Now that this year's election is over, we shall have 5 of the seven of the Village of Shorewood trustees who as incumbents have run with no opposition or only partial opposition (2 against only one challenger in one case). Am I wrong on this?

This means that these trustees do not have the affirmation of a constituency.  But as candidates elected at large,  they of course have responsibility to all of the citizens of Shorewood even those who would oppose them. Otherwise why are these people in office? But does this odd situation give us real and appropriate representation?

Can unopposed officials claim that their views are substantiated whether or not that they've taken positions on any real issues? They have no reason nor responsibility to take positions or express views. Their responsibility is only to themselves. How do we know then on what basis to vote or whether to vote for them at election time?

Citizens of Shorewood are allowed small windows for speaking. These windows are at specific times at Board meetings or at “public hearings.” Seldom however do citizens receive any meaningful response or any response . Nor is the citizen in any position to change or to influence what has already be decided before given a chance to voice an opinion.

Do the trustees not interact with citizens on these occasions because they do not represent them nor hold any responsibility to citizens? Is it for this reason, perhaps among others, that incumbents especially display a high degree of arrogance and disregard for peoples' opinions?

I believe that the power of incumbency is one of the elements that contributes to the discouragement of potential candidates. Can we dispute this power of incumbency?

It is easier to run for an empty seat than against an incumbent who has usually developed enough name recognition, savvy and has learned the buttons to push to adequately overcome a newcomer's challenge?

The returning candidates only know the number who voted for them, but do not know how many would have voted against their candidacy had there been a challenger. There are few if any write-in votes at local elections. Write-ins only work when these are the result of actual organized write-in challenges. Is an organized write-in vote one of the ways to go?

I believe that the only remedy to these undemocratic turn if events is the limiting of the term of office, either to one term or to no more than two. This would then provide a turnover of representatives. I favor the one term. Isn't one-term the way to eliminate incumbency?

Citizens knowing that they can run against someone who is NOT an incumbent might be encouraged to do so. Limitation to one term would guarantee automatic turnover.

For the present time, we have a highly undemocratic situation and an unhealthy form and process of self-appointment at our local government level.

This type of “self-appointment” tends to establish a dynastic-type situation and the arrogance that comes with this standing. As the process is understood it tends to diminish the incumbents' importance in the eyes of thinking citizens. Doesn't this type of self-appointment also diminish the function of democracy?

Unfortunately, this process also reduces, if not eliminates confidence in the community government itself. I would like to hear from anyone who can defend this uncontested access to government position or who can take my points and my conclusion and prove them wrong.

I would like to see someone take an opposing position to mine. Can any member of the Board give support to election to office that would normally be without opposition as a continued process of gaining access to government position?

On this issue it would be especially worthwhile to hear from those who have gained office or returned to office without opposition. However, we can only expect silence from those who function behind the walls of Village Hall even on this important subject.

At most, we might expect some insignificant or “political” explanation. But who knows? Perhaps we shall get some response as from outer space.

But then again, how significant are these views on unopposed elections anyway? Should I care as to “who represents me?” Most of those who are privileged to vote do not, nor are they inclined to run for office.