Notes On The Recall

Blowout. Not even close. Over when it started. Wiped the floor with 'em.

We've got the cliche wagon pulled over and I'm sure my fellow pundits will exhaust the supply to describe Tuesday's results of the Change Akron Now bid to recall Akron's Don Plusquellic. I don't know anyone (including Warner Mendenhall) who believed CAN could DO it. Citizens For Akron ran a smart campaign -- how could they not with a 22-to-1 money advantage? CFA understood all too well the value of CYA, leaving no stone unturned, the value of a professionally-positioned "grassroots" base and effort to define issues, control the agenda and get out the vote. And they did this all without the one candidate on the ballot stepping out in front of the target painted on his back. Don Plusquellic's defense worked best when his team played offense around him.

In the end, GOTV trumps shouting from the Town Square.

The 20% turnout is nothing to be proud of, summertime or no summertime. In the end it wouldn't have mattered if half that number turned out. A 3-1 advantage spells landslide, especially when "absentee voting" -- why can't we just call it early voting? -- provided everything the anti-recall forces could have hoped for. This is the strategy executed to a "t" by Obama in 2008, by Citizens For Akron in 2009, and future politicians smart enough to understand a 30-day voting window means 30 days to win.

Even with the crushing defeat, Change Akron Now promises a slate of council candidates, one led by oh-so-close Plusquellic opponent Joe Finley in 2007. I'll be very surprised if this works, unless they learn from their defeat in June and turn it into fresh strategy for September. These next few months will see the game continue, only with surrogates now carrying the standards for both sides. Those on the outs still want their piece of those on the inside, and the incumbent machine knows all too well they cannot afford to let their guard down now.

That said, I'm still wondering if this recall election was the reaffirmation of love Mayor Plusquellic needs? Or was the vote more a reflection of what most editorials noted: not really a personal endorsement of Don Plusquellic, and all his personality brings to bear, but rather a rejection of the concept of tossing the bull out from the china shop because he hasn't broken anything?

Despite the branding of "our" mayor for "our" city, there are few who disagreed that Plusquellic's style leaves much to be desired. In between stomping around with hurt feelings after opponents questioned the obvious timing of a flood of pro-Akron announcements, cherry-picking interview opportunities -- did he do ANY radio live or long-form? -- he still managed to rub many the wrong way with behind the scene hardball which lends easily to depictions of him as "The Don." I give him great credit for the rep: he's earned it.

This isn't just my observation; the Beacon Journal, Plain Dealer, WAKR/AkronNewsNow, other bloggers, other media -- all made note of the ill-temper described as "passion" as not enough to warrant being tossed out. His own supporters, at the same time calling the vote a mandate for the mayor, also hope he learns to tamp it down; this scuffle cost a quarter-million dollars and plenty of their time. Which Don comes out of this as the smoke clears? Does he sit down and bury the hatchet with the FOP as they've asked? Will he ever talk with enemy-for-life turned anti-recall ally Don Robart again? Will he ever say the name of his chief opponent in public?

Even Obama knows how to say Cheney. The key to the next chapter in this political soap opera is whether those in support offer honest counsel and not just what he wants to hear. That a head-on approach need not be offensive to be a good offense; that being defensive need not be so offensive. That a legacy politician with an iron grip on the job can and should be satisfied everyone knows he's the driving force without having to tattoo it on their foreheads. Which Don Plusquellic will we see, the statesman elected to represent his nation's mayors or the one stepping into the ring?

This is a legitimate question, and one not so easily glossed over. As owner of the "company," Akron voters are the managers; they decided their highest performing employee gets results and needs to stay, even if he can occasionally be a real piece of work. The stakeholders want to keep him because he gets the job done. Even if he snorts and throws his weight around, so long as the dishes don't break. The main message conveyed with such clarity over the past 90 days has been he leads, even with a few scratches; Akron voters know to not mess up a good thing.

But the danger, if he allows the ego of unchecked incumbency to swell beyond his vision, is in continuing to ride that wave of performance goodwill for those times when the next big challenge comes. When a younger, fresher, more energetic version seizes the moment. When Akron's good name is finally dragged down to the level of the other northeast Ohio big cities. Those times when some with new ideas poses a real threat to more people beyond the 25-30% who always say no.

Blogger Pho's Akron Pages is no fan of Change Akron Now nor it's tilting-at-windmills leader Warner Mendenhall. His observations are pointed, but thoughtful. His post "Whither Akron" reads from the heart: who will step up and challenge the status quo, in this case Plusquellic, in the interest of confronting power? It's a core question: just how healthy is the cult of Don for Akron's function as a democracy over the long haul? Akron, Pho writes, needs a "sensible loyal opposition."

Unlike the fairly universal acknowledgments of Plusquellic's prickly personality, this isn't a concerned aimed at him as a manager, a political leader, or as a person. Few of the serious thinkers in this debate disagree in private that more open debate and decision-making is a bad thing. We just want it to mean something, and drive the community forward in ways that Cleveland and Youngstown just can't seem to figure out. We know Akron is too progressive to be considered a fiefdom, but we fear losing the iron will to fight to keep the train running on time will mean we will be lost having to do it without the conductor ahead.

It's easy now to villify those who dare ask the question, or push the system to hold a midsummer's day vote. But even losing in a landslide, voices wondering about alternatives or even succession planning can be heard. And the conventional wisdom won't be able to drown them out forever.

- - -

A note on the media coverage of the election: what a vacuum we are seeing develop as a city of a quarter-million people boils down to a handful of outlets. Former WKYC-TV producer Chris Hyser notes correctly in his "Diminishing Returns" post the brave new world of learning results. Those good old days of multiple, competing media outlets using all the tools at their disposal have shrunk when it comes to servicing Akron. The blog world hasn't stepped in, and those outlets in a position to step up didn't show it Tuesday night.

I have a very vested interest in this; for the most part we did what we thought was best on Election night, just as the Beacon Journal did in getting results, analysis and coverage to the public. But seeing the region's second biggest city shunted aside to true suburban status on a single, important issue ought to be an eye-opener for all of us.

This was a campaign successfully managed professionally to maximize positives while minimizing risk of damage, which meant no town hall-style forums on cable, broadcast, or digital television. No Press Club luncheons at the Martin Center, where a couple hundred folks could feast on split chicken breasts as the pros and cons were delivered. This was a great example of controlling the message, and not allowing it to get messy. Using websites to position and parry, and employing social media such as Twitter and Facebook to bypass the mainstream. Who needs to sit down with Ray, or Larry, or Howie or Matt? Can't control what they ask, but you can control what others hear and read.

This is the new politics, and Akron's media landscape is not ready for what is to come.

- - -

For those who missed hunky Lt. Governor Lee Fisher's "guns," note YouTube has taken down videos containing the copyright material.

The posts are still up on this blog but you won't be able to see the buff Lee flexing over a late-night video visit while he's answering email.

The Fisher folks worked quickly to flag the video, so it's a no-no now. Fisher followers, rest easy; Brunner backers, at least you had a laugh over the last week.

Back to good government now...

Mayoral Recall: A Media Planning Guide

With two weeks to go before the June 23, 2009 Akron election to determine if Mayor Don Plusquellic will continue in office, here's some thoughts and planning advisories.

When petitions were first delivered then certified, it was pretty clear there would be a vote this summer on the ChangeAkronNow push to recall Plusquellic. No more talking; a deadline to finally put this issue to bed.

Akron Beacon Journal Editor Bruce Winges and I had been having some conversations on issues where it might prove useful for both our respective news organizations to not only coordinate but even collaborate with a joint project. We thought the recall election was one of those issues, and agreed to try and pursue interview opportunities with both sides where our respective reporters would be able to bring multiple views to bear on the key players.

Unfortunately, things didn't quite work out that way.

Mayor Plusquellic's response to WAKR was that we publish (on AkronNewsNow) and broadcast (on WAKR) coverage of his chief opponent's tax troubles before he would accept our joint invitation. The ABJ has already reported the issue, including in a story last year, but we made an editorial decision to skip that issue. It is our view that while Warner Mendenhall's personal finances were certainly fair game for the Mayor to go off on, it wasn't our role to tee up the shot for him. We feel there's been plenty enough childish name-calling and personal attacks on both sides, a viewpoint many individuals on both sides also privately share with us. Our policy has also been exercised in the case of Plusquellic's opponents, who haven't been shy about their own attacks on the personal behavior of mayor and those close to him.

There was also a small matter of accepting conditions for an interview with the mayor, who appeared on our airwaves as a guest on the Ray Horner Morning Show on April 1st. We feel it was inappropriate to accept such conditions, and reserve the right to make up our own minds when it comes to our editorial direction and policies. We respect the right of the mayor to decide who he will talk with, but think Akron deserves more independent voices, not fewer.

Full disclosure: our parent company, through our radio stations, has a business relationship with the city, primarily in the form of a partnership to help promote events and activities such as Lock 3's summertime concerts and events. This type of relationship extends back decades; many will remember when the "WAKR Good Guys" helped promote local concerts and venues. In addition to being good business, we view this as important to our community. That said, it does not influence the editorial decisions made by our newsroom. Anyone who's been around the mayor when those deicisons come up can attest.

As of this week, the mayor's office neither accepted nor rejected the invitation. We decided to move forward. It is the mayor's right to decline our interview request, but our listeners and readers should be fully aware the offer was extended. Both WAKR and the Beacon Journal will offer up their own comprehensive stories, including separate interviews. We have agreed to promote our competing coverage, because the issues involved with the recall are simply too important for one news organization to "own" by itself.

Both of our news organizations already feature extensive coverage with easy-to-navigate special sections online through these links to the Beacon Journal and AkronNewsNow coverage. In some cases, stories date back more than six months. There are also a wealth of other online sites in Akron produced by proponents and critics of the recall, including those of the two main organizations noted below. Some are serious, some are entertaining, but all add to the general debate: what decision should Akron voters make June 23rd?

On Sunday's 1590 WAKR and AkronNewsNow.com will feature portions of what the mayor said in April in addition to a full sit-down with State Senator Tom Sawyer, heading up the anti-recall Citizens for Akron group. Our full interviews with Warner Mendenhall and Patti Longville of ChangeAkronNow will also be broadcast and available online. In addition to our on-air coverage "WAKR Primer: The 2009 Recall" to air Sunday, June 14, 2009 from 12:00 to 2:00, we will also feature repeated webcasts of the audio on our news stream WAKRNewsNow and video on AkronNewsNow. We will also include easier-to-digest podcast "chunks" of these interviews, but feel it is important to present full and complete versions as well.

The Beacon Journal will also feature extensive coverage, including in-depth interviews conducted by Stephanie Warsmith. She and other staffers at the newspaper have done a wonderful job of presenting viewpoints and issues for voters to consider, and on Sunday, June 14 it should be required reading to compare as both Plusquellic and Mendenhall make their respective cases.

On a local journalism note, there may likely be critics of the decision of the Beacon Journal and WAKR in promoting our "competition." But with local television pulling their limited resources closer to home and shrinking news budgets impacting the number of bodies covering stories despite the urgent need for news of our communities, we may be seeing even more collaborative projects in the future. Personally, I hope so; it seems we spend a lot of time worrying more about the masthead or frequency number than what matters most.

Our readers, listeners, viewers and visitors need to know what's going on more than ever.

Issue 8: The Royal Flush

With dozens of candidates on the ballot -- ranging from national, state and local -- it may very well be the future of the flush that attracts most interest from Akron voters once they've made their choice for the White House.

Not to dismiss the importance of the other contests, mind you; after all, I'm sure Summit County awaits with baited breath the result of the Engineer's head-to-head. But much of the smoke from the political fires seems to burn around Issue 8, Akron's sewer lease-for-scholarships program.

On Wednesday we aired on WAKR a discussion program that provided callers the opportunity to pose questions directly to supporters and critics, and the late decision by two of the participants added some fireworks to the program. Mayor Plusquellic clearly has no time for Warner Mendenhall, the former councilman and now lawyer for the Save Our Sewers Committee which doesn't like the Administration's direction in leasing the sewer system to fund college with the Akron Scholarship Plan. Both were last-minute appearances to the panel and both took vocal and up-front positions in what turned into an excellent debate running over an hour.

The full program is available for listening using this link, but in the event you want to catch this on the air WAKR is airing an encore presentation following the noon news this Sunday, October 26th.

Overall, I think the debate showcased both sides favor some type of scholarship program; they disagree on how to pay for it. Mendenhall is fairly late to the party (less than two weeks from the election) with his idea of a city income tax to fund a scholarship program if Akron voters think it's that good of an idea. The Mayor jumped quick to tag Mendenhall as favoring increasing taxes, but the former councilman-turned-thorn-in-the-Don's-side didn't seem too bothered by the label. In fact, should Issue 8 fail it does offer supporters a comeback proposal to make.

A key issue here is whether Akron is willing to put either it's sewers or its money behind where their mouths are. It is easy to push for a more educated workforce and this is one way to get there, but it's another to take the money directly out of your pocket (as an income tax would do) or even push off a city asset to private management (as leasing the sewer system would do) to raise the cash.

There is a great deal of talk surrounding comments made by Public Service Director Merolla in The Bond Buyer, which bills itself as THE newspaper of public finance. On this topic I think the Administration has some work to do in more fully explaining what Merolla's comments mean, especially how any up-front payment for a lease would mean a net benefit to the scholarship plan. In the September article he notes the debt from the system would be paid first, and there seems to be some confusion on that point.

Another sticking point is the Administration's insistence that Akron get a payback from the scholarship in the form of income taxes, whether the recipient works and lives in the City or not for 30 years. The critics score points when they say it's a loan -- after all, it comes with strings. Plusquellic counters it is fashioned on the federal government's description of education assistance scholarships tied to working in rural areas, for example as doctors. Sure, Uncle Sam may call it a scholarship -- but most folks I talk to understand if getting money comes with strings we usually call that a loan.

It quacks like a loan, why not call it a loan? Because "scholarship" sounds like an easier sell, and at this point in the campaign it is doubtful supporters will back off such a key selling point. Issue 8 signs are growing, especially on every piece of public real estate around schools, and the cable TV ads are already on Time Warner Cable with radio expected to follow next week.