ON SLATE POLITICS IN SUN CITY
The recent announcement by David Berman of the formation of a slate of four candidates for the board under the Unity party banner posses some interesting and foreboding issues for Sun City. While Rana Goodman comments at length on this issue on her forum at www.anthemtoday.com, backtracking so as not to offend her Unity party friends who complained, I am not so reticent or constrained.
Despite the appearance of all things good shall emanate from a vote for a slate of candidates, the cost of doing so may be high, even unacceptable. I would go so far as to suggest that the formation of a slate poses a real threat to Sun City’s election process. The threat comes less from the notion that the slate, the Unity slate in this case, will dictate anything but consensus than from the notion that the voter will be robbed of the value of their vote.
Simply stated, a slate stacks the voting odds in favor of the slate to the exclusion of all others. Otherwise, there would be no reason for a slate. Slate candidates have no need for a voice, opinion or judgment, relying instead on some prepared platform of generalities that in practice means little on this or that issue that may arise before the board. For the voter, however, slate politics is both a blessing and a disaster.
On the one hand, slate voters will be able to shed the real burden of understanding or investigating issues in the expectation that the slate once in office will handle matters correctly in the interest of the community. Slate voting actually counts on the indifference of the voters since their choice of candidates has been essentially made for them. What can be easier than casting one’s vote for a slate of candidates?
On the other hand, the potential voter is encouraged to relinquish his or her control over the election process by casting their vote for a slate of candidates without really comprehending the outcome of their decision. While candidate “Z” may be far better for the community than candidate “A,” few will bother to learn that or act on that knowledge because candidate “A” happens to belong to a slate while candidate "Z" does not. Realistically, there is no need for the less informed voter to look beyond the slate in casting their vote. Slate politics feeds on that void to achieve their election goal.
While voters may think that voting for a slate will improve governance, good governance actually depends on decisions of individual directors doing the right thing. As some homeowners have already learned, and as we are witnessing with the flawed Trumpets selection process, doing the right thing is more difficult to achieve when faced with those who prefer to rule by consensus. Consensus is virtually assured when the decision-makers owe their election to the collective efforts of the slate.
But achieving consensus can come at a high price when that price is reinforced through slate politics and the implied indebtedness the slate candidate or director has to the objectives of the slate. Unfortunately, not all objectives are worthwhile and some may actually contradict common sense or be contrary to one’s fiduciary duty to the community. Typically, that prospect does not pose a serious problem to those who are in control of the decision-making process. While some objectives may serve special interests, or were designed to protect past committee or board decision-makers, as was the case in the Villa reserves matter, it is difficult to successfully argue that such objectives were achieved with the affected homeowner's interest in mind. When you are in control of the decision-making process, it’s increasingly difficult to comprehend the dividing line between self interest and preservation, on the one hand, and the community’s interest on the other hand.
What slate politics helps to guarantee is the reason slate politics exists. That reason is the fear of losing control, or alternatively, the desire to gain control over the decision making process. Without slate voting, the fear of losing control is greatly enhanced.
For better or worse, slate politics has now come to anoint the established power base in Sun City. Once the slate is in control, it is difficult if not impossible to challenge or overcome that control. The control here is the power to decide, nothing more, nothing less. Once you have that power, it becomes difficult to relinquish it. Associating oneself with a slate is one way to attain the power to decide you would like to have or to retain the power you already have. Whatever good, or in unusual instances, wrong, that may have been achieved through the exercise of that power will be reinforced by the slate, assuming the slate holds together.
From the voter’s perspective, there is always the expectation that that power will be used for the benefit of the community and not against it. Occasionally, however, the voter may be disappointed or disillusioned by the actions taken by members of the slate. While members of the slate are truly independent to do as they please when elected to the board, that’s not the perception of the voters who voted in the slate. The voters in voting for the slate, thought they were voting for all things good. The reality of casting one’s vote for the slate may be different from the voter’s expectation. That reality can even be the opposite of what the voter had intended. While candidates running on a slate may give the appearance of adhering to certain principles, the reality is often different. What they aspire to is the power to decide. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. It’s only bad when the outcome of that decision-making process produces a bad or wrong result for the homeowners.
The power to decide goes both ways. Power can be used for good, as intended by the voters, or for other purposes, in the judgment of those who exercise the power. Unfortunately, voting for a slate of candidates can and I predict will have unintended consequence for Sun City. Those unintended consequences may include the power not to decide. For example, it may involve the power not to seek accountability for those who have breached their fiduciary duty. And, it may entail the power protect one’s own self interest for past actions or to protect the interests of others.
As Lord Acton wrote more than a hundred years ago, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Consolidating more power in the hands of those who have already abused that power will not serve the legitimate and fiduciary interests of Sun City.
Ron Johnson, 9 February 2009