Bell versus Stith

Thomas Stith scares me. As much as I respect him for the fire shut up in his bones, I’m afraid that he’s more mad scientist than friendly family doctor. Tuesday’s election to determine who will lead the city of Durham as Mayor is a fight for the spirit of the city. Will we continue down the path of building bridges or will we, under the leadership of Stith, see the unraveling of collaboration as we have come to celebrate.

With all the bad that has hit the front pages of our local newspapers, life Durham, NC is much better today than when I first arrived in 1988. One of the truths related to life in Durham has been the tension our local governments have received for the mishandling of public funds. This coupled with an expanding achievement gap between black and white students, drop-outs and youth violence, Durham constantly fights the perception that it is the worst place to live in North Carolina.

Stith claims that he offers a fresh approach to the recent handling of government affairs. He offers an alternative to Bill Bell’s reckless management of a city that has been cited for the handling of a smoky yard-waste fire in the summer of 2006, the failure to meet the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s drinking water standards, and the treatment of the Duke Lacrosse case. Stith contends that his management style will force more accountability.

The contention that Durham is in need of change can’t be refuted. At issues is the job performance of City Manager Patrick Baker. Bell has been open in his critique of Baker, and has acknowledged that his job is on the line. More critical than Baker’s performance is a reasonable assessment of the assumptions we make related to the role of the Mayor.

Bell has offered a more hands on approach to the office. Prior to his tenure, the Mayor served as a glorified member of the city council. Bell has taken a more active position and, as a consequence, is under attack for the way in which he has shifted the function of the office in Durham.

Stith’s attack of Bell paves the way for an even more active person in the office. His evaluation of Bell assumes the role of manager of the City Manager and all supervised by the City Manager. Are we prepared to support a mayor with the power of those within a more mayor centered system?

Stith scares me because of what I believe to be important limits placed on local government. His attack of Bill Bell assumes a role that will provide the office even greater control in the management of city government. The mayor will be elevated above that of the City Manager, and will, in many ways, assume the position and authority of the City Manager.

It is easy to blame the mayor for crime problems, issues with EPA, yard waste and a police department investigation when there’s the presupposition that the Mayor is directly accountable for all of these. If the management of city government is a marriage between the council, city manager and department heads, then an evaluation of all activity involves a critical examination in how all have impacted outcomes. If however our view of management places all outcomes in the hand of the Mayor, we have, as a consequence of that claim, altered the way we understand the infrastructure implored to manage local government.

I’m not quite ready to make those assumptions. I do appreciate a more active Mayor, but I’m not prepared to give the Mayor authority that changes the way are city is managed. That scares me.

That’s why Bill Bell gets my vote.

Crime Talk as Political Spin

Politicians have a way of using misery to their advantage. That’s one of the reasons I detest campaign season. After years of serving us, they come out with cow manure in perfume laced words. No matter how hard you work at it, dung is still dung after you pour expensive smelling scents on it to cover the odor.

One of the issues that arouse emotions is crime. When in doubt regarding an election bid, talk about crime. Blame the incumbent for failing to curtail all of that violent crime. Point a wicked finger at anyone and everyone who has served in leadership for people killing one another at alarming rates.

Problem is I’m not buying it. It simply seems unfounded to assert a rise of iniquitous behavior on a few good men and women elected to govern a community. The foolish person takes too much credit for all that is good, and far too much blame for all that is bad. The truth is mounting crime in communities across the country has more to do with changing dynamics within our nation, than with public policy within our municipalities.

None of that suggest that leadership isn’t accountable for unearthing ways to fight these trends. The opposite is true. What bugs me is in how crime is used to launch a political agenda. I’m disturbed whenever a candidate comes forward with a promise to be tougher on crime, and to reduce it all due to a new improved strategy.

In Durham, NC. Thomas Stith is in attack mode. His criticism of current Mayor Bill Bell is that he is too soft on crime. His primary assumption is that the city hasn’t taken advantage of all of that federal money that could be used to improve law enforcement in the city. He preaches the good news of some prefabricated plan that, once initiated, will end gang activity, violent crime and will improve the economic strength of our community. To all of that I say, bah hum bug.

I lack sensitivity toward anyone who uses crime stats as a weapon against those who didn’t pull the freaking trigger. Those who are to blame for crime are those who commit them. It is hard for me to envisage that a new boss in town will scare all of those criminals from getting busy once he or she is sworn in. “Oh my, did y’all hear that Thomas Stith is the new Mayor!” can you hear this. “Let’s move to Cary, things are bout to change in Durham!”

Those who commit crimes could care less about who leads the city. I doubt they are reading the newspaper to keep track of new policies that sway their criminal actions. A promise to be tougher on crime has as much bearing as a promise to not exceed the speed limit. What is needed is an approach that understands the dynamics that lead to crime. All of that cheap talk about crime is just that-talk about crime. For every time a person talks to me about the need to create jobs, the need to do this, that, or that, my response is the same. You are clueless when it comes to the culture that stirs a climate for crime.

Leadership doesn’t point fingers and make promises. It listens to those who are in the middle of the heat and begins the process of addressing what they say related to the pain in the streets. Crime continues to rise because of the talking heads and experts who have no connections with the people impacted by crime.

Leadership moves past reputation and gets down in the trenches with those suffering. Don’t tell me not to worry about crime because the only people in danger are those who sale drugs. Don’t tell me I’m safe if I live in the suburb and to trust all is well in your life because it’s really not your problem. Again, that’s the breed of political spin that drives me up the wall and has me screaming for the politicians to shut their mouths and listen to what the people have to say.

Crime is not a public safety issue. It’s not a problem relegated to those elected to serve us. Crime is a community issue, and, as such, it takes each of us to solve all of this. The last thing we need is to have it on the front burner once every four years around November. If it hasn’t come from your lips on a consistent basis, do me a favor. Stop talking long enough to hear the truth.

Otherwise, you’re wasting my time with your rhetoric. Like most people my time is too important to watch you make a fool of yourself with all of those assumptions.

Stith Stiffs Durham

Excuse me for a minute as I vent regarding local politics. I am disgusted, disappoint, baffled and totally pissed off at Thomas Stith. It is rare that I would be so consumed with indignation related to the campaign antics of a local politician, but this joker is jeopardizing the stability of local affairs.

For those not living in Durham, and for those who refuse to read the local news rags, Stith is accusing incumbent Bill Bell of pressuring the Durham Police Department into charging those guys on the Duke Lacrosse team. The city is being coerced into settling out of court for falsely accusing David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligman. Reports have lawyers for the players asking for $30 million dollars.

The city halted and internal investigation of the proceeding leading up to and after the arrest after being warned that the findings could be used against the city. The city of Durham is under attack, and most citizens agree, according to numerous polls on the matters, that the city should not settle the case.

In jumps Stith, who has been critical of Bell for failing to exert strong leadership to curtail crime in the city. The release of a timeline documenting early meetings between Bell, City Manager Patrick Baker, the lead detective of the case, Durham Police Department Investigator Ben Himan, is being used to fuel the flame.

On Thursday, Stith pushed Bell to say whether he asked police to expedite the case. Stith has implied the rush to judgment was the result of the Mayors intrusion in the investigation. That’s what has me pissed off.

By using this case to advance his political career, Stith has put the city at risk of having to fork out money to compensate the damages done. In taking this position he has become a spokesperson for the lawyers seeking a judgment against the city. The problem with that position is he, as a current member of the city council, has an obligation to protect the interest of the city, and by attacking the mayor, he places his desire for political gain above his desire to serve the people of the city.

In doing that Stith has used the case in a way reminiscent of another politician- Mike Nifong. By aligning himself with the agenda of the lacrosse players, he has allowed his selfish need for power to overshadow his need to function as a person of integrity. There’s more.

This is also a case of speaking out of both sides of ones mouth at the same time. In one breath Stith claims the Mayor lacks leadership when it comes to crime. In the next exhale he attacks the Mayor for exerting leadership in this particular case. I’m not sure how to read that contradiction. Is the expectation to take leadership in some case but not in others, or is it left up to people like Stith to jump down a persons throat after they have the benefit of all the facts?

To his credit, Bell has reminded us of the context of that meeting. The city of Durham was on a national stage. The city as divided in a way that outsiders may not have understood. Part of that was a consequence of a number of local matters that reporters from the outside hadn’t covered. They didn’t know about t he long history of hostility with the school board. They didn’t know about the scandals within city government that led to the termination of a city manager, and how many in the city blamed black leadership for a lack of accountability.

They didn’t know about all the news related to students at Duke University and how the residents of Trinity Park had berated school leaders for failing to control those problems. They hadn’t reported on the hostility between students who attend North Carolina Central University and those at Duke University. No one bothered to deal with the great divide that existed in a city with two universities that rarely found occasion to deal with the presence of the other.

Bill Bell was facing a city ready to explode. The outside agitators threatened to destroy any sense of unity that had been built up over the years. Some didn’t know it was Bill Bell who put his job on the line as Chair of the Board of County Commissioners to fight for the merging of the city and county school systems. They didn’t know that this is a man who has fought for unity for a long time, and that all that makes Durham special was under serious attack by the national media and outsiders who labeled Durham as a city in need of some help.

Hindsight is 20.20. It is certain that mistakes were made along the way. Many assumptions were made. As a reporter on the case, I made my share. It’s hard not to when emotions get in the way of sound judgment. What’s the price we should pay for that mistake? It certainly isn’t $30 million.

The city of Durham needs strong leadership. The type that doesn’t put us out to dry. Not even when it will help you win an election.