A day
at the races.
That
is the mayor's race. 2014 run. Oakland City.
After
having done this myself in 2010 and then having run for council in 2012 it sure
felt different to sit in the balcony and be part of the crowd. It was
fun. I waived at a few people I knew,
noticed others further away and watched the show. Only the popcorn was missing.
The
day belonged to Libby Schaaf. She spoke well. She answered the
questions well and basically carried herself as if she could credibly be the
next mayor. That she has to credit herself for. The day belonged to
her too because of the way the good questions kept coming to her. Credit the press panel for that. I had
the feeling that the panel was treating her as the front runner.
The
candidates as speakers
Worst
of them all was our current mayor, Jean Quan. Every time she spoke she was
running out her breath and running down the clock. It was hard to
understand her points. She also had some real trouble hearing some pointed
questions which the audience repeated to her. Jean has always sounded
like that and got elected mayor sounding like that. Maybe speaking skills
are not so important for getting elected in Oakland.
My
friend Joe Tuman, who taught me a lot of the public speaking skills I have, did
not follow his own advice. It took him a while to answer the questions to
the audience instead of to the journalist on the panal. This is the man
who hammered home into my head at San Francisco State that AUDIENCE DRIVES THE
MESSAGE. He also broke the rule about shape. His speaking sounded a
bit like Quan's with breath and diction, but still a single buzz until the
clock ran out. Worst of all, at one point he was speaking about
management measuring tools in a jargon so academic that I was glad that I also
speak French.
My
friend Shake Anderson, along with Parker, Ruby, Schaaf and Sidebotham all did
good jobs of answering the questions directly without waffling, and speaking
with breath and pause to make clear when they were passing from one idea to
another. Nancy Sidebotham was particularly well spoken, even when the
questions were pointed and personal. At one point Shake was asked if he
would use Occupy consensus decision making as mayor to which he toned a clear
NO that got the laugh from the crowd.
Nancy was hounded for not supporting much of any taxes and she came back
clear on why she does not trust those who spend those tax dollars. Anderson, Parker, Ruby and Schaaf knew the
skill of answering head on before heading in the direction that they
wanted.
Patrick
McCullough and Dan Siegel fell somewhere in between. Both have good clear
voices. Siegel tended to sound good even when he was speaking without
much structure or any clear answer. At other times he was really clear on
message, albeit without much memorable punch. McCullough speaks very
clearly, but let the journalists decide what he was going to talk about.
The
audience
There
was a lot of it. Temple Sinai was PACKED, all seats taken on both levels
with people sitting on floors, stairs and standing. The audience was also
much more mixed in age, race, and gender that many of the forums I have seen.
It was pleasing to see such a great turn out. We need more people
in Oakland to take the time to see, hear, understand and give a damn in our
elections.
The
place
Shone
brightly. The Temple Sinai sanctuary is a splendid building. Early
1900's stone and an ironwork supported dome does it for me. So did the
very 21st century sound system and Wi-Fi. We should all thank Temple for
hosting us so well in such a classy venue. (full disclosure, I know the
building well and have something to do with that Wi-Fi)
The
panel
It
was a well-chosen group. We had the notorious Chip Johnson, who was
gracious and fair. Matt Artz of the Tribune was as well informed as
always, which he used to put a sharp edge on a lot of his questions. Bob
Gammon showed in his questions that he is probably the most informed and
longest serving member of the local press since the death of Sanjiv Handa.
His tone was very respectful and his questions, although hard, were put
fairly. I was very impressed by Bianca Brooks of Youth Radio who really
zoomed in on some hot issues and pushed those buttons when needed.
The
show
I am
not a fan of this format. It runs long, the answers are too short and the
discussion ends up being superficial. I also thought that some of the
questions were unfair. McCullough was first cast in the light of his past
self-defense use of a firearm to wound a miscreant, years ago. Then the
weapons issue was harped upon again in discussion of armed private security
patrols. Then he was asked flat out what qualifications he might have to
be mayor. No such questions were asked of the others. They were
asked about relevant events, issues or character of governance.
Chip
Johnson asked Shake Anderson how he would get along with the police after
having gone head to head with them when he was an Occupy protestor. I
found that question fair and Shake started his answer with a clear message that
he wants a different chief of police.
The
mayor was put on the defensive comparing crime stats during her first 3 years
to the last year of the Dellums administration. She did not answer
clearly (see description of her mumbling above) but she was right to say that
short term numbers like that mean little. I agree. I say the same
thing when her supporters in Block by Block talk about how crime is way down
this year compared to last year, especially murders. That is true, but
both last year and this year fall within the normal fluctuations, but who wants
to listen to analytical statistics when you can score sound bite points?
Not
all that much was said in 90 second sound bites; you can't even string them as you
would on Twitter. There was some meaningless talk of police staffing
numbers. In this Joe Tuman clearly stated that he was willing to pay what
it takes to have 900 police. Libby ducked some clear questions on police
costs overall and avoided answering if she would like to get union seniority
out of how police brass make assignments.
There
were some good small points made by all, many a good statement made, but in 90
seconds how much can anyone say? A couple people, especially Shake, Ruby
and Libby, made it clear that they would expect a police chief to do their job,
not have the mayor do it for them. WHO those three would like as mayor may
not be a point of consensus. If there was a consensus it was that they all
wanted more beat cops who actually live in the city. There was some talk
about how young men of color are supposed to act or what they are supposed to
want... There was some more snippets about chronic poverty and chronic crime...
Some words on economic development ...
Every
candidate got some time, but certain candidates got a lot more time. As I
said, Libby was sitting in the middle of the stage standing out in a bright red
dress. All the other candidates were dressed more conservatively,
including Shake. And she got the center of attention if not the numeric
majority of the questions. The Mayor got fewer questions than one would
guess. She got the most questions when
it was the turn of the candidates to ask another candidate a question. It
was pretty easy to see that the focus and attention was on the candidates
considered most likely to win.
Some
questions were not asked. "Do you have the support of the Oakland
Police Officers Association or are you seeking their support?" would have
been a question. "Who do you think you can work with on City Council
to support your agenda?" would be another. I could add to this
"Should we have a police commission?" and "What happened to
civilian intake of complaints against police officers?" (Now back in
the hands of Internal Affairs despite direct votes of council and the city
budget) I would have liked some questions about failed policies and rapidly
changing policies instead of hounding the mayor for how many people quit on
her. Of course even if they had asked better questions, with 90 second
answers, what would we have really learned?
I was
a little disappointed with some of the numbers thrown around. We had the normal
questions about pensions as if it were a single without mentioning cash flow
and rate of payout. We also had some unexplained numbers on cost per cop.
The candidates were sticking to $180,000 per cop, per year. There
was no numbered distinction made about overtime, yet we were asking if police
salaries should be lower. I was half expecting Dan Siegel to clarify, and
he sort of did on another question. Basic police salary is a lot less
than 180K, overtime is a real lot and total cost per cop is between 200 and
250K unless you want them out there on foot in their underwear. (Source,
former City Administrator Lindheim)
By
and large the whole thing was good natured and there were even a few laughs.
One when the Mayor thanked Chip for a column and he gave a good hearted
you're welcome. Shake got a good laugh for his flat NO and another when
he said that he could end up good friends with the police. McCullough got
a couple good laughs and there were a few light moments. If there was any
serious value in the evening, it was to get a good look at all the candidates
mannerisms.
By
and large, the feeling of the whole evening was friendly.
The
politics
For
our 2014 election, we have a few of those likely winners. The measure of such
things in our nation is dollars and press. So who has the dollars and the
connections? Tuman, who is a TV personality and has been running for a
year already, Ruby, our city auditor, who is well liked at the Oakland Chamber
of Commerce, Libby Schaaf, sitting council member and lifelong Oakland insider,
and the incumbent, Jean Quan, who has a strong core base after 20 years as an
elected official, working hard to get her reelected.
The
politics of what is at stake is mostly personalities. Only Green
candidate Anderson and independent McCullough would be any real break from the
status quo. Even ultra-radical Dan Siegel has been part of the inside
crowd in Oakland for a long time. At one point he reminded us that he
wrote a part of our current community policing laws. How Dan is different from
Jean is not as clear as it needs to be and he did not make it any more clear
tonight.
As
this is a blog, not some kind of journalism, I can now pass to the candidate
that I support:
Jason
Kane "Shake" Anderson. I think he did well, especially for his
first round of this circus. He obviously was well prepared and obviously
has the relevant experience to do the public speaking, public debate part of
running for office. As the standard bearer for the Green Party he made
the points that needed to be made within the limits of this sound bite boxing
match.
I
liked how he explained the new relationship he proposes with the police along
the lines of needing South African style Truth and Reconciliation. He
followed that later with a clear message to the nonprofits who do not get the services
out to the residents. In case anyone was wondering, Anderson, like all
Greens, does not take big money and owes big money no quid-pro-quo. I
liked how he spoke of his grandparents moving to Oakland during the great
migration.
I
think he should hone his message on his opposition to the war on drugs because
he will be asked that again and again. He got the words PRISON INDUSTRIAL
COMPLEX out there and followed with Nonprofit Industrial Complex later. That is
a damn good start considering that they did not call on him much. He
talked about his leadership style when answering the Occupy-Consensus question
and included what he had personally learned from Occupy. What I like
about his style is that he speaks as a whole person from the heart, personal
and political. Yet he did not sell himself as the others did.
Overall he gave clear ideas for a real transition in our relationships
around public safety and crime based on who we are here and now. As the
campaign moves on his reform agenda will make itself heard.
This
election is not even started. The petition period is in JUNE.
Others could file and some could drop out. In July we sign ballot
petitions and only once those are turned in, we will know who will actually be
on the ballot in November. Right now nothing is fixed.
There
is much more to be said about public safety in Oakland than was said tonight.
We
have until November to say it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUYZZGdqhsM&feature=share
No comments:
Post a Comment