As somebody who works campaigns, I tend to find the numerous candidate forums excruciating.  The audience changes from night to night, but those of us who are there with our candidates are subjected to the same lines over and over.  But once in a while, a question will catch the candidates off guard.  The candidates end up going ”off-script” and differences emerge.  The local NAACP chapter and the audience had some very good questions last night, and that was exactly what happened.

Clearly, the headline last night went to District 7 candidate Jim Jackson.  An audience member asked all of the candidates if they would take pay cuts commensurate with the cuts others will be taking over the next few years.  District 2 candidates Fonda Huff and Terry Krassner both said that they would take the cuts; District 3 candidates Greg Hunsinger and Peggy O’Shea agreed.  So did District 6 candidate Linda Lerner, as did District 7 candidate Keisha Bell.  Then it was District 7 candidate Jim Jackson’s turn and he made some news.  In fact, it was the headline Ron Matus wrote for the St. Petersburg Times blog, The Gradebook.

From The Gradebook:

Pinellas school board candidate Jim Jackson suggested last night that he’d be willing to forgo his entire school board salary if elected.

His statement came in response to a two-part question from an audience member at a candidate forum organized by the St. Petersburg NAACP. The question: Should school board members make more than beginning teachers? Couldn’t the board members take a cut in pay?

The response: ”Now I don’t want to sound gimmicky here, but I have a nice retirement from the Florida state teachers retirement. And I took social security early,” said Jackson, a retired psychology professor from Miami-Dade College. ”I don’t need the $37,000. It’s not gimmicky. But you don’t have to pay me a dime. My passion is for education. I would actually pay to do this job. I love it that much.”

Lew Williams, also a District 7 candidate, followed with a nice quip, stating “This is one time that I really want you to know the difference between Lew and Jim.”  After getting a few laughs, Williams continued by agreeing with the other candidates that he would take a commensurate cut.  It must be assumed that Williams meant that his difference with Jackson was about his willingness to take the salary and not that he actually needed the money, as he is by far the wealthiest candidate in the District 7 race, according to his financial disclosure statement filed with the Supervisor of Elections.  (Williams owns three houses and a business, has a net worth of over $800,000, and draws an annual income from three sources which exceeds six-figures.)

The District 7 candidates also had a significant difference when it came to the issue of school safety.  One question asked the candidates if they would be open to cuts in the campus police department.  As the candidates in the other races responded to the question first, the dialogue expanded to school resource officers too.  District 7 candidate Keisha Bell indicated that she would be open to significant cuts, and expressed concern about increasing the police presence at schools.  Lew Williams didn’t go that far, but he indicated that “everything is on the table” with respect to cuts, and that the campus police department and school resource officers should be no different.  But Jim Jackson offered a significantly different response.  He reiterated that school safety is his number one priority – that students cannot learn and teachers cannot teach until they are confident that they are in a safe environment.  He continued by saying that there are plenty of other places where he would advocate for cuts first, and that compromising school safety was not among his priorities.  He did not completely rule out some cuts, but only if enough savings couldn’t be generated in other departments.

District 2 candidate Linda Lerner had one of the better moments in the debate.  When speaking on the issue of the Memorandums of Understanding related to the Bradley case, Lerner actually admitted a vote where she felt that she made a mistake and took responsibility for it.  She also pointed out that nearly the entire board got it wrong, and gave props to Lee Benjamin, the father of District 2 candidate Terry Krassner, who was the only board member who was on the right side of that 6-1 vote back in the 1990s.  It’s always a good thing when an elected official admits that they are capable of making mistakes and apologizing for them.

As for the other candidates, it was actually quite boring for the most part.  Fonda Huff and Terry Krassner both did reasonably well, although I think I’d give Krassner a slight edge.  Her answers seemed to have a little bit more depth.  Greg Hunsinger seemed to finally feel comfortable in a debate setting and his answers seemed very reasonable; however, Peggy O’Shea really demonstrated a command for the issues.  She was on her game last night and really shined.  Linda Lerner was consistently good and had that really good moment which I mentioned earlier; her opponent, Brian Hawley, skipped the forum.  Keisha Bell made a very good accounting for herself; she was much, much better than her earlier debate performance at the South St. Petersburg Democratic Club forum last month.  Jim Jackson and Lew Williams both delivered consistently thoughtful responses, although they demonstrated some clear differences on the issues.

All-in-all, it was a very good forum, although there were no real fireworks or gaffes.  Congratulations to NAACP President Ray Tampa, moderator Minnie Morris and the entire team that put on a great event.  Thank you!

Popularity: 58% [?]