My impressions on the FOP/CFF Salisbury City Council forum

Editor’s note: at noon today, the firefighters announced they’re endorsing Terry Cohen, Tim Spies, and Louise Smith for the City Council race. It’ll be interesting to see how the Daily Times plays this and who they’ll endorse here in a couple weeks.

In talking to “Cato” of Delmarva Dealings and Joe Albero of Salisbury News after tonight’s forum, it appears they’re going to leave the field to me for comment for the time being. (As he rubs his hands in glee…) So here goes. Besides, I’m sure Cato will have something to say to me on this tomorrow morning.

Just like last time, I’m scoring the candidates on a scale from 1-10 for their remarks, but there are a couple exceptions which I’ll go into when they occur. I also like it better when candidates do and say things that to me represent out-of-the-box thinking, so that scores higher with me. So, without further ado, I’ll begin with the…

Opening statement: No one got off to a really clear advantage here. As usual, most of the candidates went into the items in their background which they thought gave them an advantage in seeking the seat. Terry Cohen did mention that she was the “luckiest woman alive” because of her experience so far, and Louise Smith noted that, despite the fact she’s running for City Council, she really isn’t crazy. (It brought a chuckle from the audience.) Don Ewalt billed himself as efficient and effective.

But Tim Spies got out of the gate quicker than the rest, producing a pledge that he bade all of the other candidates sign to maintain what so far has been a reasonably clean campaign (with the possible exception of “Leadership for Salisbury’s Future“). It was a bit of grandstanding, but the message of keeping the campaign positive and on issue appealed to me best. Ewalt 6, Smith 6, Atkins 5, Comegys 5, Spies 7, Cohen 6.

TIF/infrastructure: Let me state once again for the record that I thought the TIF was a bad idea, and to some extent rewards a developer who behaved badly by allowing his property to become decrepit. This affects my point scale. Also, with each question all the participants had an opportunity to rebut statements made or add to their point, so candidates who took advantage got extra points on a scale from 1 to 5.

On the side of the TIF it was Ewalt, Atkins, and Comegys. Of the three, Don Ewalt made the most compelling pro-TIF argument, noting that the mall property collects $40,000 in taxes now but the development would lead to 4,000 construction jobs. (Thinking about that, was that a misstatement?) But Ewalt called the Old Mall project “smart growth” and noted that you have to spend money to make money. Of those speaking against the TIF, Terry Cohen made the best point when she noted that private property should be financed with private money. Tim Spies chimed in that the city needed to be responsible to see that the Old Mall building was down, and that the developer paid the freight. Ewalt 4, Smith 8, Atkins 2, Comegys 2, Spies 10, Cohen 10.

On rebuttal, Louise Smith did call for the five acres at the southwest corner of the site to be reserved for Civic Center parking. John Atkins claimed that the TIF was financing, much like one would finance a business. For his part, Gary Comegys claimed that the TIF was an “investment in the community” and would bring in $400,000 in revenue in five years’ time. And while Tim Spies thought that TIF’s were only appropriate for commercial entities (as opposed to residential), Terry Cohen mentioned the fact that the site had an approved redevelopment plan (with no TIF) as far back as 1998. Outstanding detective work. Don Ewalt made no rebuttal, thus no points. Ewalt 0, Smith 3, Atkins 2, Comegys 2, Spies 2, Cohen 3.

Pay parity: This was a question I expected, and the first of several that covered a lot of the same ground. Obviously, all of the candidates were in favor of paying cops and firefighters more. Don Ewalt noted that “some candidates” would raise taxes, but also wondered if the pay parity would have to be extended to all city employees. Louise Smith suggested (for the first of three different times) the possibility of attaining state or federal grants. John Atkins stated an obvious fact that turnover cost the city a lot of money, while Gary Comegys did a Clintonesque finger wagging in stating he’d “never voted against the fire service.” Terry Cohen did bring up the aspect of impact fees, but Tim Spies actually had numbers – stating a first-year Ocean City police officer made $20.54 an hour for a 48 hour week, or over $50,000 a year compared to an SPD rookie making $32,000 per year. He wanted to find the money where it could be found. Ewalt 6, Smith 7, Atkins 5, Comegys 4, Spies 6, Cohen 5.

Only Gary Comegys, Tim Spies, and Terry Cohen took advantage of the rebuttal in this case. Comegys noted that a balance was required because tax increases would hurt those on fixed incomes. On the other hand, Tim Spies made the point that a tax increase was all but promised for next year anyway. But he wanted to work harder at increasing the tax base through commercial and industrial development. And for her part, Terry Cohen went with a true rebuttal, saying that she wanted to “stop the distortions” and state clearly that to her a tax increase was a “last resort.” Ewalt 0, Smith 0, Atkins 0, Comegys 2, Spies 5, Cohen 3.

Police attrition: This question dealt with an interesting statistic. Salisbury’s police department has had a 58% turnover rate in the last few years, whereas the national average is 8%. Once again, no one accepts this rate, but what to do about it was mixed. Don Ewalt wanted to add more officers and bring the force up from 88 to even 100. He also advocated more patrols, expanding block watch programs, and keeping the substations open 24/7. I just wasn’t quite sure how that answered the question. Louise Smith brought up the specter of collective bargaining because the department was so frustrated with their situation, and Terry Cohen talked about this affecting the quality of life. On the other hand, John Atkins thought that pay wasn’t the only issue and input was needed from the public safety rank and file.

Looking back at his record, Gary Comegys stated that police starting salaries had increased 22% since he took office, along with better retirement benefits. He warned not to promise what couldn’t be delivered. But I thought Tim Spies had a good answer, tying it into pay increases created by additional commercial development, but also looking into things like housing incentives, which I believe already exist in other places. Ewalt 4, Smith 6, Atkins 4, Comegys 4, Spies 8, Cohen 5.

Again, not all candidates took the opportunity to expand their remarks in rebuttal. Louise Smith went back to mentioning the idea of exploring federal grants to supplement public safety pay (none went to Salisbury last year), and Gary Comegys restated that the public safety employees got a larger increment raise last year than other city employees. This was noted after Terry Cohen spoke about the 2% increase for senior officers, a charge that had Comegys shaking his head in disagreement before he had a shot at rebutting. Ewalt 0, Smith 2, Atkins 0, Comegys 1, Spies 0, Cohen 2.

Singer study: This was the final “prepared” question and definitely the weakest among them. The city spent $40,000 on a study relating to pay parity among city employees, and only Gary Comegys had seen it. In fact, no one even rebutted the question after it was answered, and the only piece of information not rehashed from before that came out of it was when Gary Comegys said that, to give each police officer a $10,000 raise, it would cost the city over $800,000 – that translated into a 6% tax increase for everyone. So I’ll give him 2 bonus points for putting a number to this. Ewalt 0, Smith 0, Atkins 0, Comegys 2, Spies 0, Cohen 0.

After a break, there were five questions from the audience and selected by the public safety folks who were in attendance. Frankly, none were great and some were really bad so I only scored three of the five.

Oversight: This question was one regarding oversight of department heads by City Council. To me, the proper answer was that City Council had no direct oversight (being the legislative branch) but could act in an advisory capacity – if the people had problems with a particular department, the people would let the Council know and they could advise the Mayor. The best answer of the six was Terry Cohen’s, as she stressed a need for “diligent” oversight and used the late audit as an example of when Council needed to speak up. Don Ewalt did ponder the idea of expanding City Council, which didn’t really answer the question but bears study as Salisbury grows. Ewalt 5, Smith 5, Atkins 5, Comegys 5, Spies 5, Cohen 7. No one rebutted the question so no extra points.

Non-police crime solutions: Because the question specifically excluded the salary aspect, it was the best question of the audience group. Don Ewalt tied crime to growth, and repeated his call for more officers, along with a Police Athletic League or something along that line to engage the youth. Louise Smith touched on her five-point plan for fighting crime, which included the PAL idea and neighborhood watch, along with a community police coordinator and more patrols at hot spots.

But John Atkins and Gary Comegys tied the problems more to a general decline in values; Comegys in particular saw a need to invest more in the children. And while Terry Cohen also treaded that same path (speaking about those who had no father figure), she also added the element of strengthening neighborhoods. That part was heavily emphasized by Tim Spies, who brought the issue of affordable housing into the discussion. This had some good answers. Ewalt 3, Smith 8, Atkins 6, Comegys 5, Spies 6, Cohen 6.

Only Tim Spies didn’t take advantage of the rebuttal time. Both Don Ewalt and John Atkins expanded on Spies’ point by adding a mention of the Habitat for Humanity program, and Louise Smith hammered on the grant idea again. I have one disagreement with her, though – grants are taxpayer dollars, just shared by a wider range of people. We may not pay for a federal grant to Salisbury directly, but we might be paying for one to Bozeman, Montana our of our pocket. Gary Comegys thought we were an attraction to crime as we’re a business attraction for the Delmarva region. But Terry Cohen claimed that she “didn’t accept” the theory that growth creates crime. It’s a matter of managing resources as we grow, she noted. Ewalt 3, Smith 2, Atkins 4, Comegys 2, Spies 0, Cohen 4.

Now, the next two questions that were asked, I just thought they were awful. One regarded a study as to why officers leave the SPD, and the other was simply asking whether the Council candidates thought they could live on the SPD starting salary of $32,000 a year. The best answer to the former question was given by Terry Cohen, who wondered what the “real story” was behind the turnover. But no one answered the latter question as I would have.

If one is serious about being a police officer, they have to know that the pay rate for a rookie officer in a small city is not going to be particularly high. That’s one sacrifice they make in pursuing a career in public service, and it’s a factor a young person needs to weigh. On the other hand, most officers are eligible for a full retirement at a relatively young age (Sheriff Lewis being one example.) Indeed, their job is fraught with potential danger – after all, we read often about a traffic stop turned fatal or a officer killed in the line of duty pursuing a suspect. But in many respects our military earns a much smaller salary for work that’s at times much more dangerous and deadly. I drove by a reminder of that on the way to the forum. In other words, to become a cop is a trade-off and no one going in has any excuse to be unaware of the circumstances under which they will toil.

Audit: The final question regarded the city’s tardy audit. And once again, there is a proper answer to the question, which is that the audit is the sole responsibility of the executive branch. Because Tim Spies was first to answer the question exactly that way, he got the most points. (He went second in the rotation, it was Terry Cohen’s weakest answer of the night that went first.) And by saying what he did, Spies placed everyone else in the position where they had to agree with him. The rest did with varying results. Ewalt 6, Smith 7, Atkins 6, Comegys 7, Spies 10, Cohen 4.

Only Ewalt, Smith, and Cohen took time to rebut, and all added a valid point or two. Don Ewalt observed that the timing for additional auditing help is bad – although on second thought, he’s not that correct because the audit’s actually due in November, not over the winter when accountants are busy preparing taxes. Louise Smith did correctly state that a late audit affects the budgetary process, while Terry Cohen indirectly made a nod to the blogs by saying the people can make their voice heard on the subject as well. Ewalt 1, Smith 2, Atkins 0, Comegys 0, Spies 0, Cohen 2.

Finally, we got to the closing statements. In a nutshell:

Don Ewalt: His experience sets him apart from the field. He’s “concerned” about the tone of current City Council meetings and wanted more respect and civility. Also, he wanted to reinterate his support of “smart growth.”

Louise Smith: Simply, end the contention and bring integrity to City Council.

John Atkins: Citing a number of community leaders from the past, he stated a need for that sort of leadership, but you also have to work with the people that you currently have.

Gary Comegys: There are certain things in the community that reflect well on us, and he was “excited about the opportunity” to serve again.

Tim Spies: He drew the first closing statement, so he exhorted those in attendance and eventually watching the taped rebroadcast to “tell others what you’ve learned” as a result of the debate.

Terry Cohen: Relating recent events in her personal life, she called public safety forces an “integral part of life” and told the gathering that her run had been a good experience for her. Leaders learn by listening, she concluded.

Closing: Ewalt 6, Smith 4, Atkins 5, Comegys 4, Spies 5, Cohen 5. No one had a dynamite closing statement, but it was evident the crowd was restless too.

So who do I think won the debate? Let’s total them up…

Ewalt 44, Smith 60, Atkins 44, Comegys 45, Spies 64, Cohen 62.

It’s sort of odd, because the difference on the TIF question set the two groups of three apart but not to this extent. I’m sort of surprised at Smith’s total since I thought she was a little bit behind Cohen and Spies, but she took advantage of her rebuttals.

By this debate, I think the top three all solidified their position and put the heat on Gary Comegys more. His presentation was much better than previous forums, though, so he remains a formidable candidate and may end up squeaking through on name recognition. Between the two debates I scored, both Cohen and Spies placed themselves above the other four. But if Comegys gets back in and Louise Smith doesn’t fall far from her primary win, it’ll be a shame that one of these two leaders on the issues is locked out of a seat on the City Council.

Well, my work is done here, and the Salisbury blogosphere is sated for another day. “See” you on the radio in, oh, about 7 1/2 hours.