I mean showing up and voting is also ineffective. When a small inner circle controls the political power, it doesn’t matter. In my mind I think that’s the goal, to illuminate that a small few are orchestrating things, which is way more harmful to the electorate.
It makes sense to me to withhold their presence from Council to highlight the accountability for members. What we have now is exceedingly vague, if not nonexistent.
And in Councilor Nguyen’s post, there was a statement about accountability but without details about what accountability means.
I’m not leaping to any feelings quite yet, as this is new territory for Worcester politics. Thu has been about bigger ideas for the people of the city, and I appreciate them for that. We don’t fully understand how this work in practice, so…I guess we wait and see.
Okay, but what is the end goal? Does them boycotting meetings make Joe Petty more likely to not get reelected? Does it make Candy resign? Does it help Rob Bilotta get elected? Maybe it does, but I’m not seeing the mechanism here. I don’t think we’re ultimately going to agree here, but I don’t get it
Comments
That’s a concrete step, rather than one person refusing to act anymore.
Refusing to be present will alienate more people than it inspires, I fear.
And in Councilor Nguyen’s post, there was a statement about accountability but without details about what accountability means.