Reelection Redux

It is always a negative in government when someone runs unopposed. It is bad for the public and bad for the incumbent, because it encourages complacency. So I very much welcome a vigorous campaign that allows the community to discuss the issues that matter to us. I am most excited to get out to the neighborhoods in the district and spend some time talking and listening. That has always been my favorite aspect of campaigning. A postcard or a phone call really doesn't connect you to people the way a house-call does.

On a personal note, I made a commitment to myself that I would only run for reelection if I winded down and sold my business (www.fly-firefly.com). It has consumed my time greatly as it has grown. Couple that with a 6 year old, a one year old, my fantastic wife, and a law practice, something had to go so I could remain confident I could devote myself to the Commission. So the business is being sold. It is always sad to give up something you have built, but my community comes first.

Finally, I must have received 8 phone calls yesterday asking me if the Mayor encouraged or otherwise put up my opposition to run. The answer is I don't have any idea and it doesn't matter. I hear the same things anyone else does. Yes, the Mayor and I have had some tense moments recently and throughout our time together. But we are both grown-ups and community leaders and I am confident disagreements are not enough to prevent us from continuing to work together. All I know is that Mike has said he will make my platform a priority and that makes me happy. I am sure he would not be pleased to hear people implying that he can't make his own decisions, because I know that he can. So there it is, let's make this about the issues and about public dialogue. I welcome the opportunity.

The Challenges of Communication Timing

Some of you may have tuned in for the big debate the Commission had a while back on sweeping changes to our alcohol related ordinances. At a work session, changes to the ordinance to bring it in line with state law were on the agenda. As it turned out, the staff proposed changes were far more expansive than mere state law alignment. Even though not a single Commissioner had seen any of these proposed changes before that public meeting, the media and many angry citizens nailed us with charges of pushing through radical and unnecessary legislation.

Angry Commish, Reining in the Law

Both Commissioner Lynn and I expressed anger that verged on outrage for having these proposals dumped on us without notice. I asked that the whole package get diverted to the standing legislative committee that I chair (the Legislative Review Committee) so the Commission could take control of the process and get a handle on it. While there are still some things that were eventually passed that I feel are unnecessary (i.e. it adds red tape without accomplishing any obvious community objective), we stripped away most of the provisions some deemed as a bit outrageous. There was a lot of panic and unnecessary anger because the proposal was presented in a "final" format (i.e the Attorney had already drafted it in code form) to the Commission and the Public at the same time. It is sometimes understandably difficult for the public to differentiate the "government" from the "government." In this case it was staff versus the elected decision-makers.

So What is the Difference Between Open Government and Sloppy Government?

Thus, it can be a challenge to decide when and at what stage in legislative development to publicize your work as a legislator. If you report too early, while a proposal is still rough and not completely vetted, you risk pointed criticism that the law is sloppy and full of flaws. If you wait too late, you risk being seen as secretive and closed. As most know, I like to err on the side of openness. You will be attacked no matter what path you choose, of course, which is why politics requires a thick skin and an accurate internal compass.

A Case in Point

I do have a point here. At the last session of the Legislative Review Committee we reviewed the 5^th annual Growing Sustainably report. This document is the result of the leadership of the Athens Grow Green Coalition and the hard work of the bulk of environmental and preservation groups in our community. You may view the document here. The committee discussed those recommendations that pertained to ordinance action. It was a great discussion and I submitted the results of the meeting to the Mayor for further review. At this point, we have only proposed to investigate the 7 or so items on our list, and we do not necessarily agree that all (or any) require new laws. To a lesser extent than the alcohol controversy, posting that memo on my blog could ignite some anger from folks potentially on the receiving end of any new regs, even though we are not even close to deciding whether or not we need new regs. Also, there is the mayor to consider. Would you appreciate memos for your eyes immediately being posted on the web before you have had a chance to react to them?

Usually, we just hold public meetings (LRC is always a public meeting) and let the press decide what to print. This blog presents another opportunity for openness. But it also creates the potential for resentment from my colleagues if it is just a forum to air dirty laundry or share (semi)private memos (though everything is public record anyway). What do you think? Email me or better yet post here. I like to create with collaboration, so help me define the information you get from this blog.

The Bottom Line

Just so you know, my opinion, and therefore current blog policy, is that I will inform you all about actions and agendas and not post preliminary memos. At the end of the day, isn't that really what you are concerned with anyway? I am open to suggestions.

Reelection

I qualified today to run for a second term as your Superdistrict 10 Commissioner. I continue to be taken aback and humbled that this community has allowed me to represent them for the past 3 ½ years. I am also very honored to work with my colleagues who fill out the other 9 seats. Since my election, the composition of the Commission has only gotten better. Sharp minds, innovation thinking, and a devotion to community building are the hallmarks of our current Commission, and these hardworking folks are central to my decision to seek another term. I believe the next four years will bring greater focus and more team-building, allowing our government to work on the important big-picture issues in our community.

Contrary to criticism of our government a few years ago that we were a homogenous bunch, I think we have safely demonstrated that the Commission is a diverse group of community advocates. We have deep divisions from time to time, but I believe that range of opinion makes us stronger and more responsive to our constituents. I have a lot of work yet unfinished and I look forward to pressing forward and building a stronger community and an open government in the years to come.

A Commission without Carl

I was saddened to find out that Commissioner Carl Jordan, who was the vanguard of the current progressive Commission, will not be seeking reelection. He is a remarkably intelligent individual, with a keen eye and insightful instincts. Together, I believe we have been a powerhouse team for the 6^th District, redefining how developers interact with neighborhoods and diverting appropriate resources to important infrastructure improvements. I will sorely miss that partnership, though I am comforted to know he will still be around (granted with a 3 minute time limit).

Carl, we frequently disagreed on details and even strategies, but my faith in your motives and love for Athens never waivered. I must admit having a desire to pack duct tape in my meeting briefcase from time to time, but your input and level of attention to your constituents has always greatly surpassed the negatives of your lengthy oratory. I am excited for Carl, as he can continue to advocate for the community now on his own terms and take as much vacation time in Idaho as he likes. I know his decision has added years to his life. I look forward to the final 6 months of partnership with Commissioner Jordan.

Now We Have Worms That Don't Exist

I must say that I am very disappointed in this editorial.

I was at this meeting, and I will tell you that the editorial does not accurately reflect what happened there.  Read my post below for some details.  No one called the Mayor and Commission racist.  No reasonable person would believe the Commission voted to remove funds because they don't like black people.  No one has said that to me and no one said that at the meeting.  What is strange is that the news article that this editorial is based on specified that the prevailing sentiment was that no one was accusing the Mayor and Commission of racism.

Blake's article specifies that "The six commissioners who voted to cut the funding are not racists, but the decision was paternalistic, said moderator Janice Mathis, vice president of the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition."  Ms. Mathis said this in response  to the Mayor's belief that the "race card" had been played.  I thought that cleared it up well.

If the meeting HAD degraded into angry accusations of personal racism, I would agree with the editorial 100%!!!  That would have been a tired and not constructive dialogue.  But, again, that is not what happened.  One speaker said essentially, hey, we all make mistakes.  You guys made a mistake.  But it is nothing we can't fix and move forward with together.  It was a POSITIVE meeting.  Ms. Neely was not calling the Mayor a racist.  I have spoken with her on this topic on more than one occasion and my strong impression is that she is deeply concerned about the disparate treatment of the black community by our process.  But she has never expressed the opinion to me that she believes our elected officials are "racist."

So, for the umpteenth time, this is about PROCESS, PROCESS, PROCESS.  We violated the public trust, and people (even those who are not big fans of EADC or HCDC) are mad about it.

Finally, the editorial seems to imply that race is not something we should talk about because it might unrail OneAthens. This is very very wrong.  OneAthens will never get on the rails UNLESS we have a healthy dialogue about race.  

Rick Dunn put it to me very well.  He said this is like a marriage.  Sometimes you have to say things that are uncomfortable and deal with things you don't want to, but that is how a marriage maintains its trust.  And in the end, you know you love each other and want the same things.  You just have to work out the kinks so you can get there hand-in-hand as equal partners.

Shout-Out to Hillary

Just a quick link to Antidisingenuousmentarianism.

She needs to run for office.  She makes my point well.  She does it in one short paragraph.  I write a tome to say the same thing. Lesson in concise writing noted.

No Closing this Can of Worms

There was a community meeting held with the Mayor and Commission last night.

It is unfortunate that the article had to focus on the spat between the Mayor and Evelyn Neely, because that was not the focus of the meeting.  I understand, however, that Blake really had no choice but to center the story there.  

I hope people do not forget that the anger expressed last night is less about the actual cuts than about fair and open government.  In fact, more than one person expressed the opinion that the Commission should figure out what it wants from the organizations and if they cannot perform then they should not get the money.  However, there was much frustration from the community on what those expectations are.  And I would point out that we were asked that question directly and not a single one of us elected officials could provide an answer.  So it is certainly fair to ask - if we are not clear on what we want from these organizations, how can we justify attacking them for not meeting our expectations?

In any case, it bears repeating that many people there agree that these two organizations could stand improvement, but they feel betrayed by the secrecy involved.  They should feel that way.  Any reasonable people would.  My only beef with the meeting was that the format was not made clear, so I think the commissioners that voted to remove the funds justifiably felt surprised by the direct questions.

So What About Race?

The answer to this question fills many volumes written by people much smarter than me.  But race is important.  The fact that members of the community and Commission act so strongly against even discussing the issue is very telling to me.  It is a statistical fact that black citizens are sentenced very differently than white citizens when accused of the same crime.  The rate of actual prosecution of black citizens is higher than white citizens for the same crime.  If you discount students, the vast majority of the poor in our community are people of color.

So you can only draw two conclusions - either black folks are just incompetent and their culture just can't function as well as white folks (and they need to work harder, get a job, etc) or there is a disparate impact visited upon them by our institutions.  

Note that disparate impact does not require our leadership to be racist, just that the institutions favor people NOT of color. That is the point Ms. Neely was trying to make and that the Mayor missed.  No one thought SHE was personally someone who does not LIKE black people.

Also, it is unfortunate that we cannot discuss the racial bias of our institutions without people immediately accusing the black community of wanting to blame everyone but themselves.  The cycle of poverty exists because the culture is broken.  And I have always said that the path out of that cycle can only be navigated by the people living in poverty.  That is why empowerment is so vital.  Why power sharing is critical.  What those of us that do not have to face poverty every day have to do is clear the path for them - but we cannot drive the bus.  Our disadvantaged communities MUST take personal responsibility for their own fate.

What I heard last night was a complete willingness to do that, but a strong belief that we as a government are standing in their way rather than clearing the path.  

So What Now?

We need to do so many things.  But for now, I will just say one thing.  We need more meetings like the one last night, but with actual non-black people there too.  It is so easy for people not living in communities caught in the poverty cycle to over-simplify the anger in the black community and throw out the clique race card accusation.  So here is my challenge - rather than make the easy conclusions based on a single news story with an obvious angle, why don't we all begin the process of making TwoAthens OneAthens by having a real dialogue on why these frustrations are out there.  Both sides have a lot  to learn and a lot more in common than they realize.

I deeply regret the division that this has created on the Commission, but I see this dialogue as positive.  We are FINALLY having "the talk."  This has been festering since long before unification.  Unification itself was sold as a solution to disparate impact.  But now we cannot ignore the conversation.  We can be accused of playing the race card, sure, but that is just a reaction spawned by a deeper insecurity.  At the end of the day, this should not be about race, but about people.  As we used to say when I was in trenches in Little Rock fighting the same cause in a different way -

It's about Democracy.  

It's about People.

It's about Time.