NAACP City of Salisbury candidate forum (part 2)

Last night I went over the City Council portion of the forum, tonight it’s the Mayoral race.

It’s also worth noting that in the beginning Mary Ashanti of the local NAACP chapter made opening remarks, noting that the organization was still necessary because they had not reached the promised land – Barack Obama’s election was “only the beginning”. Still, they must hold themselves accountable.

Moderator Orville Penn added that he wanted an interactive forum, and to agree or disagree without being disagreeable.

And so the three candidates present to open the affair began by being asked by Penn why they wanted to be mayor. Bob Caldwell was absent at the beginning; I learned later he’d been involved in a minor auto accident en route to the forum so he arrived just before the mayoral portion closed.

Jim Ireton kicked things off by telling those present that Salisbury was in “desperate need of change”, citing multiple issues like crime, the schools, infrastructure, and public safety in saying that our local government was not “protecting those things we hold dear.” He also believed that he had the perspective of being working-class.

Seeing “a need for change”, Mike Della Penna also opined that growth was occurring in the wrong direction and that “we need businesses back here.” He promised change in a similar style (if not specifics) that Barack Obama has brought.

Gary Comegys also jumped on the theme of change, but also asserted he was the most qualified candidate due to his office and service to the city. He believed that he “knows what it takes” to be mayor, and has a “deep love for community.” Furthermore, we needed to “embrace” the business community and the message should be about “us” and not the government – both must work together.

All right, asked moderator Penn, why are you still here if things are so wrong?

Because it was a “great” community, piped up Gary Comegys, who brought up the institutional assets the city has like the Peninsula Regional Medical Center and Salisbury University. Gary was “tired” of hearing about problems and said there was a “lot to be proud of” in Salisbury, and we could “build on (that) pride.”

Mike Della Penna indeed loves Salisbury, but it can be a better community. He stated that you only hear about the neighborhoods at election time and that continuity was needed to help the community.

Jim Ireton cautioned the audience that they should “never mistake negativity for caring.” Some parts of the community still work well together in the manner they did as he was growing up, but “the government isn’t doing anything” in lieu of not doing everything.

It was “easy to articulate and criticize problems” retorted Gary Comegys, who said it was harder to strategize. Some examples of “leadership and vision” he’d exhibited were the police department, the new fire station, and approach to growth. If you don’t celebrate successes we’ll only worry about the next problem, concluded Gary.

At that point, Comegys was questioned about the dismal crime statistics Salisbury endures.

Jim Ireton jumped in and, while he respected the time and service of our elected officials, he saw connections between crime and the lack of jobs, lack of code enforcement, and the number of police officers – Jim noted that requests for 26 officers had been turned down due to budgetary reasons. There wasn’t enough affordable housing in District 1, but “we were not going back to the Salisbury we knew” either. We “need our own stimulus” but not one which benefitted the “special interests”.

Ireton was right, agreed Gary Comegys, we can’t do the same thing we’ve always done. But hiring police officers is “reactive”, Comegys said, and perhaps a better solution would be to reinstate the neighborhood watches. He then chided Jim for adding up each year’s officer requests (e.g. a few one year, a few the next, etc.) to come up with his 26 officer figure and told those present that “if we want to take Salisbury back, we all have to do so as citizens.”

Mike Della Penna finally jumped in to agree with both of his opponents that crime was a problem but we didn’t need more officers. We should take steps to pay those we have better and also while we’re at it bring city workers back to Salisbury.

Jim Ireton then made another point, comparing Salisbury to most bigger cities in that it has “pockets of organization” but others are “waiting for the government to make hard decisions.”

“At what point does government step in and take responsibility for the crime rate?” he asked.

Gary Comegys answered by telling those there that he’d helped make the tough decision to focus on the housing stock, which is “improved (with) less blight.” He then said he had “been here” to be part of the solutions, which could have been a cut at Ireton’s leaving City Council partway through his term.

Orville Penn steered the spirited discussion back to himself and asked whether the candidates thought there was a disparity in services between different areas of the city.

The city should all look about the same insofar as condition goes, argued Mike Della Penna, and it “should be the star of the Eastern Shore.”

Gary Comegys cited projects in the area of First Baptist Church, where the forum was held – repairing railroad crossings, the Isabella Street project, and the new fire station. Conversely, the Newtown area work had been paid through grant funding.

Yes, there is disparity, argued Jim Ireton, and historically there was a reason. Some areas had very restrictive covenants while others in the city, particularly older areas, had a “minimum layer of protection” against blight.

On a new question of accountability, the candidates sparred some more.

Gary Comegys said to open that the city’s budget was only 7% administrative, but budgeting has fallen behind on public safety. Mike Della Penna then called for a stronger devotion monetarily to infrastructure, but Jim Ireton wanted to reinterview each department head should he be elected with city government, specifically the audit, being “on time and online.”

This brought out another disagreement between Gary and Jim, with Gary Comegys arguing that government should be easily accessible, but what would the investment be? He also reminded Ireton that department heads could only be removed for cause. Jim Ireton shot back that this was no time for “nuance” or “to capitulate” – department heads need to be held to a different standard.

A new question brought up by Orville was whether those on city boards should be exclusively city residents.

This gave Mike Della Penna a chance to speak, and he thought that they should live in the city – after all, we had a police chief who lived outside the county.

Jim Ireton would have the department heads live in the city, but not all employees or board appointees.

City residents should be given “preference”, thought Gary Comegys, but the selection should be based more on ability.

Then Mr. Penn asked whether having bilingual employees should be a city priority given the increase in non-English speaking residents?

Yes we should have multilingual employees, thought Mike Della Penna.

It should be known for “every interview” that people with diverse backgrounds are “welcome”, said Jim Ireton.

Gary Comegys agreed, saying “we need to celebrate diversity” in our community and accommodate those who didn’t speak English, for services should not have an impediment because of language.

I had actually posed a question to the candidates, which I wrote as follows:

Obviously our nation is in a recession, and looking around Salisbury we see all the signs of it, such as Circuit City closing. We know the federal solution seems to be the “stimulus” plan that’s going to be approved, but what steps can you take to bring jobs and growth back to Salisbury?

At this point the candidates got to answer it, somewhat.

Mike Della Penna was a “businessman at heart” and we need to study the situation and bring businesses back – lots of businesses had left over the last half-decade.

Gary Comegys thought the solution was to provide the infrastructure to attract businesses, as we had in the 1970’s with the Northwood development and we were attempting to do now with Westwood. He also pointed out the extension of city services out to the Wor-Wic Community College campus east of the city as another good example.

At this point, Bob Caldwell finally arrived so I never got to hear Jim Ireton’s reaction to my question. (Too bad, because I bet I would have found it intriguing to say the least.) Caldwell noted that the Salisbury Police are quite “efficient” because he thought he’d miss the event entirely.

Orville then asked Caldwell why he was running, just to bring the audience up to speed a bit. Bob said that we needed to change our city government, giving it more openness and transparency, and that our “difficult times” would be a limiting factor.

So, asked moderator Penn, where would the resources come from for the city’s needs?

Bob Caldwell stated that would be the “big question” over the next several years and “lots of budgetary machinations” would be required. However, we needed to “avoid raising taxes” – efficiency and prioritization were “imperative” and taxes should only be raised as a “last, last, last resort.”

Mike Della Penna agreed we could tighten our belts, but didn’t provide many specifics.

Jim Ireton called for a return to a line-item budget as well as an Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance to “protect” our investment.

After Gary Comegys said that we needed to tighten our budget although we have a “good reserve fund”, he asked where will we find the dollars for public safety and infrastructure.

It was at this point I think Gary sensed Ireton had left him a hanging curveball so he swung for the fences, revealing to those present that Jim had voted to repeal impact fees while he was on City Council and quoting Jim as saying the “repeal would allow Salisbury to grow.” Comegys claimed that repeal had cost the city $5.3 million over 5 years.

Finally, we reached the time for closing statements.

Bob Caldwell again reminded the onlookers that his reason for running was us and our families, promising responsive and responsible government, leadership with the people and not to the people, and vowing “Salisbury is going to be better.”

“I believe in Salisbury”, and its people, homeowners, and institutions, said Gary Comegys, and electing him would be an “opportunity to continue work on developing policies to make us stronger.” He would partner with us.

Mike Della Penna called himself “a people person”, vowing to be mayor “for the people and by the people.” He would “put Salisbury on track.”

Finally, Jim Ireton wondered aloud about 100 years hence and whether we’d still be talking about the same problems. We had a chance to address them and he would be a mayor from a different perspective. He promised an open and accessible government, and wanted to make sure you’d trust the mayor to spend the city’s dollars as you would – that “sacred trust has been lost” so obviously he pledged to restore it.

Certainly the battle was between Gary Comegys and Jim Ireton as far as the debate itself was fought. Unfortunately, Mike Della Penna didn’t take as many opportunities to speak up as perhaps he could have, while the unfortunate auto accident Bob Caldwell was in basically allowed Jim and Gary free rein to battle amongst themselves in front of the 40 people or so who were present.

It will be interesting to see the next time all four are there and whether Caldwell or (less likely) Della Penna can interject themselves in the running battle shaping up between Comegys and Ireton.

And I may have to ask my question again. We cover crime and infrastructure a lot in the debates, but the revenues that the city needs can only come about if people are working. To me, that’s the prime issue.