Please accept my apologies in advance for the length of this but I rarely ever post and feel some facts are needed.
I agree with the statement in Ameliuous Whyte's email that said we should "base our accusations on the facts". Therefore, as the person responsible for coordinating the Twin Cities Quorum debate, I will be glad to share the facts. I contacted the campaign managers for Mayor Sayles Belton and R.T. Rybak (as well as Jay Benenav and Randy Kelly) the last week of September to extend an invitation to debate and find out what dates would work best. During the next 6 days, it was phone tag sessions and pleasing campaign schedulers (although Mr. Kelly turned us down within 48 hours). By October 2, both Mr. Rybak's and Ms. Sayles Belton's campaigns agreed to debate Oct. 30, 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 at the Humphrey Insistute. The next day, Mr. Rybak's scheduler informed me of an error and asked if the start time could be 7:00 p.m. The mayor's manager, Jo Matson, agreed. All the details were then spelled out in an email to both campaigns as well as a hard copy letters mailed on Oct. 8. Mr. Rybak's campaign posted the debate info on their website sometime before Oct. 16 and the mayor's site displayed the info shortly thereafter. The morning of the debate, I got a call from Ms. Matson informing me of a scheduling conflict. She said the mayor's office had booked her to be elsewhere at 6:30 and asked if it would be possible to push back the start time. I said it would not be possible since the time had been advertised in email postings, appeared in news articles, and was printed upon flyers distributed throughout the city. I did tell Ms. Matson that opening remarks/introductions could take almost 10 minutes. That could buy the mayor some time if she could arrive by 7:15. Ms. Matson said she didn't know how this scheduling conflict happened, but they would get the mayor to the debate at Sabathani Community Center as quickly as possible. I had to remind Ms. Matson that the debate location was the HHH Institute, not Sabathani. About an hour later, I received a call from John Sugimura, the mayor's administrative assistant at city hall. He reiterated that somehow a scheduling mix-up had occurred. I told him what I told Ms. Matson. Mr. Sugimura said they mayor was scheduled to deliver brief remarks at 6:45, but if she kept the remarks to under five minutes, could get to the debate by the 7:10/7:15 mark. I began my opening remarks to the audience at 7:05. After introductions and explanation of the debate rules, it was 7:20. Unable to wait any longer, we began the debate at 7:25. Mr. Rybak's opening statement took us to 7:30, at which time the mayor arrived. I respectfully disagree with Amelious Whyte's other contention that the mayor's tardiness had a valid reason. Yes, a fundraiser for a shelter is a very worthy cause, but so is allowing the GLBT community the chance to question the mayor and hear her views at the same time as her opponent. The format and time and location had been agreed upon well in advance. Maybe the mayor's office and her campaign team should compare calendars more frequently or, at the very least, read the campaign's own website. Being mayor and running for reelection is very difficult to do simulaneously. But such mistakes have dotted her second term and have lead to the "where's Sharon" complaints. Even the Strib in their primary endorsement pointed the finger at the ineptitude of some in her inner circle. So, who hired these folks (both on the city payroll and campaign payroll) and who holds them responsible? >From: Amelious Whyte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [Mpls] Was Sharon Wasting Our Time? >Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 13:07:49 -0800 (PST) > >If the Mayor is going to be accused of poor scheduling >and time management skills because she was late for >Tuesday's debate, we should base our accusations on >the facts. The Mayor, in addition to running for >relection, is still the Mayor. As such I think its >understandable that she may have to appear at certain >events in that capacity. > >As the Mayor indicated when she arrived, she was at a >fundraiser for Project Pride for Living (I think this >was the name) to assist them to raise money for a new >shelter ( a worthy cause). According to her comments, >she has been involved with this organization for some >time and thus felt obligated to participate in the >fundraiser. This is sign of commitment, something >that is usually desirable in a leader. On several >occasions I have been at events that have run late, >but beyond my control. It is not always easy to just >leave, especially if you have a role to play. > >If people are not going to support the Mayor's bid for >reelection, they should do so based on her policies >and leadership, not because she was late to a debate >(with a valid reason). > >===== >Amelious N. Whyte, Jr. > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. >http://personals.yahoo.com >_______________________________________ >Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy >Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: >http://e-democracy.org/mpls _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
