Suppose you wanted to start a business. The level of difficulty in starting the business would vary with the type of business that you decided to start. If you wanted to open a lemonade stand, your barrier to entry would be about $100. You would need a table, some sugar, some lemons, a few cups and a pitcher filled with water. The left over money you could use for advertising. The barrier to entry for a lemonade stand is low. Contrast that with the barriers to entry for starting, say, a railroad or a steel mill.
There are benefits and drawbacks to barriers to entry and they all depend on which side of the barrier you are on. If you own a railroad or a steel mill, you can be certain that the number of new entrants coming to compete with you will be very low. This is good for existing owners and it translates into higher margins for your products for lack of competition. If you run a lemonade stand, you will have a lot of competition and no way to keep them out. This is bad for existing owners and means lower margins for your product. It is, however, great for new entrants to the market.
Winfield elections are designed to raise the barriers to entry for those on the outside of elected office. Just like the owner of a steel mill, once you are operational, you are protected by the barriers. The barriers create a filter that pre-selects a certain candidate type. It also explains the emergence of PAC’s like Winfield United.
Consider what it took for me to get elected:
- Bullet Proof – I have a personality that can withstand a lot of people being very angry with me. I don’t particularly mind interpersonal conflict. I have no children to take heat for my actions on the playground. My wife and I make our friends and social acquaintances outside of Winfield. My business is national and not dependent on local customers that could shop elsewhere if they don’t like my politics.
- Time - Running a campaign in Winfield takes an enormous amount of time. I have it available. As a software entrepreneur, I can pretty much stop what I am doing at any moment and run out for a meeting, to put out signs, and to campaign.
- Money – I have more money than I thought I would at age 40. I am by no means rich, but parting with the $3800 that this election cost me is not a huge deal.
- Support – I can’t overstate this, my wife has been a monumental support for me. She didn’t raise an eyebrow when the checks started flying to pay for direct mail and advertisements. She gets nothing out of me being a trustee. Actually, she gets less than nothing, she gives up nights and weekends with me when I am doing trustee stuff. I also have had the good fortune to fall in with the appropriate crowd to help mentor me through this process. Without them, I would not know what to do to get elected.
- Passion – There are so many things in life to have a passion for. There are sports, kids, work, entertainment, travel and the list goes on and on. I have a passion for working at meaningful jobs and my service to the village fits that nicely.
I am trying to illustrate a point about barriers to entry in Winfield politics. Winfield has 9000 residents, 6500 are registered voters. How many of Winfield’s population have personality qualities necessary to jump the barriers to entry and run for elected office? Sure, some might have the money or even the time but how many want to take the abuse? How many have the passion? The answer is; very few.
Now consider Winfield United candidates:
- Bullet Proof – WU is clever in that they take some of the heat off their candidates. They were very clever in cloaking their political organization in the veneer of a civic organization with the trappings of a charity. They plant flowers, trees and clean up rivers. Their candidates are old enough to have grown children or children that won’t take the heat on the playgrounds (for the most part). The conflict that is inherent in politics is shared with those that thrive in the conflict (Skillman, Rockett, Romanelli, Casino come to mind)
- Time – a candidate that is time challenged would gravitate to Winfield United. During election time WU hits the streets en mass with people knocking doors and hanging door hangers. During this past election I met Spande, 2 Rocketts, Barzo, 2 Birutis’, Mortenson, Hughes, VBC, Clark, and Skillman on the streets. Having 15 or so people walk the streets for you is an enormous help when you are time compromised.
- Money – Not many candidates can part with thousands of dollars for a position that pays $1500 per year. Having WU put together Potato Fest (WU fundraiser) and raise money for preferred candidates allows money challenged candidates get elected.
- Support – WU is its own support group. Some of you would call it “drinking the Kool Aid” but having a support group is very helpful in making you confident about what you are doing.
- Passion - This is a mixed bag. In some respects WU can replace the requisite passion necessary to run (think Joel Kunesh, God rest his soul). In others, the passion is there (Mortenson, Hughes) but not enough to part with $3800 or every waking second for 5 weeks leading up to an election.
The organization of Winfield United helps to lower the barriers to entry in the political arena. Unfortunately, it also means that you have to sell your soul to them. It explains why they can win elections and it explains why the WU interests are so narrow. Barriers to entry explain why it is so difficult to unseat them once they are elected and it explains why they so desperately do NOT want Winfield districted.
Consider if Winfield was politically districted:
- Bullet Proof – You could be less bullet proof. When your neighbors know you and when the only people that can run against you is people that your neighbors know, it is impossible to attack a person or even their positions outside the context of what is good for the district (as a subset of the village).
- Time – A district would be comprised of approximately 700 households. It is far easier to ring 700 doorbells than to ring 4400. This translates into the reality that one person working alone could run a campaign without massive amounts of volunteer labor.
- Money - With a computer and a laser printer you can create all the fliers and handouts you will need in a district for very little cost.
- Support – Aside from the voter support you would need no other support groups to run.
- Passion – You could have a busy work, family and social life and still be able to find time to run a campaign and service your district. This lowers the necessary passion required to run and to do the job.
What I am ultimately trying to say with all of this is that if Winfield chooses to lower the barriers to entry for political candidates it will simultaneously create more applicants to choose from. Some of these applicants (maybe most) will be better and more talented than our current crop of trustees (including me). Organizations like Winfield United will lose their political advantage by losing their importance to compromised candidates. As Winfield United loses its grip on candidates, the narrow self interest that WU represents will give way to a whole-village interest. In the transition you will find that the anger, negativity and vitriol will fade and in its place will be a sense of teamwork.
Unfortunately, just like entrenched businesses, political organizations hate new competition too so I expect them to endeavor to make sure the barriers to entry stay high.
20 Responses to Barriers to Entry
LeRoy Budnik on April 14, 2011 8:34 am at 8:34 am (Edit)
Tim
The hard process made you a better candidate. You had to earn each vote in a way that the Winfield United candidates did not have to. In elections past, your competitors had an easier effort to gain their seat as trustee. It took perseverance; however, the result was that you galvanized the community. Unfortunately, we lost Angel from the first to the second attempt. The struggle taught you something, and in the process, it wore off some of the rough edges, giving you a more perceptive approach. It did you good.
Is the game changer moving to a “districting” approach, or is it that the game has already changed because of social media? Winfield411, with your writing and the words of others, has helped the community understand what is going on in real-time. Because it is a blog format, 411 allows all of us to participate in the discussion. As this form matures, it might not be necessary to knock on all the doors. Then we would really have government, by the people.
LeRoy
Reply
LMG on April 14, 2011 9:27 am at 9:27 am (Edit)
You make a reasonable argument, and maybe I’m coming around. My initial feeling was that it would be a mistake to implement a permanent solution (districting) for a short term problem (WU). In an offline discussion with Tim, he also pointed out that this town has suffered from localized divisions for a long time now. From what I see on the Winfielder, that seems to be true as well. North side vs South, flooding vs not flooding, sidewalks vs no-sidewalks, CDH vs no CDH, even streetlamps vs no-streetlamps.
What does anyone have to say about KingKevy’s idea about three districts (North, Central, South) and two trustees per district instead of six?
Reply
Patti on April 14, 2011 2:28 pm at 2:28 pm (Edit)
I have 2 concerns: 1) What happens if a district doesn’t have anyone interested in running for office? 2) What happens if a district’s trustee is ineffective? (Can someone from that district appeal to another district’s trustee to help them with an issue from their district?)
Reply
Tim Allen on April 15, 2011 9:38 am at 9:38 am (Edit)
Patti, To answer your first question, if nobody runs then somebody is appointed. However, the whole idea of districting is to lower the barriers to running in the first place. We never have a problem finding people for the appointments, we often have a problem finding people to run. This is because it is so dang hard to run (and expensive). Lower the costs and you will have more supply.
Second, yes, the trustee from any given district would have a backup trustee from an adjoining district. If your trustee is in effective that situation would only last as long as the next election cycle.
Reply
LMG on April 15, 2011 9:59 am at 9:59 am (Edit)
The idea of the “backup” trustee is why the three districts with two trustees each makes some sense to me. It’s not reasonable to expect that every trustee makes every meeting after all. Life happens!
Reply
phil hardy on April 14, 2011 4:35 pm at 4:35 pm (Edit)
Hi Tim,
I’m new to 411, and I am always reluctant to offer anything even remotely pro-WU in my responses. But, I’ve read a few of your articles over the past week and wanted to push back on a few of your points (just a little bit!).
First, couldn’t it be easily argued that the nature and tone of Winfield 411 is a key barrier to participation? And you appear to be heavily involved in this site. So much negativity and so many character attacks – many of the folks who comment on this site are convinced I’m either a member of WU, or some kind of operative for them. Yet I don’t belong, and I’ve tried for some time to remain neutral about a lot of this stuff.
I’ve said repeatedly that I like Steve Romanelli, that he’s a great neighbor and in my limited conversations with him he seems genuine in his concern for the village.
I don’t know you as well as Steve, but we’ve chatted on at least two occasions. Recall that several months ago, as you canvassed the community for signatures in support of districting, that we talked for a few minutes in my garage. And, I happily signed your petition! Like a lot of Winfield residents, I wish you and Tony well as you take on the challenges that accompany being a trustee. I want the Village to thrive, and for people to generally get along with one another.
Second, you and Erik Spande deserve a lot of credit for the community garden – at least one of my close neighbors uses the garden and seems to get a lot of use and joy out of it. But, what’s the difference between this and the community projects WU has taken on? Don’t they deserve credit, too?
And, what about the hundreds of voters who support WU’s position and may belong to the organization? Isn’t it true that there are some fine people that identify with that group?
I’m just suggesting that the WU-centrism gets a bit old. I know it’s a risky statement to make here, but I hope we can move on. You did a good job and won a contentious election. I thought you and Tony were in trouble when the last round of WU mailers arrived on the Friday prior to the election. But I was wrong! You won and deserve to represent the many people who cast their votes for you. Odds are, however, that WU AND 411 will be around for many years to come, so why not work toward common ground?
I’m just sayin’….:) Good luck and best wishes to you and yours.
Reply
LMG on April 15, 2011 10:26 am at 10:26 am (Edit)
I always tried to be reasonable and fair in my comments, and I wholeheartedly agree with what Phil said. WU does do some nice things. They’ve also done some very mean, nasty and underhanded things, and I believe that is only a few people in the organization. I bought a tree from one of their fundraisers many years ago, but once I realized that money was going to Zegel’s newspaper I have never particpated in one event. Yes, on 411, there were some unsubstaniated accusations in the comments which sometimes I tried to address. I always felt that the people on this site should not stoop to their tactics, but at some point those strong feelings (while not always logical) became much more meaningful than no feelings at all.
Since so many people know who I am now, Joel Kunesh was my neighbor. He and his wife have been great neighbors, going above and beyond to help another elderly neighbor here. But acting as a trustee, Joel also used to run out into the street and stop me from talking to Public Works. He would actually pull them away from me in the middle of a conversation. We had more than a couple shouting matches about it.
So I will disagree with you on one point – their concern for the Village is overriden by their concern for themselves and their property values. If there is an issue that doesn’t threaten them, they can be perfectly altruistic. That doesn’t mean we have to treat them like evil incarnate however, and maybe we won’t have to anymore.
Reply
phil hardy on April 21, 2011 9:57 pm at 9:57 pm (Edit)
Hi LMG,
Sorry for the really slow response – my kids’ birthday parties were this past weekend so things have been kind of crazy @ home. Just to clarify, as I re-read my earlier post, I don’t want to leave the readers of 411 with any questions about my position re. Winfield United, or for people to think I’m trying to distance myself from them.
From my perspective it seems like a good group of people, though I’ve never met many of the members. But the handful of residents I’ve met who either passively or actively support WU are good, decent, and reasonable people.
Our politics are off track in Winfield. But I’m not sure it’s fair to dump our fears and concerns at the door step of WU or Deb Birutis. We run the risk of creating gridlock, of becoming so suspicious of one another that we fail to accomplish even the basic task of government (or citizenship).
And, given the current environment, what person in their right mind would want to participate in our political process? This causes good people to shy away, which presents all kinds of problems with representation and policymaking.
I’m hoping for more respectful discourse on a lot of these issues. I remain skeptical of some of the ambitious plans that Tim and Tony have called for in Winfield. But, if their ideas work, I won’t be shy about congratulating them for their service and accomplishments.
Reply
Patti on April 15, 2011 11:48 am at 11:48 am (Edit)
I believe that WU performs community service projects to gain favor with the residents so they’ll vote for their endorsed candidates. It doesn’t mean they’re not nice, good, honest people, but they are doing it for political purposes. If they truly want to be seen as non-political, then their community service group should register on its own as a 501(C)3.
Reply
Zack Clark on April 15, 2011 1:02 pm at 1:02 pm (Edit)
Phil –
Interesting comments. I would say NO, 411 is not a barrier to entry. Our elected officials have to be held to a standard and if they are not meeting that standard then they should be held accountable. Wouldn’t you agree? Don’t confuse negativity with the residents frustrations of how the village is being run. Do you honestly believe the current village board and Birutis have been good stewards of the village? It is the level of dissatisfaction with WU and their control of the town over the last 6 years that has people on edge. Personally I don’t care if you are WU or not, however you continue to go out of your way to tell everyone that you are not WU. Unfortunately you may be guilty by your association with Romanelli.
You have mentioned on more than one occasion that you like Steve and he is a “great” neighborhood who seems genuine in his concerns for the village. Here in lies the problem, Romanelli is like a chameleon. Saying one thing to your face but carrying out a completely different set of self-serving objectives for himself and his organization, WU. When it comes to Romanelli and WU there isn’t enough truth! Can you really believe or trust for that matter someone whose organization funded Stan Zegel’s “Slam Publication” the Winfield Register through the 2009 election? Why is that fact glossed over? This isn’t the only incident of WU throwing their weight around town either, but I hope you see my point. I would ask your neighbor why he thought it was necessary to fund and use such a slanderous publication in the 2009 election. [If you would, post his response, there are a lot of us who like to read it]
I like many of the readers on 411 believe WU’s community service is done to gain favor with the residents not for altruistic reasons. Because of that, WU’s following is much larger that is until the residents realize what WU’s true motives are. I would sight the 2011 election as more and more residents finally seeing WU for what they truly are, a self-concerned, self-interested group of individuals. I’m willing to be convinced otherwise but it is going to take a lot to convince me.
Since WU’s creation by your neighbor and others all our election have been contentious. What is the common denominator in that contention, WU and Steve Romanelli. Ask yourself this, why would Romanelli let the Skillmans who only lived in town less than 2 years be the driving force in what happens in our town and to our future? Why did Romanelli let the his organization attack the good people of this community and divide this community? That’s exactly what he did! The negativism in town, all started with Romanelli and the organization he heads, WU.
There is no hiding the fact where the problem lies. Romanelli owes this community an explanation for his actions and more importantly an apology.
ZC
Reply
LMG on April 15, 2011 3:05 pm at 3:05 pm (Edit)
But you can’t hold Phil Hardy guilty by association with Romanelli. That’s the whole point – they’re just neighbors. Believe me, it’s more important to be friendly with your neighbors and leave politics OUT of it when you can. I’ve done that for the 12 years I’ve lived on this street, except for a few heated exceptions, we’re all very nice to each other on this street.
You cannot ask Phil to challenge Romanelli on anything simply because they’re neighbors. Phil has already said that he’s a good neighbor, just like Joel was a good neighbor – and you just have to leave politics (and religion) out of those relationships.
Reply
Zack Clark on April 15, 2011 5:48 pm at 5:48 pm (Edit)
LMG, you are absolutely right but than the opposite should be true also. Then Phil Hardy should not be defending Romanelli and WU. I’m not trying to argue here, I’m just making a point. Mr. Hardy wasn’t living here in 2005 and certainly was here to witness what a nasty and dirty election WU ran in 2009. All these elections gave Winfield a black eye.
Now WU and Romanelli have lost and lost big and they are once again attacking Tim and trying to paint everything Tim or Tony has done as being negative. It’s ridiculous! Tim and Tony ran on the village board’s dismal record. That’s not negative – that’s a bad board!
Anyway I guess my point is, if Mr. Hardy wants to defend his neighbor than I guess he has to be prepared to take some criticism for it or at least be asked why he thinks Romanelli and WU are “good” for this town.
Reply
Down South on April 15, 2011 7:12 pm at 7:12 pm (Edit)
Phil it’s not WU-centrism as you call it, its what WU did to this town and the good people who live here. It’s pretty ironic that you would be the one trying to defend Romanelli & WU when indirectly you are the reason Romanelli formed WU. It’s my belief our community is too small to have a political action committee operating within our neighborhoods. Furthermore the group WU wasn’t formed out of the need for a community organization, Romanelli formed WU out of revenge for the 3 houses that were built across the street from him. How can any organization formed for all the wrong reasons be good for any community?
I liken WU to Acorn in a lot of respects, Acorn hid behind their “community involvement” but behind the scenes they were nothing more than a self-serving group taking care of themselves and causing trouble.
I would read on this blog “Rudy’s Final Farewell Speech” Rudy was at one time a WU insider. It is a very interesting read coming from someone who was once heavily supported by Romanelli and WU.
http://winfield411.com/magazine/2010/05/25/rudy-czechs-final-board-speech/
Reply
phil hardy on April 21, 2011 10:04 pm at 10:04 pm (Edit)
Hi Down South,
I know about The Romanelli’s objections to the homes that were built, but it didn’t involve me – my wife and I bought the home after it was built. But I understand your point.
And @ Zack, I didn’t mean to sound like I was hedging re. Steve. He’s been a great guy and neighbor to me for more than four years. We’ve had calm conversations about the state of the Village, and it stinks that he gets targeted on this site. Again, I say this with respect, not to sound abrasive.
It is true that I’ve only lived in Winfield for a little more than four years, but I’ve tried to follow the political stuff pretty closely. I have a lot to learn, no doubt, but I would disagree that WU is the problem.
Thanks for commenting respectfully to my earlier post!
Reply
Zack Clark on April 22, 2011 10:47 am at 10:47 am (Edit)
Hey Phil – Thanks for the comments. But I respectfully disagree with you when it comes to Steve Romanelli. Romanelli deserves all criticism he has been receiving. You can trace the animosity that exist in town currently back to Romanelli and his organization WU. Whether Romanelli likes it or not he cast himself in this role because he was angry about the house you are now living in.
There is no room in our community for the selfish, self-interested or individuals looking to “get even.” Some people never come clean, and I find it appalling Romanelli says one thing to your face and another behind your back.
Romanelli is big boy you should ask him to fight his own battles and while your at it, ask him if he ever these problems before he started WU.
Enjoy your Easter!
Reply
Pete Jensen on April 23, 2011 1:11 am at 1:11 am (Edit)
Phil, I gathered from your comments you haven’t lived in Winfield very long but I can tell you categorically Steve Romanelli has earned the reputation and criticism he is getting in town. Romanelli is all over the news blogs making his snide and misleading comments without an ounce of proof.
Check out these comments from the DH: Last time I checked, I have not been in any election or sat on the village board, or profited in any way from any land deals in Winfield. –sromanelli
What is he implying here? And if he has some proof, why hasn’t he brought it forward? He has been making the same comments for over 5 years now. How is this helping the town? I cannot think of one “positive” thing Steve has done in the over 20 years he is always screaming about that live in Winfield. Sure they hand-out or sell little saplings by school or have a blow-up ride at Good Old Days but it’s all done to mislead the residents, their motives aren’t true. Is it all a power play?
I’m not trying to give you a hard time I just don’t understand your defense of Steve. He’s your neighbor I get that but I would leave it there. I have had first hand dealings with Steve and WU and I can tell you unequivocally if I could undo or paths crossing, I would jump at the opportunity.
Pete
Reply
LeRoy Budnik on April 14, 2011 4:57 pm at 4:57 pm (Edit)
LMG
The three district idea has merit, in my opinion.
LeRoy
Reply
lil red riding hood on April 14, 2011 5:20 pm at 5:20 pm (Edit)
Hats off to KingKevy’s idea this would give trustee s a friend, buddy, team member!!! Two people working together can get more done! However breaking it down to more districts would make it alot easier come election time. Would be interested to see what the map would look like both ways. Is that possible Tim? Will add comments once a map comes to life.
Reply
kingkevy on April 14, 2011 8:40 pm at 8:40 pm (Edit)
that’s where the fun would really begin….drawing the lines
Reply
lil red riding hood on April 17, 2011 6:37 pm at 6:37 pm (Edit)
Whom ever draws the lines……take a lesson from failure and do NOT draw lines like a school district! Take time and research don’t just pick up a pen on a map!! Kev, can’t really call it fun its gonna take a lot of HOMEWORK!! Good luck to the lucky persons that step up to the plate!