August 25 Green Mayoral Forum picks three candidates to speak, excludes others (Op-Ed)

Attendees at Oakland mayoral forum, photo by Pamela Drake, http://www.flickr.com/photos/pamelaadrake/4799735740/

Attendees at Oakland mayoral forum, photo by Pamela Drake, http://www.flickr.com/photos/pamelaadrake/4799735740/

It's exciting to have a Green Mayoral Candidates Forum happening next week, sponsored by The Sierra Club and The Oakland Climate Action Coalition/Ella Baker Center. The August 25 event should be a good opportunity to come out and hear what our mayoral candidates have to say about important environmental issues. Only thing is...most of the candidates won't be there.

Yep, even though we're still more than 10 weeks from the election, the conveners of this event have decided that only the three most "viable candidates" Don Perata, Jean Quan, and Rebecca Kaplan, have been invited to speak.  That means the others, including Joe Tuman, whom many people are thrilled to have in the race, Don Macleay, the Green party candidate, along with Terrance Candell, Arnold Fields, Greg Harland, Marcie Hodge, and Larry Lionel Young Jr,  were NOT invited to speak.

In fact, they were told they would not be ALLOWED to speak, since the forum was only 90 minutes and "there simply isn't enough time to incorporate all 10 or more mayoral candidates in this forum." (Quote from a email from Kent Lewandowski,
volunteer Chairperson, Northern Alameda County GroupSierra Club, San Francisco Bay Chapter, sent to candidates who will not be allowed to speak.)

I understand that allowing everyone who filed to have 10 minutes to speak would take more than the time allotted to what's meant to be a discussion of the issues, but I hate the idea that achieving efficency led to a decision to only allow THREE candidates--those who were so-called "professional" politicians--to be heard--and silenced the others at this event.

Is this really the spirit of discourse in Oakland? Is this why we fought to get Rank Choice Voting implemented--so we could keep people ignorant of what a broader field of candidates thought?

The impulse to manage the event is wise, but the execution is just plain wrong

It would be great to have a mayoral forum on environmental and energy issues where we heard from a larger percentage of the so-called "viable" candidates--this is way too early in the race to silence community leaders. Furthermore, with With Ranked Choice Voting we have more reason to find out about ALL our choices.

I'd like to see the conveners--The Sierra Club and The Oakland Climate Action Coalition/The Ella Baker Center--come up with a better and fairer metric--perhaps number of signatures on the filing petitions--or an online system where Oaklanders can request 3 additional candidates they'd like to hear speak. 

Come on, folks, can't you do better? Let's open the field a little wider--so Oakland can hear what more of our mayoral hopefuls have to say on these issues.

About Susan Mernit

Susan Mernit is the founder of Oakland Local. She is also a circuit rider for The Community Information Challenge, a program of The John S and James L Knight Foundation, and a consultant to non-profit and community organizations. Susan lives in North Oakland, near the Santa Fe school, with her partner, her housemate, a rescue dog named Cazzie, and a yard full of ants. She is an aspiring gardener, a long-time blogger & entrepreneur, and a recovering journalist who's found home in Oakland.

What is fundamentally wrong here is that Kent Lewandowski used no objective criteria to decide which candidates would speak, and which would not.

The League of Women Voters has a standard set of requirements which they use in order to ensure that candidates that they invite are contenders.  The reason is that the League feels it does the public a better service by getting in depth with the most likely candidates, rather than getting platitudes from all candidates in a large field.

Multiple other organizations do this.  In presidential debates, fringe candidates are usually excluded.  Even in the democratic and republican presidential primaries, candidates with no hope of winning can easily get on the ballot, but have no chance of actually winning. These candidates are excluded because they are a distraction from getting deep answers from those who actually can win.

 

What's worse about this situation is that Kent Lewandowski's ham-handed use of the word "non-viable" in an official communique has set up a situation where Don Perata can use fake indignation and duck out of the debate.

Perata doesn't want to debate because he's using the "Rose Garden Strategy".  Meg Whitman is using the same strategy.  This common for a candidate with a lot of money but also a lot of negative baggage.  

The "Rose Garden Strategy" is where a candidate avoids engaging their opponent as much as possible, and instead spends lots of money on fancy mailers and scripted appearances.  

It's cowardly and opportunistic, but if the public doesn't speak up, it all too often works.  Don't let it work.  Contact Perata and demand that he debate his opposition.  Demand that he answer tough questions.  Demand that he stop trying to buy the Mayor's race with money from out of town contributions.

 

 

Max, wise words!