Election Feedback

One way to increase turnout is to give a financial incentive. Imagine that you get a $20 tax rebate for each member of the household who votes. (This is much like the scheme in Australia, where you pay a fine for not voting.) The Council would simply need to raise the tax on the typical residence by $30 - $40 per year to pay for this. (They are good at that.) It is then roughly a zero-sum scheme. The scheme is not perfect, but a sense of civic duty is apparently not sufficient.

No, it's not Maud's retired friends keeping her in office. Many newer, younger town residents took a look at Ms. Stich and Ms. Brehony and decided that the incumbents are better. Many town residents who are not as tuned in to town politics as others have wondered where the money came from for all of the signs around town. Ms. Brehony ran a stealthy two-stage sign campaign which featured her ads placed in front of houses unsold, or still under construction. That's a big tip off right there - so it was no surprise to find out that she's a "custom home builder", active in Tysons redevelopment.

Ms. Stich's angry attitude turned off many voters (Really, if sidewalks are that important to you, why did you buy where there aren't any? That's one of the things I prioritized before I bought my house!) Then, the weekend before the election, there's robocalls! It's a town council race, people - was Carville or Rove running the campaign? Ms. Stich probably did more to motivate voters against her with those calls, one of which made reference to current council members being "too old".

The town is changing - new residents and new businesses, but perhaps the model should be Old Town Alexandria, not Clarendon or Reston. I'll take Jammin' Java any day over Pottery Barn. Developers will destroy the small town character that we all love about Vienna, then run off and leave us with even worse traffic problems. Stich and Brehony were just not the answer.

No, it's not Maud's retired friends keeping her in office. Many newer, younger town residents took a look at Ms. Stich and Ms. Brehony and decided that the incumbents are better.

Until we all know the demographics of who exactly voted, which we will get, just casual observation showed a much, much older skewing voter. That's not being mean, that's stating a fact. Younger voters clearly did not make it to the polls.

Ms. Brehony ran a stealthy two-stage sign campaign which featured her ads placed in front of houses unsold, or still under construction. That's a big tip off right there - so it was no surprise to find out that she's a "custom home builder", active in Tysons redevelopment.

Would you care to substantiate this? Are you against the small number of custom homes she has built in Vienna? Do you think her homes helped Vienna to get the #4 ranking? Also how is she active in Tysons redevelopment? And speaking of Tysons redevelopment, we assume you are against it?

>>No, it's not Maud's retired friends keeping her in office. Many newer, younger town residents took a look at Ms. Stich and Ms. Brehony and decided that the incumbents are better.

Anybody who goes to the Town polls knows that that is a fabricated line of crap! Most of the 2300 voters that showed up were senior citizens. Worse, the senior citizens manning the polls treat younger voters with a quiet contempt. Every one of them understands the game and views a younger voter as someone new and uninformed who may not vote as they vote... a threat to their club. This is how sick it is and this is why Vienna needs to wake up and VOTE!

>>Stich and Brehony were just not the answer.

How convenient. What was the question?

How convenient. What was the question?

Now that TG was good.

The word on the street is NOT that young(er) people wanted Maud. Word is that people are shocked that Brehony & Stich lost. Many young(er) people did not realize just how mobilized Maud's sheep are on election day.

This was NOT a referendum on the TG or the Historic District, or taxes, or whatever you want to blame, or who.

Simply: Maud wants to stay in power, and the calls went out for her base to vote for Dellinger, Lovelace and Robinson. That simple. If her base could remember to do that, as instructed by the poll workers, she wins. If the voters were allowed to vote for someone they might have been informed about with legitimate debate and discussion, they might have been informed that both Stitch's and Brehony's views and ideals would have actually helped Vienna and all its citizens. Yes, if they both won, it would have been likely that Maud would lose. But, tell me where, Maud is actually doing anything to help her base except keeping things unchanged in a world where outside forces require adjustments and changes to deal with increasing taxes, crime, traffic, etc?

Eventually, Maud will lose, when either two things happen: she dies, or more people and less apathetic voters realize that change is needed and change is not bad. Realize also, neither of the challengers are pushing for substantial changes, or whatever the lies that were floated by the Maud/Seeman/Cole camp. Lastly regarding the historic district, that cannot be seen as a legitimate campaign issue, as this site has shown, that Brehony lost by the same amount as Stich. Anyway you look at it, no matter who you voted for, the historic district is dead, and will eventually die, simply because it IS unconstitutional, and no amount of grandstanding from any of the incumbents is going to change that fact. Vienna voters who live in or out of the district are fooling themselves if they truly believe that homeowners in the HD are being given a fair shake when it's obvious who gets special favors and who doesn't. Election losses or wins, it's still wrong, no matter who continues to be in power.

Thank you HV for still being here, and godspeed.

OK! THE INCUMBENTS WON AND WON BIG. I DOUBT THAT IT WILL HAPPEN, BUT ONE CAN HOPE THEY WILL NEVERTHELESS TURN OVER A NEW LEAF AND, AMONG OTHER THINGS, A) TELEVISE TOWN MEETINGS, B) KEEP CURB, GUTTER,SIDEWALK ESCROW FUNDS FROM SUBDIVISIONS IN ESCROW FOR THEIR INTENDED USE RATHER THAN CONSISTENTLY XFERRING THEM TO GENERAL FUNDS TO BE SPENT ELSEWHERE (TOWN GREEN?,C) USE RESTAURANT TAX FOR TRUE AND NON-LUXURY (TOWN GREEN) INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS,WHICH WAS ITS STATED PURPOSE, AND D) STOP DOING VERY OBVIOUS FAVORS FOR ONE PARTICULAR ARCHITECH, BUILDER (E.G. APPROVING SIX RESIDENTIAL TOWN HOUSES FACING THE SIDE LINE ON A SMALL PIPE STEM LOT,EACH OF WHICH IS CLEARLY MORE THAN 35' HIGH, AS WELL AS APPROVING FOR THE SAME PERSON/COMPANY A COMMERCIAL BUILDING WITH ZERO SET BACKS ON ALL FOUR SIDES AND ANOTHER COMMERCIAL BUILDING WITH VIRTUALLY NO PARKING. AT THE VERY LEAST, CERTAIN COUNCIL MEMBERS SHOULD NOT PARTICIPATE IN SUCH DECISIONS (OFFICIALLY OR IN THE BACK ROOMS)WHEN THEY OR THEIR PROGENY HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN BUSINESS DEALINGS (LARGE AND SMALL) BEFORE AND AFTER SUCH DECISIONS.
BASED ON PAST EXPERIENCE IN THE TOWN, I DOUBT THAT ANYTHING WILL CHANGE, BUT, AS PREVIOUSLY STATED, ONE CAN HOPE.

It is a bit fascinating to look back over the years to see how well incumbents have done and, more to the point, how poorly any challengers have done. After looking over the numbers from the Fairfax County website the results are very telling. Since 1990 incumbents for the Town Council elections have won 38-13. Of those 13 challenger wins I can only find one time since 1990 where the challenger actually unseated an incumbent (1993 - Garvie over Lillis). All of the other challenger wins came as a result of empty seats. I could be off a bit on the first couple of years as Fairfax Co’s website stops at 1990. Basically if you are a challenger in Vienna your only real hope of winning is if there are open seats. Considering this I’d say Deb and Susan did about as well as one might hope. It would be completely unrealistic to think both could have won and, as stated, if either could have won would have been a long shot.

On a related note I can only find two times since 1990 when there was more than one person running for mayor (1990 - Robinson v Cvel, and 2006 – Seeman v Lovelace). I can also only find 4 times beginning in 1990 when there was 20% or higher voter turnout (avg 15%). That is quite pathetic! I’m comfortable with the outcome of any election, no matter who wins/loses, as long as it portrays a true representation of the will of the Town and not a small sliver of it.

Frank your numbers are off. There have been (3) three challenger wins since 1980, not 13.

I don't have the results prior to 1980 but would love to see them. I'm going off the FFX Co web info (2007-1990) and basing it on election results from previous term. For example, in 2002 Cole and Kelleher were both running for 2 empty seats. Only Boudreau was there from the previous election. It was Kelleher's 2nd attempt. Both won as challengers to take the open seats (Briglia dropped out before the election). I counted all challengers who won if they were not in those seats the previous election round.

Open seat anointing doesn't count! Maud would have had other people running if she didn't approve. More. The number is 3 since 1980. Straight from Vienna Town Clerk.

I don't know why no one wants to reveal the real tricks town council has for controlling who serves on council. Mainly, they vacate council seats in mid term and then appoint their choice to that seat knowing that as an incumbent they will win in the next election. You stated above Briglia resigned in mid term. Do you think that was happenstance? There was on attempt to outsmart the system by Bob Robinson who waited until the town council meeting the day before the filing date for the next election to announce his not running. At that town council meeting within minutes of that announcement Maud proceeded to direct Marie Kisner to open her office and ready the papers for Frank Lillis to file for election. The signatures were collected at that meeting and they met the deadline for filing the next day. The only reason I am citing this here is I believe it will be lost history otherwise.

MAUDE HAS NO SHAME AND IS A DISGRACE TO THE ROBINSON NAME!