I did my time at the candidate forum

The Amarillo Globe-Republican, in a sloppy-even-by-their-standards article, incomprehensively referred to the candidate forum held last night by the Potter-Randall Democratic Club as “unusual”. My reactions follow; candidates are rated according to how they met my expectations.

Jeff Poindexter, Commissioner Place 4: (better than expected) I know Jeff from grad history classes at WTAMU. He’s a nice enough dude, but I’m not sure why he keeps running for City Commission. No, that’s not right. Modern American standards about lead dogs and views from the rest of the pack dictate that I should say I don’t know why he runs when he never wins. However, he was actually one of the few candidates who made it quite clear—exactly— why he runs. He wants the city to change to a single-member district system for electing commission candidates. A lot of folx in the PRDC agree with him. Don’t know if they’ll vote for him, but they sure agree.

Jim Simms, Commissioner Place 4: (even worse than expected) 80s kids might remember the old Blue Johnnies lyrics from the song “I Did My Time in Amarillo”:

Hey, Mr. Simms
What a coup!
You got us a prison
Now, how ‘bout a zoo?

This is that Mr. Simms. He mentioned at the forum that his “accomplishments” included getting us that prison and selling off the hospital and noted that he’d ticked off everyone in town at least once. I wasn’t going to vote for him anyway, but he certainly succeeded in reminding me how many times he’s ticked me off.

Prenis Williams, Commissioner Place 4: (every bit as good as expected) I’ve met Mr. Prenis Williams at civic events such as the recent MLK Day March. He has always struck me as a kindly older gentleman, wise in the manner evoked on-screen by Morgan Freeman. He seems like the sort of guy that you worry about being ruined by politics. But it’s only city government, so hopefully he’ll be okay.

Seth Williams, Commissioner Place 3: (met modest expectations) The whippersnapper gave a nice informative speech at the beginning of the forum and answered a few questions during. Generally, you ought to give a persuasive speech in politics and he should remember how to do that, since he’s a hella lot closer to high school and college speech classes than any other candidate. But he didn’t give the impression that he’d do any harm and his incumbent opponent—who didn’t show up—is batcrap crazy.

Paul Harpole, Commissioner Place 2: (way better than expected) Harpole scored some straight-shooter points by being the only candidate to openly admit he was a Republican despite the fact that we all know that everyone but Prenis Williams is. He talked a lot about business, but also demonstrated empathy for east-side and north-side folx that might even have been genuine. He scored the best applause of the night when he noted of the Grand Street bridge,

I'll guarantee you if that was southwest Amarillo, that bridge would've been built 10 years ago.

No one wants to hear this—least of all Mr. Harpole—but in his ability to “feel the pain” of everyone in this city, the candidate came across as a city-government Bill Clinton. And the Place 2 incumbent, Terry Stavenhagen, lost major mojo by not even showing up.

Allen Dawson III, Commissioner Place 2: (didn’t know him before, don’t know him now) He talked about his business experience. That’s all I have in my notes, and I can’t remember anything else except that I think he actually called himself the “quiet one” in his closing comments.

Daniel Martinez, Commissioner Place 1: (worse than expected) Martinez was the biggest disappointment of the evening. I find it incomprehensible to imagine that Amarillo, Texas could have a City Commission without a Hispanic member—and I’m really really really afraid that Martinez is depending on that sort of sentiment to get him re-elected. He did talk (in a very low-key manner) about his attendance rate, and gave specific examples of his advocacy for the Hispanic community and northeast-area businesses. I’ve seen Martinez around town at community events, met him, and always felt very positively toward him. But his opponent was the best surprise of the evening . . .

Madison Scott, Commissioner Place 1: (totally way awesomely better than expected, dude) Scott looked like he still reads his dog-eared Official Preppy Handbook every night, but he was the most persuasive candidate, hands-down. He has exactly one big idea (compete more actively for federal and state grants), but it’s a good idea, could work, and Scott could do it even if other commissioners were uninterested. He pounded his One Big Idea all night, relating it seamlessly to every other issue that arose. I knew for sure for whom I was going to vote for Place 1 until last night. But now I’d like to know what specific state and federal grants Scott has researched and plans to write for. Depending on what and how much money he’s talking about, it is conceivable that Scott could do more real-world good for more Hispanic and disenfranchised Amarilloans than they would receive from simply having a brown face on the commission.

Matt Thomas, Mayor: Democracy is a wonderful, heartwarming ideal, even as it begins to crack in America. At least, any American can still run for office . . .

Debra McCartt, Mayor: (worse than expected) The mayoral race is, for me, the personification of the smoking ban—except that, instead of good reasons to vote for each side, I have no particular reason to vote for either. Also like the smoking ban, I have pretty much made up my mind how I will vote—and my vote is similarly based on symbolism and relations rather than what Rummy might call “the facts on the ground.” Still, I really really really wish Ms. McCartt had done a better job at the forum. She was certainly enthusiastic. She wants the job, but was sadly lacking in specifics. Worse, she occasionally came across as clueless. When Manny Perez asked a convoluted question / made a long speech regarding an eastside bridge, she actually stated that she was completely unaware that there was a problem. She seemed sincere in her desire to get people involved in the process—but seemed frightened when her comment that people should

come to the [City Commission] meetings

prompted a flurry of hand-waving. Granted, my S.O. and I (among others) nearly jumped out of our seat wanting to ask the predictable question—but, really, she should have known that would happen.

Hodger the Dodger, Mayor: (about what I expected) Didn’t talk about water so much, though. Said what you wanted to hear. But can you trust him?

Some excellent questions were raised and some speeches were made. Major PTS props to Jim Restine, who asked an excellent question about quality of life and bus service, and Tim Hoffman, who asked if the candidates would waste city resources to fight a legal battle over single-member districts if it should come to that. These two men demonstrated how you politely ask a specific question aimed at getting the candidate to commit to a specific course of action. And it sort of worked. So much “exploration” got committed to, you’d think the candidates were Panhandlian versions of James Tiberius Kirk. But we’ll keep after them.

As for the speeches, forums like this are kinda like writing to the paper. Make your point politely and ask for specifics. No one will respond well to a rant. In other words: do what I say, not what I do.

Most importantly, most of the candidates (including both Hodger the Dodger and McCartt, as well as Prenis Williams, Harpole, Martinez and possibly others) specifically agreed to vary the times that City Commission meetings are held so more citizens can attend. I asked this question, but I was by no means the only one who wanted to. This is the single most important issue, because, if the elected commissioners follow through, we can keep after them on the other issues. Of course, it goes without saying that we’ll also have to follow through. If meetings are held when we Workin’ Joe and Jane Sixpacks aren’t at work, Panhandle Truth Squad will so be there. And we hope to see some freakin’ crowds.

SPACEDARK