Based on interviews with the leading candidates in the 2003 Birmingham mayoral race, it appears that the candidates have at least two significant traits in common. The first is an almost blind optimism in their own ability, once seated in the mayor’s office, to efficiently work with the city council to resolve most of Birmingham’s key issues. In short, each candidate believes that the simple answer to failing schools, city council gridlock, infrastructure, and a declining residential and business tax base is “leadership.” Specifically, their leadership.
The second trait that these candidates share is far less charming. None of them expressed more than a mild concern about how tax dollars are wasted by the mayor’s office and the city council. In fact, during interviews, we could barely interest them in the topic. The consensus among these candidates is basically that no one at City Hall is really wasting tax dollars, but if they are, the expenditures in question constitute only a small portion of the city budget. As for those instances where waste can’t be rationally denied, certain candidates merely promise that it won’t happen again, at least not on their watch.
That’s not to suggest that these candidates are oblivious to the city’s problem of misdirected funds. It is simply to observe that, for the time being, they are talking and acting as though they might be. Yet for all the campaign rhetoric about improving communication, working together, building a better Birmingham, and providing leadership, the fact remains that the primary task of a city council or mayor is to manage money that does not belong to them. Any secondary tasks for a Birmingham mayor have something to do with the school board, clean water, law enforcement, streets and sewers, trash collection, and business development. The connection between the two sets of duties is clear—one cannot efficiently manage city services if tax dollars are being recklessly spent on non-essential items.
Largely speaking, this election’s frontrunners have made a rather desultory effort at revealing how they might improve the city. The way to make roads better is “to eliminate potholes.” The way to fix the schools is “to improve education.” The way to improve city government is to “establish communication.” Obviously, nothing approaching genius has emerged from campaign ’03. It may be the case this time, as it has been before, that the proper ballot is merely to choose the lesser of two, three, or four evils.
In an attempt to provide some clarity for the voter, we have provided synopses of the leading candidates based on one-on-one interviews as well as the candidates’ campaign literature.
(Candidates listed in alphabetical order)
William Bell
His name definitely has a certain ring to it. It’s an alarming tone that brings to mind Ethics Commission investigations and questionable financial deals at City Hall during Bell’s term as interim mayor. In most cases, such baggage would be a hindrance to a successful campaign, but Bell has a chance to counter that obstacle. His greatest asset may be a constituency unwilling, or unable, to recall the candidate’s colorful past.
Bell was also one of the candidates awarded $17,500 from the Voter News Network (the organization headed by Richard Arrington and Donald Watkins) for his campaign chest, though Bell later declined to accept the money.
Good Idea: For economic development, Bell proposes a land banking program involving the acquisition and renovation of existing buildings. If Bell could combine that approach with a parallel effort to put the right kind of businesses in those revitalized areas, then Birmingham residents might have something to get very excited about.
Bad Idea: Regarding the abysmal quality of city schools, Bell thinks that accountability can be enforced by requiring the Board of Education to submit a public, quarterly progress report to taxpayers. He does not say what would transpire if that report was unsatisfactory. Bell is also apparently unaware that progress reports already exist. They’re called report cards and test scores. We already know how the schools are doing; we’d like to know what someone is going to do about it.
Paul Hollman
Despite offering solutions to city problems that are nothing more than Baptist-preacher rhetoric, Reverend Paul Hollman must be considered one of the top contenders for mayor of Birmingham simply because he’s one of the Big Four (along with Kincaid, Bell, and Loder) to be awarded money from Richard Arrington and Donald Watkins’ Voter News Network organization (Hollman received $10,000). On the plus side, Hollman is not afraid to brazenly speak out against the chip-on-the-shoulder attitudes of fellow black residents in a city where the majority of the population is black.
Good idea: When asked about his candidacy for mayor, Hollman offered the following observation on race in the city: “There’s not going to be another candidate that has the Holy Ghost boldness to tell you what I’m going to tell you. The white community is working on the bruises [inflicted on the black community in the past]. We’ve been bruised historically, but now we’re doing some of the bruising. That’s why a lot of folks don’t want Paul Hollman in this race, and I’m not talking about white folks. Some of my contemporaries don’t want me in the race because I know we’re doing some of the bruising. We can’t blame everything on white folks . . . It ain’t just white folks trying to keep us down, we’ve got some black folks trying to keep us down.”
Bad idea: His “What I Say” campaign slogan is catchy though nonsensical. During Easter he ran an ad in local newspapers depicting Hollman’s image being hatched from a cracking Easter egg announcing: “At Easter, why keep the unborn potential of the City of Birmingham in an egg. It is about the resurrection!”
Bob Jones
A highly successful private attorney who has made a buck or two representing the city’s Finance Department for more than 14 years, Jones articulates a “new vision” for Birmingham, which includes demanding “accountable, responsive, and cost-effective government.” But his eloquent tones and generalizations reveal little more than a generic, cookie-cutter agenda. His primary criticism of current Mayor Bernard Kincaid’s administration is that in the past four years the city has “not gained anything economically, socially, [or] infrastructure-wise . . . . We’ve failed in the line of communication in all aspects of that. And that’s why we haven’t accomplished anything.”
Addressing the bleak test scores posted by Birmingham public schools, Jones recites a familiar mantra that’s become a staple in any election in America: “Dollars are not getting to the classroom.” Jones paints a gloomy portrait of underachieving students. “When you look at statistics that show students coming out of high school that don’t pass the exit exam, most of them can’t read . . . we’ve wasted that child’s life. These are prime candidates for the prison system.”
Good Idea: “I want to make City Hall a family-friendly, business-friendly environment where people come in and they get served with a smile, where you treat the citizens and taxpayers as customers,” says Jones of criticism that City Hall is a difficult place to do business. Citing complaints from contractors, architects, and engineers, he labels the city’s red tape-ensnared permitting process as “awful.”
Bad Idea: Leave the drama to the actors-turned-politicians, Bob. Adopting a tone of despair, Jones disclosed in a recent interview the emotional turmoil he endured while contemplating a run for mayor. Spurred to enter the race by the blight he observed in neighborhoods while driving alone in deep contemplation on New Year’s Day 2003, Jones said in somber tones, “I looked at Birmingham. . . . And tears came to my eyes when I saw the condition this city was in.”
Bernard Kincaid
He’s the incumbent, and as the Mayor himself is fond of observing, there is not one scandal attached to the current administration. His key accomplishment has been putting the city’s finances in good order with reserve funds and the largest bond issue in Birmingham’s history. Kincaid is also regarded as the elected official who weakened Richard Arrington’s grip on the city by ousting interim-Mayor William Bell, who had been selected by the powerful Jefferson County Citizens Coalition to succeed Arrington as mayor. Two years later the Coalition lost control of the city council when the majority voting bloc of Coalition councilors was not re-elected to the council. So Kincaid enjoys, at least residually, the reputation of having once been the new marshal in town. The problem is that he’s not new anymore, and Birmingham residents are eager to see results, such as cleaned up neighborhoods, better schools, an increased police presence, and flood abatement.
Kincaid suffers from an adversarial relationship with the city council. Just who is at fault is a topic for debate, but the smart money wagers that sheer incompetence on the part of a few councilors is to blame. The Mayor characterizes the biggest obstacle in his past term as “the pettiness of city councils [the previous and current].” He simultaneously complains that his efforts to correct the problem brought him more grief: “I was a voice in the wilderness . . . and I got castigated in the media for not being in-sync with this council. I was the one raising all the hell about the way the council was acting. And I got vilified for it, about not being able to work with the council and all that. You know, once bitten, twice shy.”
Although politicians are known to play the sympathy card, it is odd that Kincaid would admit that the media affect how he communicates with the city council. It seems almost . . . petty. One wonders if such shyness and reluctance extend into other areas under the Mayor’s control.
Good Idea: He seems to be emphasizing the nuts-and-bolts aspect of operating a city. According to the Mayor, it’s a new day in Birmingham. Because of the largest bond issue in the city’s history, we have $18 million dollars for storm sewers, and money for street resurfacing, flood abatement and sanitary sewers, economic development, parks and libraries. Regarding the delay of some of these projects, Kincaid says, “This money just went in the bank last December. But now we are ready to move. New ambulances for Fire and Rescue, riding lawn mowers, dump trucks are all on order.”
So, when the Mayor says that it’s a new day, he’s also suggesting that it’s only about 3 a.m., but that we can rest assured that the sun will eventually rise. It’s just going to take a few hours.
Bad Idea: When the subject of wasted tax dollars comes up, specifically concerning the dubious grants to non-profit organizations, the mayor responds, “They represent only a small portion of the city’s budget. Some of the services they provide—but for their providing them—we would have to.”
When it was suggested that an official body that is careless with a few hundred thousand dollars might be even more careless with a few hundred million, the Mayor stated, “That kind of crass statement flies in the face of reality. We have a $286 million budget, 77 percent of which goes to [pay] personnel.”
No one is arguing that charitable organizations such as Meals on Wheels or the Jimmie Hale Mission represent poor stewardship of tax dollars, and it is true that the city has an obligation to provide such services, or assist the providers. But the city is not obligated to conduct seminars for learning about diversity and tolerance. Nor is it required to have awards parties for distinguished citizens, or send hundreds of neighborhood delegates to a convention in Chattanooga. The city is not required to spend a quarter of a million dollars on a so-called “education agenda,” the sole origin of which is the spend-happy imagination of councilor Gwen Sykes. There is a very long list of events, projects, and organizations into which the city does not have to pour tax dollars. We aren’t certain that the Mayor has closely scrutinized such a list, if he has seen one at all.
Of course, the Mayor does not have control over how the city council decides to spend most of that money. He also can’t control the fact that Birmingham is at a disadvantage in attracting businesses because it is surrounded by a majority of municipalities [Hoover, Vestavia, Homewood] that do not have an occupational tax. He can’t be blamed for the fact that two contentious city councils have thwarted his every move. Regarding crime, it turns out that the number of officers on patrol, and their salaries, fall under the purview of the Jefferson County Personnel Board. None of this is the Mayor’s fault. Just ask him, and he’ll tell you.
Lee Loder
It’s taken Birmingham City Council President Lee Loder two years to develop anything remotely resembling leadership when it comes to controlling council meetings. Councilors regularly interrupt Loder to tell him how he should conduct meetings, but he finally snapped several months ago when he ordered a police officer to remove Councilor Roderick Royal if he uttered another word out of order. Loder brags in campaign literature that he “changed procedural rules to make council meetings shorter, more professional, and more efficient.” In other words, meetings now frequently last four hours instead of five.
Good Idea: Implementation of a performance-based management system that would allow Loder, as mayor, to “immediately gauge what it’s costing us to deliver all of the kind of services that we’re delivering and whether they’re being delivered effectively.”
Bad Idea: During our interview, Loder pushed for questions about his 2002 arrest on animal cruelty charges. When asked if it would hurt his chances of becoming mayor, Loder responded, “Well, of course, anything that happens to you will affect you. But Stokely [Loder's pet and subject of the cruelty charges] is doing fine . . . And at all times throughout this process I’ve been willing to do whatever was necessary to remove any question about his health and his care. And that’s what’s important.”
Roderick Royal
Entering his third year on the Birmingham city council, former Fairfield police officer Roderick Royal boasts that he’s perfect for the job of mayor because the city needs a new administrator, and “I’m the only one on the council that’s a career-trained public administrator.” After repeatedly deeming Kincaid as “absolutely no good for the city,” Royal criticizes the Mayor for not being better informed, not being proactive, and failing to use available resources to run City Hall. But his angriest tirade is directed at Kincaid for taking advantage of the city council’s lack of understanding bond issues because the mayor failed to inform them that the council enjoyed the privilege of choosing the categories for bond expenditures. “It’s the way the current mayor has tried to bamboozle when he didn’t have to,” grumbles Royal.
As for Royal’s claim that Kincaid has not been well-informed on issues, well, people in glass houses . . . Roderick Royal is the most experienced public administrator of the 18 mayoral candidates. One would think that, with all his public administration experience (including five years working as an assistant to council president William Bell), Royal should have been the first to recognize that the council can select the categories for bond spending.
Royal has definitely been a valuable asset on the Public Improvement Committee (PIC) during his council term. He is also the only candidate who brings real law enforcement experience to the table when communicating with the police department.
Good Idea: Introduced the “Smooth Ride” street resurfacing program, which Royal defines as the “hallmark” of his campaign. It’s the first massive street resurfacing project in years, according to Royal.
Bad Idea: As mayor, he will forge a “partnership” with interim Birmingham school superintendent Wayman Shiver to raise the school system to a higher level of academic achievement. With a score in the 36th percentile on the SAT in 2003, Birmingham schools ranked among the worst in the state. [The state average is the 51st percentile.] By contrast, Mountain Brook and Vestavia scored 86th and 82nd percentiles, respectively, in the state. Shiver’s interim appointment as school superintendent in May 2002 followed the stormy tenure of Superintendent Johnny Brown. But Shiver still has not been given a job performance review by the Birmingham Board of Education, and some city councilors and community activists say it’s time for Shiver to vacate that position so that a permanent replacement can be found.
Carole Smitherman
Smitherman may be incumbent Kincaid’s most formidable challenger. The District 6 councilor has 20 years of law experience, she’s the first black woman to serve as a circuit court judge in the state, and her husband, State Senator Roger Smitherman, provides name recognition and political connections. She promotes the idea that business is the business of city government, but like so many candidates this year, she seems to have a blind spot for wasted tax dollars. She says that the $250,000 education agenda, for example, was “a waste of money,” but she did not engage in any significant effort to oppose it. [When asked if she voted for the education agenda that was approved by Councilor Gwen Sykes education committee, Smitherman replied, "I think I did. Parts of it."] Also, many voters are just beginning to get curious about the city’s retainer with Smitherman, estimated at $5,000 per month, that was in place during Richard Arrington’s term as mayor. Smitherman was an “on call” consultant to the city’s law department for six years. According to the Birmingham News, she was retained shortly after losing a bid for a Jefferson County circuit court judicial position in 1992. Arrington told the News that he felt some responsibility for her loss because Judge Smitherman had acquitted Arrington’s daughter in a misdemeanor case, and Smitherman’s opponent used this involvement in the case against her.
Good Idea: According to Smitherman, “It’s important that Birmingham’s governmental structure lead the way. No longer can we rely on Operation New Birmingham and MDB [Metropolitan Development Board]—although they do great services for the city in terms of recruitment tools for business. No longer can we turn that strictly over to them. Some of that’s got to be us. We’ve got to have a strategic economic development plan for the city that is posted and planned out by the city.”
Smitherman also strongly advocates making the licensing and permitting process available online. She plans to speed up the implementation of the online service, and to streamline the process overall. “One of the first stops I’ll make when I’m mayor, is in the permitting department . . . there’s a lot of confusion there. Not only contractors, but regular Jane and Joe Doe are having problems just finding out what they need to do to get their permits given to them.”
Bad Idea: When Richard Arrington and Donald Watkins candidly announced that the Voter News Network was making sizeable funds available to candidates of their choosing, Smitherman wrote an open letter to Richard Arrington in rebuke of his attempt to influence the election. She writes: “I was saddened and surprised to read in the Birmingham News that you and Donald Watkins plan to handpick the next mayor of Birmingham. This election should be left to the voters.”
Smitherman accuses the former mayor and his pal of attempting to disenfranchise voters. She also expresses “surprise” that Arrington and Watkins might do such a thing, which suggests either a severe memory disorder or a measureless capacity for denial, neither of which are desired traits in a mayoral candidate.
Smitherman continues: “If you choose to support me independently, I will welcome your counsel and assistance.”
Having established, in writing, her opinion that Arrington is attempting the purchase of an election and the disenfranchisement of voters, Smitherman nonetheless welcomes the former mayor’s “counsel.” She thus offers some insight into her nature: though she feels Arrington may suffer a shortfall where ethics are concerned, he’s a wealth of practical information.
Smitherman ends: “To say that Donald Watkins is going to handpick a candidate and give that candidate $300,000 is to say that Birmingham’s government is for sale . . . Therefore, please remove my name from consideration of support by you and Donald Watkins’ new coalition.”
One wonders if Smitherman did not conclude, sour grapes-wise, that her name had already been removed from the VNN sweepstakes. She was certainly aware that her war chest, replenished through her husband’s political connections, made refusing the money very easy. Either way, we have a grandstander. &
