% or more.

Stone

> 75% (7): 31, 12, 16, 38, 11, 14, 44
65-74% (10): 34, 45, 39, 40, 25, 23, 33, 30, 5, 27
55-64% (8): 41, 10, 3, 28, 17, 24, 1, 26
50-54% (3): 19, 18, 2

50-54% (1): 13
55-64% (2): 32, 4
65-74% (7): 42, 29, 8, 9, 6, 22, 43
> 75% (7): 15, 37, 35, 36, 21, 20, 7

Dolar

It's difficult to fathom just how divided the 50th Ward is now. But there does seem to be a big black line (actually California) separating the two 50th's. That separation isn't complete, since precincts 18, 19, 28 and 34 are east of California and went for Stone. But as the graphic above shows, voters west of California do seem to love Ald. Stone, while voters east of California mostly do not care for him.

I would guess that this graphic corresponds closely to the level of city services received in each precinct.

This is What Hatred Sounds Like

As I've said before, the Hate Campaign is a staple of Ald. Stone and his sycophants. One of them, who many of us believe is Ilana, but we commonly identify as CAPSMAN, wrote this:

THE HATE-FILLED AND ETHNIC/RACIAL CRUSADE AND THEIR AGENDA DRIVEN CARPING AGAINST STONE WAS REPUDIATED BY THE MAJORITY. THERE IS NO BERLIN WALL HOLDING ANYBODY HERE,THEREFORE, THOSE WHO LIVE HERE DO SO BY CHOICE. STONE IS OUR ALDERMAN, THIS IS OUR WARD. WE HAVE A RIGHT TO REPRESENTATION, SO DO YOU, BUT NOT HERE! GO TO CHINATOWN AND GET YOUR OWN ALDERMAN!

This is the Voice of Hate. This has all been said before about African-Americans, Jews, Catholics, Irish and Poles, but in this case, it seems to be said about Asian-Americans.

Whoever it is said about, this is the voice of bigotry and intolerance. The fact that this person supports Berny Stone says a lot about Stone and his base. Ald. Stone is infamous for taking people into his office, people who want some kind of normal city service, and berating them, often using ethnic prejudices. While no one believes that this Voice of Hate is actually Ald. Stone, it does represent Ald. Stone.

Be afraid.

A Ward Divided

IN JANUARY 2001 the only thing that was clear was that we lived in a divided nation. Here in the 50th, some people thought Al Gore was our rightful president while others were glad that George Bush would be inaugurated.

It may be said that the same is true in April 2007, except it's not the nation that is as divided, but the 50th Ward. And, unlike 2001, there are some (mostly Stone supporters) who are surprised by this division.

What is clear to me is that Ald. Stone has no one to blame but himself. Like George W. Bush, Berny Stone has a tin ear to dissent. He has made numerous errors in judgment, starting with the selecting of his daughter to be his chief-of-staff. Like many of those who lost their offices this year, the 50th has a staff that does not provide a positive customer service experience. Berny Stone almost lost not because he faced an able opponent (and I suspect that people underestimate Naisy Dolar) but because he's made it easy for people to oppose him. He neglects them, they don't support him.

There have been numerous calls for healing, from Stone and others. But after more than 6 years of George Bush, does anyone believe that the nation healed from the 2000 election? I don't know that it's realistic to expect the ward to heal, unless Stone shows some humility and leadership. Whether the ward heals depends on him and how he treats us. No one else can do anything.

Stone can start the healing in the 50th by firing Ilana. It should be clear that she will never be a delightful staffer. She treats residents as if they were pond scum. I don't see that as likely to change. The rest of his staff takes their cues from her (or perhaps they are rude because Ilana is so difficult to work with).

One reason that I don't think it will change is because I believe she likes that people are intimidated by her. I can't imagine what frightening little old ladies gets you, but it must do something for her. If she enjoys playing the intimidator, she is not suited to have contact with residents in a position of authority.

Another step that Berny Stone can take to facilitate healing is to treat all residents the same. The entire ward should receive city services when they are needed and requested. That shouldn't be difficult. It's a mystery why this doesn't already occur.

If Stone really wants the ward to heal, he will start having regular townhall meetings or public question-and-answer sessions. Hiding in his tower or substituting appearances on NTNM for public meetings is no longer tolerable. Moreover, his performance on the 12th has proven that he can do this. The only excuse now is either age or laziness.

Whether the ward heals is entirely up to Bernie Stone. But our dear readers can also do their part. There are some very angry and bitter people who post here, people who don't seem to care for their neighbors. Yes, the ward is changing and these changes do not help Berny Stone. The election is over, and we will live with Ald. Stone. The real question is, will the Stone sycophants live with the dissent that Stone's presence inevitably creates?

In 2004, George Bush went on to get re-elected. But I think history will show Bush as one of our worst presidents, in part because he neglected the people of this country. Berny Stone risks going down in history in much the same terms. His legacy can be seen with every sidewalk that needs repairing, every rodent warning sign, every piece of trash that swirls around. Only Berny Stone can save the tattered legacy of Berny Stone.

Five (now seven) Brewer Supporters...

I've "talked" to five supporters of Greg Brewer's. I asked them how they voted.

* Two said they voted for Naisy Dolar (one said she held her nose).

* Two admitted that they did not vote. One claimed to have forgotten.

* One friend wouldn't tell me. You know who you are. I suspect he voted for Stone.

* Three of the five agreed they were glad the election was over.

By no means is this a scientific sample. But it is an interesting observation. I believe this is what was predicted by the SEIU poll. What do you think?

UPDATE: Make that four votes for Dolar.

Back to the Stone Age!

Mike Noonan pulls it out:

Alderman 50th Ward 45 of 45 precincts 100.00%
Bernard L. Stone 5,965 52.93%
Naisy Dolar 5,304 47.07%
Total 11,269


Consider this an open thread about the election. Try to keep it positive.

The Case for Berny Stone

More than once in the last week, I've heard my friends and neighbors say, "I can't wait until after Tuesday." The perception is that this has been the nastiest campaign ever. While I don't think that's true, I thought we'd end here on a positive note.

The case for Ald. Stone is straight-forward. He's got 34 years of experience as our alderman. He's devoted his later years in life to managing the business of the ward. No one should question that he has a passion for that. The 50th Ward remains a kaleidoscope of culture, something that I think most people here love. West Ridge/Rogers Park makes Chicago feel like an international city. If the alderman is not responsible for that, he has at least maintained the appropriate environment for it to shine.

Unlike some alderman, Stone has open office hours at night, when most people are not working. He accepts every invitation I know of to speak before a local group. He has been accommodating to requests for zoning exemptions for larger families which has been important to major parts of the community. The media loves Stone because he's always good for a quote. Half the ward has been kept exceptionally clean, and Stone is remarkably responsive to requests from his base. There are many people here who are not ready for Stone to retire, especially a forced one. I don't know if I'd say that Stone is much beloved, but he certainly has a strong following in my neighborhood.

Consider this an open thread about why you support Ald. Stone for re-election. Try to keep it positive.

When is a Debate a Debate?

One commenter challenges the comparison of Stone's debate scheduled for tonight and Dolar's debate held at the Boone School. I won't argue that the analogy is exact, but I do think there is an important comparison.

If I understand correctly, and I know my readers will correct me if I'm wrong, the Boone School debate was sponsored by a group in which Naisy Dolar was a member, and whose referendum she was not only an active participant but devoted campaign resources to in November. I am told that its members are heavily involved in the Dolar campaign. If true, the sponsor could in no way be seen as a neutral party.

Nor can they be seen as the only non-political stakeholder in the community. Stone's collection of sponsors can lay equal claim to that, and certainly have been in the neighborhood longer.

I won't pretend that the Stone debate is any more neutral, merely that neither debate can be viewed as sponsored by an impartial or independent third party. I might even question whether any neutral or impartial parties exist in the 50th Ward. So why should one debate be preferred over the other? The only reason that I can see is that if you support Naisy Dolar, you prefer the Boone School debate. If you support Ald. Stone, you prefer tonight's debate. In trying to be fair, I see no reason to favor one over the other. Neither met the impartial criteria I would have thought necessary.

I don't think the Chicago Tonight appearance can be given equal weight to these two debates held in the neighborhood. It was only six minutes long, and probably had the same viewership as our CANTV-wannabe.

Fairness requires that we set aside the claims of partiality or impartiality here. Both sides have acted in their own interests. Both sides set up their own debates under favorable circumstances. Both sides have sought to skewer the other for not showing up.

But only one side could afford to pass on these debates. Ald. Stone has been the alderman, is well-known to the community, and voters feel they have a good idea what he will (and will not) do. The next four years under Ald. Stone will look basically like the last four years. One side of the ward can expect exceptional city services while the other side of the ward will complain about the lack of the same. Stone's office will remain dysfunctional. He will continue to embarrass us and endure health problems. But many of my neighbors feel he's "our Berny." Warm fuzzies all around, I suppose.

The question then, at least for most voters, is what will Dolar do? And one conclusion that you can draw today is that she won't show up when she's asked. Unless she wants to. Dolar supporters think that sounds harsh. Maybe, but I thought I was to expect more.

Naisy Dolar and her campaign is the one that set up this expectation. They've condemned Ald. Stone's leadership as inadequate, something I agree with. They've offered Dolar as an alternative, even saying that she has demonstrated effective leadership in the past (such as in the 24 hour parking meter "removal").

Ask yourself this question: Did Naisy Dolar demonstrate leadership with her decision about tonight's debate? Dolar claims leadership when the solution was easy for her. But governing the 50th Ward can't be easy, with all the competing interests involved. So the question really is, Is Naisy Dolar up for this job?

Tonight was an opportunity to find out. Was it a trap? Of course it was. But a strong candidate, one who was an effective leader, could have walked into the Lions Den and won over the voters. Dolar denied herself the opportunity to prove that she was an effective leader. She denied the voters the only opportunity to take their own measure of the two candidates side-by-side.

Many voters, but especially those who weren't inclined towards either of these two candidates, look at Character as a decisive factor. I know I do. I look at Berny Stone's character and find it wanting. But I can't really get a handle on Naisy Dolar's character. She's been very erratic, flits from one thing to another. She seems easily persuaded by outside forces. She has no focus. This was an opportunity to show her mettle. It's an opportunity that she declined.

My heart tells me that no one could be worse than Berny Stone as alderman. My head is not so sure. Naisy Dolar hasn't made it easier to vote for her.

He Said What?

So the Mayor and a number of incumbents in the run-off meet. And the Mayor says, "I don't know why people think I have a PAC. What's this PAC everyone says I got?" I'm paraphrasing. Obviously the Mayor is doing a little sidestep here. If you've watched the Mayor at all, you can even visualize his gestures, because they are very familiar.

Then Ald. Stone chimes in: "You know. Terry just gave me a check for $10,000."

Everyone in the room groaned.

That's our Berny. Embarrassing the Mayor, embarrassing the city. Good Old Berny. You can add to that an overconfident Berny. 52% he predicts. The machine will deliver on Tuesday. It's been a tougher race than he had hoped for, but he'll get 52%. His campaign is coming together now. Naisy Dolar, a confident notes, needs at least 1,000 new voters to even have a chance. That is somehow related to the number of absentees Berny is supposed to have come in. You and I, though, have heard that tune before.

I don't pretend to know how this race will turn out. It's hard to bet against Stone because he got 5,000 votes. I'd expect that if he turned out 5,000 votes again, he wins. But I also don't think Jan Schakowsky would back a loser. She must know something I don't in this race.

It is interesting to see commenters try to spin the No Debate decision. We all have our sides. But no matter what you think about this race, Naisy Dolar refused to participate in the only candidate's forum that Ald. Stone was going to do. Trying to compare an appearance on Chicago Tonight to a debate in the neighborhood is silly. Choosing not to participate is a gamble.

If you asked me, and since it's my blog, I'm assuming you did, I don't think that Stone or his campaign could have pulled off a two-party debate. I would have wanted him to focus all his campaign's energies on trying to do so, with only five days left before election day. I would have invited every bit of media out there, and videotaped the whole thing to put up on youtube. Dolar didn't have to do anything, and she could have forced the Stone campaign to spin its wheels in the last week before the election. Meanwhile, her campaign could continue to go after their pluses, with the field virtually to themselves. (No, I don't think Berny Stone can chew gum and walk at the same time.)

But she didn't wanna. Now there's some fast thinking. In the end, it's the neighborhood that loses, because we will never get to see the two of them side-by-side. If Dolar was right to skip this debate, then no one can fault Stone for skipping the Boone School debate. The WRPCO doesn't even register in my half of the ward.

If Dolar loses, as Stone thinks she will, you can point to this decision as an indicator of her forth-coming loss. If she wins, then she should be grateful for the advise she got. They will have been right.

Only the neighborhood will have suffered.

Why Won't Dolar Debate?

I don't have any particular insight into the reasons why Naisy Dolar will not show up to Ald. Stone's admittedly rigged debate. The suggestion that Stone had two chances (the Boone School and Chicago Tonight appearance) is lame and easily dismissed. It's not a real excuse, it must be something they thought of to hide their real reasons for ducking Stone's debate.

The Stone debate was the only opportunity we were going to have to take the measure of the two candidates side-by-side. Dolar slammed that door in our face. While we can criticize Stone's cowardice all we want (and some of us have), now the same must be said of Dolar. She's no different than Stone in this regard. The problem is that this opens the eyes to other things where Dolar may be no different than Stone.

Although I have no idea why she would pass on an opportunity to go toe-to-toe with Berny Stone, it does seem they feel like they are the front runner. Dolar won't show, my thinking goes, because she thinks she doesn't have to. She must think that she's ahead in the race.

Maybe she is. She has a SEIU poll that shows her with a 7 point lead and she has Jan Schakowsky's endorsement (the most important political figure in the ward according to everyone I've talked to; only the Stone sycophants on this site disagree with that conclusion). Maybe she is comfortably ahead enough to choose not to participate.

So who loses? We do. Democracy does. Dolar's word does. There are lots of casualties here.

Naisy Dolar had previously said that she was eager to debate Ald. Stone, and seemed to promise that she would do so under any circumstances. She must have meant eager to debate him only twice. We can't act surprised that Stone or his people would want to control the circumstances of the debate. Nor should we have been surprised by the way this has unfolded. How is it any different from 2003 or prior election years where Stone's been challenged? I suspect incumbents always want to control these things.

What is worrisome to me, though, is that Naisy Dolar is now acting like Berny Stone. She doesn't need to show up so she doesn't. Who does that remind you of? What can we expect from Dolar if she demonstrates she is only going to do what she has to, but not any more? This isn't a good sign if you want to see change in the ward.

Simply changing the face of the alderman is not enough. We need to see a change in attitude and a change in activity to make the neighborhood better. Dolar and her supporters should remember that voters are taking a risk by electing her. The 50th Ward would lose staffing under a Dolar administration, it would lose seniority, and it would lose the Mayor's ear. Dolar has to offer voters reasons to take that risk, and I don't think the bar is set especially high.

Acting like Stone, only doing the minimal necessary, may give pause to those considering taking that risk. If Dolar is no better than Stone, why should we risk it? Maybe Naisy Dolar is ahead enough in this race that it doesn't matter now. I suspect she thinks she is, since she's made the decision to pass on this opportunity. But some voters, especially in this part of the ward, needed her to stand up to Stone and demonstrate that she had what it takes before they could connect the lines for Dolar.

Naisy abandoned those voters yesterday.

Consider this an open thread on why Naisy Dolar decided to pass on Ald. Stone's debate and what that means for both Stone and Dolar. You are encouraged to give your predictions with percentages on who will win on Tuesday.

Will Dolar Show?

All the talk has been around Ald. Stone's debate and whether Naisy Dolar would show up. Let's be perfectly honest here, the April 12 debate is a forum created entirely by Berny Stone and his cronies, and no hint of impartiality exists. But it is also the only side-by-side debate the 50th will get.

Dolar's camp responded to Stone's invitation with a number of conditions that are unlikely to be met. Stone's debate invitation seems to be a take-it-or-leave-it invitation, and they probably have a mailing ready to go saying that Dolar is scared to debate the alderman. This is obviously absurd, but this debate is not up on Dolar's calendar.

Who needs it more? Actually, the people of the 50th Ward do. Another community organization made this little debacle possible by being so heavy-handed in their candidate's forum. If Dolar's crowd is allowed to do this, one would expect Stone's crowd to be able to, as well. It's the neighborhood that is ill-served. No one expects Stone to serve the neighborhood better, but Naisy Dolar has staked her campaign on "expecting more."

Everybody knows that Stone's debate is a trap. His precinct captains have spent weeks coming up with zingers and pointed questions. So while it may appear smart that Dolar passes on Stone's debate, doing so shows that she's running on an empty message.

She set the trap for herself in that regard.

Advantage: Ald. Stone

UPDATE: The Dolar campaign confirms that they will not participate in the Stone debate.