Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Mayor of Fishers? Thanks but no thanks.

I got approached last week at a "Future of Fishers" informational meeting at Fishers Town Hall by a couple of Republicans who said they heard a rumor that the only reason I was pushing for Fishers to be a City with an elected Mayor was so that I could run for Mayor myself.

My immediate reaction?  I started laughing.  Hard.  When I composed myself, I finally gave them the straight answer, which is, I found that flattering, but no, I have no interest in running for Mayor of Fishers.

Reasons?  Plenty.  First, whomever the first Mayor of Fishers is, will need more patience than I possess.  It will be a job for someone who has the patience of Job.  Second, I have a VERY full-time job as a practicing attorney, and I intend to retire from that sooner or later.  Third, I am a Democrat in a community where no Democrat gets over 40% of the vote, so it would be extraordinarily unlikely that I could be elected, as there are those who would not vote for a Democrat no matter what.

My interest is purely in making the government of Fishers more representative and responsive to the citizens, and better in other ways, such as economic development.  I strongly believe that the best way to do this is by Fishers becoming a real city, with a mayor elected by the people, not appointed by the council.  I continue to be involved with CityYes ( and urge all Fishers residents to support that cause.

So if you are a Fishers resident, please vote NO on Question #1 on the November ballot, the "hybrid/merger/sham city" reorganization, and YES on Question #2, for Fishers to become a REAL City with real representative government.

Questions?  Email CityYes at, or me at