That has been the title of over a half dozen e-mails I have sent to the members of various nonprofit Boards and groups that I belong to and want to make aware of my intention to run for office. I'm excited that after today the vague references fall away and I can begin running the campaign that we have been working on for the past six weeks.
There is so much that goes into starting a campaign. I should have assumed (or known) as much by now, but the experience has nevertheless been eye-opening. As I said when I started out, I want to share this process with you in the same way I have shared so many things in the past. So many campaigns exploit and promote the distance between candidate and electorate and I have no doubt that there are good reasons for doing so. This will not be that kind of campaign. More on that tonight.
As for starting up - first, you need to decide you want to run. That is such a basic decision, but you can't be "kinda sorta running"; you need to be all in. I don't think I will ever look at an "exploratory committee" the same way again. The moment I decided to run, I immediately became determined to that goal. "Do or do not. There is no try."
Second, you need to find people to help you. Not just because it is easier to take on large tasks as a team, but also because you explicitly need a second person to be your Treasurer. I've been blessed with good friends and family who hold the same aspirations I do and are not only competent, but excel in skills necessary for putting on a campaign. We will need more help, but having partners early in the campaign has been absolutely critical to getting this off the ground. Just as critical is having mentors to show you the way.
Third, you need "sit downs" with community leaders to let them know you're running and hear their concerns, advice, and, hopefully, earn their support. This is a matter of respect. No one asks "permission" to run for office, but you need to know where you stand, what coalitions will be ignited against you, and where you may find a base of support. I also made sure to meet with at least one of the individuals considering a run for the same position, to let them know who I am and why I am running.
Fourth, paperwork. Admittedly, it has not been overly burdensome in the first month, but it is necessary to dot all the i's and cross all the t's lest you stumble out of the box, incur fines, and otherwise besmirch your nascent campaign in the eyes of the political community. I am happy to report that "Friends of Tom Coale" was established with all of the appropriate State bodies and with Howard Bank.
Fifth, brand, design, and produce. As much as I make fun of people running to "get their name on a bumper sticker", it was fun seeing the first round of campaign signs. Same is true for the website that will be released tomorrow. "How things look" is important, particularly for a first time candidate. You want people to be able to take pride in supporting you, not only for the ideals you represent, but also the ability to identify with the branding of the campaign. I think we've done so and can't wait to share those designs with you tonight.
Generally, there has also been the exceedingly difficult transition of "being a Candidate" and, as far as most of you are concerned, that hasn't even happened yet.
Above all of this is "Why I'm Running". It wakes me up in the morning and keeps me up at night. I would not be putting myself through any of this if I didn't have passion driving the train. I am starting out with no smaller goal than changing government as we know it and bringing community engagement to the next level. I'll have the chance to tell you more about that tonight.
Have a great Tuesday doing what you love. I know I will.
Rock on.
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Monday, June 17, 2013
Pollution and Payroll (Monday Links)
Timothy B. Wheeler with The Baltimore Sun wrote over the weekend that Governor O'Malley is lobbying the EPA to grant Carnival Cruise Lines a waiver related to shoreline air-quality regulations that force "large, ocean-going ships" to use cleaner fuel in coastal waters. As noted in the piece, since cruise ships spend most of their time within 200 miles of the shore (the application of the regulation) this regulation hits them harder than it may hit an international shipping company or transatlantic ships. Carnival has threatened to leave Baltimore if a waiver is not granted, prompting rightful skepticism from environmental groups, who note that this regulation will apply across the Country and not just Maryland. Port officials respond that with the Baltimore port being up the Chesapeake bay, that adds "hundreds of nautical miles" to every trip, heightening the burden for the more expensive, cleaner fuels.
Bottom Line: Baltimore's location is relevant to a requirement for cleaner fuels since ships leaving from this port spend more time a sea, burning fuel, than those in Florida or Alaska.
I found this issue remarkable mostly because it cuts right to the core of our policies relating to pollution and the Country's slow address of climate change - Are we interested in decreasing our carbon load so long as it is not hard?
I think the Governor's position is slightly more nuanced (i.e., grant the waiver and make the conversion to clear fuels gradual, with benchmarks over the next 10 years), but for a pol that has made the environment, and environmental advocacy groups, a core constituency, it is odd to see him take this position. Wheeler also notes a (somewhat increduluous) explanation from the Governor's office about pending technology...that he should probably ask Carnival about:
Asked how O'Malley's appeal on behalf of Carnival squared with his oft-stated advocacy for clean air and water, Winfield said the governor had been told that there was alternate technology for reducing air pollution from cruise ships, obviating the need for the EPA requirement to burn more costly ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel. She said she believed that information came from Carnival.
Here are some scary numbers - in 2013, global carbon emissions increased 1.4%, despite this issue having the greatest acceptance and interest in any of our lifetimes. In 2009, the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere was 387 parts per million (ppm). In May 2013, carbon concentration was measured over 400 ppm. Many climate scientists have suggested that there is a tipping point of 600 ppm, at which time sea levels are expected to rise 3 feet, and climate change may become irreversible.
Why do I say all of this? Well Carnival, Governor O'Malley, and the State of Maryland are staring down here-and-now decisions of 220 people losing their job and $90 million pumped into our local economy. Our entire policy framework (and political system) is framed to honor the immediate over the future. Think of our unfunded pensions, our deteriorating roads, our crumbling (and overcrowded) schools, etc., etc. This small dispute between Carnival and the EPA encapsulates everything having to do with our efforts to address a problem for which some say we are already too late.
One can imagine that if we woke up every morning and the Bay was six inches higher, lapping over the brick walkway in front of the Cheesecake Factory, 200 jobs at Carnival would be dismissed without second thought. We would be thinking of the hundreds of thousands of jobs throughout Downtown Baltimore that would be lost or relocated further inland if we didn't address the rising waters. The only problem is, in that circumstance, it would already be too late, and all that would be left to do is watch.
LINKS
I smiled when I saw this article by Sara Toth about Tony Foreman and Cindy Wolf setting up shop along the Lakefront. This was one of WB's last scoops, but, Dennis being Dennis, he couldn't keep it to himself. He had to make sure you knew he knew (and that it was a secret). I had told some of folks that I would be sad when Dennis's last secret was no longer a secret, but I'm really not. It was a friendly reminder of how much fun he had with things like this and the pride he took in "knowing".
Last Thursday, Delegate Guy Guzzone announced he will be running for State Senate in D13. As noted in the piece by Blair Ames, all indications were that Guy was actively lobbied by Senate President Mike Miller to take on the Senate job, which would mean good things for our new Senator once he gets to Annapolis. But there's still a race to run and we will see who fills the ballot on the right (which has been awfully quiet recently). Although not covered, with Guy's announcement for Senate, Board of Education member Janet Siddiqui held an event over the weekend announcing that she will be running for the vacancy in Delegate D13, which (if successful) would make one of the first tasks of our newly minted County Executive to appoint someone to the Board of Education.
Bottom Line: Baltimore's location is relevant to a requirement for cleaner fuels since ships leaving from this port spend more time a sea, burning fuel, than those in Florida or Alaska.
I found this issue remarkable mostly because it cuts right to the core of our policies relating to pollution and the Country's slow address of climate change - Are we interested in decreasing our carbon load so long as it is not hard?
I think the Governor's position is slightly more nuanced (i.e., grant the waiver and make the conversion to clear fuels gradual, with benchmarks over the next 10 years), but for a pol that has made the environment, and environmental advocacy groups, a core constituency, it is odd to see him take this position. Wheeler also notes a (somewhat increduluous) explanation from the Governor's office about pending technology...that he should probably ask Carnival about:
Asked how O'Malley's appeal on behalf of Carnival squared with his oft-stated advocacy for clean air and water, Winfield said the governor had been told that there was alternate technology for reducing air pollution from cruise ships, obviating the need for the EPA requirement to burn more costly ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel. She said she believed that information came from Carnival.
Here are some scary numbers - in 2013, global carbon emissions increased 1.4%, despite this issue having the greatest acceptance and interest in any of our lifetimes. In 2009, the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere was 387 parts per million (ppm). In May 2013, carbon concentration was measured over 400 ppm. Many climate scientists have suggested that there is a tipping point of 600 ppm, at which time sea levels are expected to rise 3 feet, and climate change may become irreversible.
Why do I say all of this? Well Carnival, Governor O'Malley, and the State of Maryland are staring down here-and-now decisions of 220 people losing their job and $90 million pumped into our local economy. Our entire policy framework (and political system) is framed to honor the immediate over the future. Think of our unfunded pensions, our deteriorating roads, our crumbling (and overcrowded) schools, etc., etc. This small dispute between Carnival and the EPA encapsulates everything having to do with our efforts to address a problem for which some say we are already too late.
One can imagine that if we woke up every morning and the Bay was six inches higher, lapping over the brick walkway in front of the Cheesecake Factory, 200 jobs at Carnival would be dismissed without second thought. We would be thinking of the hundreds of thousands of jobs throughout Downtown Baltimore that would be lost or relocated further inland if we didn't address the rising waters. The only problem is, in that circumstance, it would already be too late, and all that would be left to do is watch.
LINKS
I smiled when I saw this article by Sara Toth about Tony Foreman and Cindy Wolf setting up shop along the Lakefront. This was one of WB's last scoops, but, Dennis being Dennis, he couldn't keep it to himself. He had to make sure you knew he knew (and that it was a secret). I had told some of folks that I would be sad when Dennis's last secret was no longer a secret, but I'm really not. It was a friendly reminder of how much fun he had with things like this and the pride he took in "knowing".
Last Thursday, Delegate Guy Guzzone announced he will be running for State Senate in D13. As noted in the piece by Blair Ames, all indications were that Guy was actively lobbied by Senate President Mike Miller to take on the Senate job, which would mean good things for our new Senator once he gets to Annapolis. But there's still a race to run and we will see who fills the ballot on the right (which has been awfully quiet recently). Although not covered, with Guy's announcement for Senate, Board of Education member Janet Siddiqui held an event over the weekend announcing that she will be running for the vacancy in Delegate D13, which (if successful) would make one of the first tasks of our newly minted County Executive to appoint someone to the Board of Education.
Friday, June 14, 2013
CA Board Recap: June 13, 2013 Board of Directors Meeting
Start Time: 7:30 p.m.
End Time: 9:58 p.m.
This was a well run meeting with interesting topics to fill our time. I felt as if, for the most part, our time was well used.
Strategic Goals
Although most in our community may not have seen them, the Columbia Association operates under six strategic goals:
1. Ensure value to Columbia Association (CA) Residents
2. Foster growth of the individuals
3. Support Columbia's Economic Environment
4. Commit to Environmental Sustainability
5. Ensure Organizational Sustainability
6. Build an Informed and Connected Community
These strategic goals are the foundation for the President's Goals, but have very little role in guiding the business of the CA Board. As I noted last night, after my Board orientation two years ago, I never saw these goals again.
Last night we revisited those goals to see if they were in need of edit/updating. The actual objective of our deliberation was a little unclear to me, since it was repeatedly stated that "we're not looking to vote on anything" and there was not a motion under consideration. An open discussion is welcome and appreciated, but would seem to me to need just enough structure to allow the group to work towards an objective.
In the absence of that structure, you will have 5-6 Board members trading leadership quotes and talking (a lot) about horses (download the audio file). The interest in being visionary forward-thinking leaders (or at least sounding like one) seemed to muddy the waters. Don't get me wrong, it was encouraging to hear certain Board members agree that leadership involves some measure of courage and "seeing what everyone else cannot see", but the posturing became a bit much at times.
One of the best ideas I heard was narrowing and "slimming down" these goals into something useful on Board Meeting by Board Meeting basis. I believe CA is in desperate need of Board self-governance (i.e., limitations of power) and the selection of defined strategic goals that will guide and filter future action is critical.
Review of CA's Business Model
CA President Phil Nelson had an opportunity to show why he is tasked with leading our organization last night, and he came through with flying colors. He offered a well-thought out, comprehensive digest of where CA is and where it may need to be in the future. This document touched on everything CA currently does and everything CA may need to consider doing into the future. In short, it was a road-map for the next 10 years. (You may find it in the attachments of this PDF.)
We ended up spending most of our time talking about Tot Lots, but that's ok. Anne Brinker, one of the most dynamic new hires by Phil at CA, put together a breathtaking clip outlining the idea of making our Tot Lots into flexible "Meeting Places" that can be changed and diversified amongst communities to become multi-generational space; moving the discussion from what may be lost to what can be gained. When a neighborhood's median age is 45, slides and swing-sets have diminished utility, but if that same space can be transformed into an exercise plot or a bocce pit (!!!) or an art space, the "meeting space" used when the neighborhood was full of toddlers and young professionals can now find use once again. Most importantly, the chosen use will be flexible and non-permanent, opening opportunity after opportunity as the neighborhood changes.
President Nelson's document refers to the need to address "Generational Diversity." Rather than have one target, CA needs to diversify to meet the generational diversity of our community. With as many Tot Lots as we have throughout Columbia, there is room for diversification and flexibility without ever making it so that a child is without a place to play.
Again, this is just one component of an exciting Plan, but I hope Columbia Residents will get involved and make themselves heard. I also hope the discussion focuses more on what may be gained than the fear of what will be lost.
Lionel Fultz Lounge
This issue seems to sum up all of my frustrations with CA operations and the interface between the Board and our Leadership Team. We had two residents speak last night about their request to have a plaque installed in the "sitting area inside the Columbia Athletic Club" naming this area the "Lionel Fultz Lounge" with a plaque that states as much and includes the quote "Communication occurs when an utterance is understood." According to the speakers, Mr. Fultz was a fixture at the gym and a community icon.
Tom O'Connor spoke as a representative from the Health and Fitness Advisory Committee, which had considered the request and thought it would be appropriate to place the plaque. When the Advisory Committee determined as much, CA Staff told them that they should take the request to the Board of Directors.
Digest that.
The placement of a plaque...in the sitting area...of one of CA's buildings...at zero cost (gym members were willing to raise the money for the plaque) was referred to the Board of Directors of a $63 million organization for deliberation and decision. I cannot understand why CA leadership could not make this determination on their own.
The response was that "we get these requests all the time" and the Board does not have a policy on such matters. Ok. If Staff is uncomfortable making these decisions, based on recommendations from the Advisory Committee and the opportunity to discuss the propriety of such action with the staff at the Athletic Club, propose a policy. But to refer this specific action for Board debate is silly and undermines all attempts to limit micromanagement into the "operations" of CA. CA Leadership can, and should, expect any future protest of Board creep into "operational" matters to be met with the question "Like a plaque at the Athletic Club?"
Even more frustrating was that rather than vote it through last night, the Board put off a vote until the next Board meeting on June 27. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that this plaque will be approved. Maybe I'm a little sensitive to the contemporary value of memorializing a lost friend, but we've most likely created some resentment when none needed to exist. If CA wants to create a policy for future remembrances, I'm all for it, but to punt this (even for two weeks) with no meaningful purpose in extension (i.e., there will be no need for future debate) is ridiculous.
Stepping Down from the Board
Effective July 1, I will be resigning from the Columbia Association Board of Directors. I cannot serve on the Board while running for political office, nor would I want to cast any suspicion on future Board action due to my campaign. This was a very difficult decision for me and one that, quite frankly, hurts deeply to have to accept. These two years have been some of the most fulfilling of my life and have provided the inspiration to go on and do other things.
The good news is that Tom O'Connor has agreed to fill my position and has been appointed by the Dorsey's Search Village Board. He is a great leader and a great man. I have no doubt that those things I care most about will be protected while he serves in my stead.
I also hope that one of my colleagues on the Board figures out a way to keep the conversation going. I'm not saying anyone needs to sit down at 6 a.m. to write Board Recaps, but the community wants to know "What happened Thursday night?" I'm disappointed that I will no longer be the person to tell them.
As I said yesterday, there will be sacrifices. The key is making those sacrifices worthwhile.
Have a great Friday doing what you love. Rock on.
End Time: 9:58 p.m.
This was a well run meeting with interesting topics to fill our time. I felt as if, for the most part, our time was well used.
Strategic Goals
Although most in our community may not have seen them, the Columbia Association operates under six strategic goals:
1. Ensure value to Columbia Association (CA) Residents
2. Foster growth of the individuals
3. Support Columbia's Economic Environment
4. Commit to Environmental Sustainability
5. Ensure Organizational Sustainability
6. Build an Informed and Connected Community
These strategic goals are the foundation for the President's Goals, but have very little role in guiding the business of the CA Board. As I noted last night, after my Board orientation two years ago, I never saw these goals again.
Last night we revisited those goals to see if they were in need of edit/updating. The actual objective of our deliberation was a little unclear to me, since it was repeatedly stated that "we're not looking to vote on anything" and there was not a motion under consideration. An open discussion is welcome and appreciated, but would seem to me to need just enough structure to allow the group to work towards an objective.
In the absence of that structure, you will have 5-6 Board members trading leadership quotes and talking (a lot) about horses (download the audio file). The interest in being visionary forward-thinking leaders (or at least sounding like one) seemed to muddy the waters. Don't get me wrong, it was encouraging to hear certain Board members agree that leadership involves some measure of courage and "seeing what everyone else cannot see", but the posturing became a bit much at times.
One of the best ideas I heard was narrowing and "slimming down" these goals into something useful on Board Meeting by Board Meeting basis. I believe CA is in desperate need of Board self-governance (i.e., limitations of power) and the selection of defined strategic goals that will guide and filter future action is critical.
Review of CA's Business Model
CA President Phil Nelson had an opportunity to show why he is tasked with leading our organization last night, and he came through with flying colors. He offered a well-thought out, comprehensive digest of where CA is and where it may need to be in the future. This document touched on everything CA currently does and everything CA may need to consider doing into the future. In short, it was a road-map for the next 10 years. (You may find it in the attachments of this PDF.)
We ended up spending most of our time talking about Tot Lots, but that's ok. Anne Brinker, one of the most dynamic new hires by Phil at CA, put together a breathtaking clip outlining the idea of making our Tot Lots into flexible "Meeting Places" that can be changed and diversified amongst communities to become multi-generational space; moving the discussion from what may be lost to what can be gained. When a neighborhood's median age is 45, slides and swing-sets have diminished utility, but if that same space can be transformed into an exercise plot or a bocce pit (!!!) or an art space, the "meeting space" used when the neighborhood was full of toddlers and young professionals can now find use once again. Most importantly, the chosen use will be flexible and non-permanent, opening opportunity after opportunity as the neighborhood changes.
President Nelson's document refers to the need to address "Generational Diversity." Rather than have one target, CA needs to diversify to meet the generational diversity of our community. With as many Tot Lots as we have throughout Columbia, there is room for diversification and flexibility without ever making it so that a child is without a place to play.
Again, this is just one component of an exciting Plan, but I hope Columbia Residents will get involved and make themselves heard. I also hope the discussion focuses more on what may be gained than the fear of what will be lost.
Lionel Fultz Lounge
This issue seems to sum up all of my frustrations with CA operations and the interface between the Board and our Leadership Team. We had two residents speak last night about their request to have a plaque installed in the "sitting area inside the Columbia Athletic Club" naming this area the "Lionel Fultz Lounge" with a plaque that states as much and includes the quote "Communication occurs when an utterance is understood." According to the speakers, Mr. Fultz was a fixture at the gym and a community icon.
Tom O'Connor spoke as a representative from the Health and Fitness Advisory Committee, which had considered the request and thought it would be appropriate to place the plaque. When the Advisory Committee determined as much, CA Staff told them that they should take the request to the Board of Directors.
Digest that.
The placement of a plaque...in the sitting area...of one of CA's buildings...at zero cost (gym members were willing to raise the money for the plaque) was referred to the Board of Directors of a $63 million organization for deliberation and decision. I cannot understand why CA leadership could not make this determination on their own.
The response was that "we get these requests all the time" and the Board does not have a policy on such matters. Ok. If Staff is uncomfortable making these decisions, based on recommendations from the Advisory Committee and the opportunity to discuss the propriety of such action with the staff at the Athletic Club, propose a policy. But to refer this specific action for Board debate is silly and undermines all attempts to limit micromanagement into the "operations" of CA. CA Leadership can, and should, expect any future protest of Board creep into "operational" matters to be met with the question "Like a plaque at the Athletic Club?"
Even more frustrating was that rather than vote it through last night, the Board put off a vote until the next Board meeting on June 27. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that this plaque will be approved. Maybe I'm a little sensitive to the contemporary value of memorializing a lost friend, but we've most likely created some resentment when none needed to exist. If CA wants to create a policy for future remembrances, I'm all for it, but to punt this (even for two weeks) with no meaningful purpose in extension (i.e., there will be no need for future debate) is ridiculous.
Stepping Down from the Board
Effective July 1, I will be resigning from the Columbia Association Board of Directors. I cannot serve on the Board while running for political office, nor would I want to cast any suspicion on future Board action due to my campaign. This was a very difficult decision for me and one that, quite frankly, hurts deeply to have to accept. These two years have been some of the most fulfilling of my life and have provided the inspiration to go on and do other things.
The good news is that Tom O'Connor has agreed to fill my position and has been appointed by the Dorsey's Search Village Board. He is a great leader and a great man. I have no doubt that those things I care most about will be protected while he serves in my stead.
I also hope that one of my colleagues on the Board figures out a way to keep the conversation going. I'm not saying anyone needs to sit down at 6 a.m. to write Board Recaps, but the community wants to know "What happened Thursday night?" I'm disappointed that I will no longer be the person to tell them.
As I said yesterday, there will be sacrifices. The key is making those sacrifices worthwhile.
Have a great Friday doing what you love. Rock on.
Thursday, June 13, 2013
Howard County Food for Tomorrow x 3
Howard County Food for Tomorrow just posted on Facebook that a "generous donor" has agreed to TRIPLE every dollar donated between now and July 4. This is an amazing (newer) non-profit that collects food for the Howard County Food Bank. They deserve your help (times 3).
Please consider contributing here (scroll down).
Please consider contributing here (scroll down).
Fear and Blogging On the Campaign Trail
This is an exciting medium, the depths of which have not yet been fully explored. Direct contact. Self publication. That's radical. In earlier days, and for anyone who has not invested in the conversation, those who had something to say had to hope a larger medium was interested enough in the subject (and their view) to pick it up. Facebook and Twitter supplant this somewhat, but 21st Century readers still want some measure of curation. My humble opinion is that the standard of curation breaks two ways - Ideology or Credibility. You either read to feed your ideology or you select content providers based on credibility. I would like to think that I have earned your time and readership on the basis of the latter (although my critics [who more often than not are also readers] would posit the former).
I am very careful with my credibility. As you may expect, there are a great number of people who say "write about this" both online and offline. I respect their suggestions, but if it isn't "from me", I can't write credibly about it. There are also those who say "You shouldn't write that" or (more recently) "You shouldn't have written that". The governor on those matters is a little more flexible, but at the same time, the criticism is comparable to interrupting a conversation, turning to one of the two people speaking and saying "don't answer that". It leaves both sides feeling a little weird. The one speaking is frustrated and the one listening feels as if things are being hidden from them. This is often represented in the comment "I'm surprised you didn't write about _____."
But on June 18th, I will be declaring my candidacy for public office. I've spoken with at least two dozen people about this and in about 70% of those conversations, they ask "So what happens to the blog?" It's like I'm moving to an apartment and own a dog.
I'm not shutting it down. In light of recent circumstances, I just can't. More importantly, I see the blog as an "exciting medium, the depths of which have not yet been fully explored." The blog is coming on the campaign trail and, should I be fortunate enough to win, going to be a part of that future service as well. CA Board Recaps opened my eyes to the opportunity presented in breaking down filters between the deliberation of decision makers and the communities they serve. There are tremendous risks involved, and I have made mistakes, but overall the response has been very positive. Admittedly, these are some of my least read posts (comparatively), but I also find them to be my most impactful. They are a source of pride and part of my service to the community. I don't like getting up at 5:45 a.m., after getting home at 11:30 p.m., from the previous meeting, but those posts make it worth it.
Nevertheless, things will have to change. Harry Schwartz posted a question about the future of this blog yesterday that merits a full response:
[W]hat happens to Tom Coale's voice when he becomes a "partisan"? Obviously, you are "nonpartisan" now, although not without clear political affiliation. Do you lose some of your street cred once you announce for public office as a party standard-bearer?
As I responded, I hope to keep my "street cred", but believe this will rest entirely on how conscientious I am about what I write and, more importantly, what I do not write. It goes back to credibility. If you all need to spend even a minute thinking about whether a certain post was motivated by my interest in pleasing one person or earning political points, that is a minute tearing down my credibility as a writer, community member, and friend. I don't want to put you through that, and have no interest in inviting those kinds of accusations.
Sadly, this means I'm going to have to give up parts of this hobby that I love. No more comments on individual races, the strategy of candidates, or the quirky things people do when trying to make themselves into something "bigger". I just can't. Yesterday's post was tough. Thankfully, I received barbs from both the right and the left (my personal metric for whether it was a fair post), but I can expect that a good number of you took that "minute" described above thinking about whether I was put up to this by someone else...and whether there was "something in it for Tom." We can't have that.
In preparing for this journey, I have had to give up many things that I care about, but these sacrifices are in pursuit of something greater. The key is making those sacrifices worthwhile and I have every intention of doing so. I can't wait to talk to you about it next Tuesday.
Have a great Thursday doing what you love! (Stay safe.) Rock on.
I am very careful with my credibility. As you may expect, there are a great number of people who say "write about this" both online and offline. I respect their suggestions, but if it isn't "from me", I can't write credibly about it. There are also those who say "You shouldn't write that" or (more recently) "You shouldn't have written that". The governor on those matters is a little more flexible, but at the same time, the criticism is comparable to interrupting a conversation, turning to one of the two people speaking and saying "don't answer that". It leaves both sides feeling a little weird. The one speaking is frustrated and the one listening feels as if things are being hidden from them. This is often represented in the comment "I'm surprised you didn't write about _____."
But on June 18th, I will be declaring my candidacy for public office. I've spoken with at least two dozen people about this and in about 70% of those conversations, they ask "So what happens to the blog?" It's like I'm moving to an apartment and own a dog.
I'm not shutting it down. In light of recent circumstances, I just can't. More importantly, I see the blog as an "exciting medium, the depths of which have not yet been fully explored." The blog is coming on the campaign trail and, should I be fortunate enough to win, going to be a part of that future service as well. CA Board Recaps opened my eyes to the opportunity presented in breaking down filters between the deliberation of decision makers and the communities they serve. There are tremendous risks involved, and I have made mistakes, but overall the response has been very positive. Admittedly, these are some of my least read posts (comparatively), but I also find them to be my most impactful. They are a source of pride and part of my service to the community. I don't like getting up at 5:45 a.m., after getting home at 11:30 p.m., from the previous meeting, but those posts make it worth it.
Nevertheless, things will have to change. Harry Schwartz posted a question about the future of this blog yesterday that merits a full response:
[W]hat happens to Tom Coale's voice when he becomes a "partisan"? Obviously, you are "nonpartisan" now, although not without clear political affiliation. Do you lose some of your street cred once you announce for public office as a party standard-bearer?
As I responded, I hope to keep my "street cred", but believe this will rest entirely on how conscientious I am about what I write and, more importantly, what I do not write. It goes back to credibility. If you all need to spend even a minute thinking about whether a certain post was motivated by my interest in pleasing one person or earning political points, that is a minute tearing down my credibility as a writer, community member, and friend. I don't want to put you through that, and have no interest in inviting those kinds of accusations.
Sadly, this means I'm going to have to give up parts of this hobby that I love. No more comments on individual races, the strategy of candidates, or the quirky things people do when trying to make themselves into something "bigger". I just can't. Yesterday's post was tough. Thankfully, I received barbs from both the right and the left (my personal metric for whether it was a fair post), but I can expect that a good number of you took that "minute" described above thinking about whether I was put up to this by someone else...and whether there was "something in it for Tom." We can't have that.
In preparing for this journey, I have had to give up many things that I care about, but these sacrifices are in pursuit of something greater. The key is making those sacrifices worthwhile and I have every intention of doing so. I can't wait to talk to you about it next Tuesday.
Have a great Thursday doing what you love! (Stay safe.) Rock on.
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Kittleman Draws the Path
Yesterday, State Senator Allan Kittleman made it officially official that he will be running for County Executive. By all appearances and metrics, his announcement at the Columbia Lakefront was a success, with coverage from two different Baltimore Sun Reporters and a gaggle of approximately 200 supporters (according to the article by Arthur Hirsch).
The big splash of the day was the introduction, and endorsement, by Baltimore County State Senator (and Dem-o-crat) Bobby Zirkin. This is a fun nugget to digest. You can view it two ways - one, why is a Baltimore County Dem, who was probably cursing his GPS in trying to find the Lakefront, sticking his hand in Howard County politics; OR two, this is a huge boost to those that define "independence" by having support from both the left and the right (more on that below) and it does not matter what name is attached to that D. If you're a real cynic, you don't take either view and simply ask "How much money is in the campaign account?"
Allan set the tone for his campaign with two themes, one more customary and the other part of a long term strategy. The first theme, according to what I've gleaned from Arthur Hirsch's piece, is "Being No. 1 is not good enough." This is what I would term the Howard County Political Commandment. From Lindsey McPherson's coverage of Ken Ulman's 2012 State of the County address:
In delivering his annual state of the county address, Howard County Executive Ken Ulman touted the usual accomplishments — Howard's AAA bond rating, good schools, safe neighborhoods, etc. But this year, he said, it's not enough to say that Howard County is strong.
"I'm not satisfied," Ulman said. "Too many strong communities have fallen prey to complacency and watched as the times passed by. I will not allow that to happen here in Howard County.
"We must seize this moment and remake our region as the model for the 21st century's innovation economy," he added.
(Emphasis added). It is just what we say when we talk about Howard County public policy. Things are good, but could be better. WB always used to say that the best political motto for any candidate for County Executive would be "I promise not to screw anything up." Unfortunately, politics does not allow for such modesty, so "better than number 1" is what we get.
The next theme is written right on Allan's campaign signs "Proven Independent Leader". Now Allan did not run as an unaffiliated (i.e., independent) candidate. He will be the first to tell anyone who asks that he is a "proud Republican". Allan often said that he voted for marriage equality because it was in accordance with "Republican values". But this merits a review at the difference between "centrist" and "independent".
Under most circumstances, ideas do not come with political labels. Mobilizing ideas into law normally (and unfortunately) requires the utilization of partisan leverage, but when those ideas hatch out of their idea shells and open their baby idea eyes, they are politically blank. After study, scrutiny, and debate, we separate good ideas from bad ideas. In this context, the "independent" votes their conscience and comprehension, with political philosophy back-filling the rest. I think it is fair to call Allan Kittleman an independent thinker, with the understanding that this independence has more often than not put him on the right (sometimes the way right, i.e., union-busting) of the voting block. We can leave for another day whether those positions line up with Howard County voters, but I don't think Senator Kittleman will be running away from those votes in his pursuit of County Executive.
There is also the somewhat different construct of "centrist". A centrist tries to find the middle ground. If two sides are debating an issue, one saying "absolutely not" and the other saying "everything needs to pass", the centrist may try to broker a deal or find common ground. A centrist will rarely win endorsements or certificates from interest groups ("triple A plus circled with a smiley face from the Woodpecker Protection Agency"), but they may win a good number of votes. Allan Kittleman is not a centrist. We've never seen him endorse a Democrat for office and I don't think we ever will (sorry Bobby Z).
If sending e-mails to hobbyist bloggers for perceived slights is any indication, Allan Kittleman's supporters are fired up and ready to go. I mentioned to someone yesterday that although there may be a significant registration and money gap, I think the "enthusiasm gap" may break in Allan's favor, at least for the early goings of the 2014 race (in two weeks we will be one year away from the primary).
That's all for today. Have a great Wednesday doing what you love! Rock on.
The big splash of the day was the introduction, and endorsement, by Baltimore County State Senator (and Dem-o-crat) Bobby Zirkin. This is a fun nugget to digest. You can view it two ways - one, why is a Baltimore County Dem, who was probably cursing his GPS in trying to find the Lakefront, sticking his hand in Howard County politics; OR two, this is a huge boost to those that define "independence" by having support from both the left and the right (more on that below) and it does not matter what name is attached to that D. If you're a real cynic, you don't take either view and simply ask "How much money is in the campaign account?"
Allan set the tone for his campaign with two themes, one more customary and the other part of a long term strategy. The first theme, according to what I've gleaned from Arthur Hirsch's piece, is "Being No. 1 is not good enough." This is what I would term the Howard County Political Commandment. From Lindsey McPherson's coverage of Ken Ulman's 2012 State of the County address:
In delivering his annual state of the county address, Howard County Executive Ken Ulman touted the usual accomplishments — Howard's AAA bond rating, good schools, safe neighborhoods, etc. But this year, he said, it's not enough to say that Howard County is strong.
"I'm not satisfied," Ulman said. "Too many strong communities have fallen prey to complacency and watched as the times passed by. I will not allow that to happen here in Howard County.
"We must seize this moment and remake our region as the model for the 21st century's innovation economy," he added.
(Emphasis added). It is just what we say when we talk about Howard County public policy. Things are good, but could be better. WB always used to say that the best political motto for any candidate for County Executive would be "I promise not to screw anything up." Unfortunately, politics does not allow for such modesty, so "better than number 1" is what we get.
The next theme is written right on Allan's campaign signs "Proven Independent Leader". Now Allan did not run as an unaffiliated (i.e., independent) candidate. He will be the first to tell anyone who asks that he is a "proud Republican". Allan often said that he voted for marriage equality because it was in accordance with "Republican values". But this merits a review at the difference between "centrist" and "independent".
Under most circumstances, ideas do not come with political labels. Mobilizing ideas into law normally (and unfortunately) requires the utilization of partisan leverage, but when those ideas hatch out of their idea shells and open their baby idea eyes, they are politically blank. After study, scrutiny, and debate, we separate good ideas from bad ideas. In this context, the "independent" votes their conscience and comprehension, with political philosophy back-filling the rest. I think it is fair to call Allan Kittleman an independent thinker, with the understanding that this independence has more often than not put him on the right (sometimes the way right, i.e., union-busting) of the voting block. We can leave for another day whether those positions line up with Howard County voters, but I don't think Senator Kittleman will be running away from those votes in his pursuit of County Executive.
There is also the somewhat different construct of "centrist". A centrist tries to find the middle ground. If two sides are debating an issue, one saying "absolutely not" and the other saying "everything needs to pass", the centrist may try to broker a deal or find common ground. A centrist will rarely win endorsements or certificates from interest groups ("triple A plus circled with a smiley face from the Woodpecker Protection Agency"), but they may win a good number of votes. Allan Kittleman is not a centrist. We've never seen him endorse a Democrat for office and I don't think we ever will (sorry Bobby Z).
If sending e-mails to hobbyist bloggers for perceived slights is any indication, Allan Kittleman's supporters are fired up and ready to go. I mentioned to someone yesterday that although there may be a significant registration and money gap, I think the "enthusiasm gap" may break in Allan's favor, at least for the early goings of the 2014 race (in two weeks we will be one year away from the primary).
That's all for today. Have a great Wednesday doing what you love! Rock on.
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Edward Snowden
The debate surrounding Edward Snowden and his release of protected information from the NSA is one worth having. Pundits on both right and left think he's a hero. Pundits on both right and left think he is something far less.
But the fundamental question is -- Who decides what we get to see?
Is it Edward Snowden? Bradley Manning perhaps? Some other rogue government contractor turned media darling? Or the shadowy halls of the NSA and CIA?
That decision is made somewhere, oftentimes for arbitrary reasons. As you may presume, the preference is to err on the side of redaction/classification. Once something is "out", it cannot be pulled back in (although there is an unbelievably archaic [almost ceremonial] procedure for recalling unintentionally released protected material).
What happens when our basic understanding of that fuzzy boundary between the "gubment" and "us" is in the balance? We go about our day-to-day, presuming the government is "there" and we are "here", operating with some comfort in that distance. If the government crosses that line, through some discrete provision in law or regulation passed under the distress of attack, should we be alerted? Who decides?
And how about the Constitution? If Congress and the Executive have legislated themselves out of the jurisdiction of the Courts (happens more often than you may want to know - particularly when it comes to "national security", which is exactly the kind of circumstance that is exploited in times of tyranny), what then? Isn't knowledge the last line of defense for individual liberty? If my rights to due process and the protection against unreasonable search and seizure are being breached, and there is nothing anyone can do about it, aren't I at least entitled to the knowledge that it is happening? And if so, who decides?
The most intriguing thing about this debate is that it is seemingly one of absolutes. Either Snowden is a law-breaking self-righteous prig making ungoverned decisions about what is right and wrong, to be punished to the full extent of the law OR he is a liberator of sorts, standing up against the size, force, and reach of the United States Government, and this behavior should be encouraged, thereby making vulnerable all national secrets at all times. Any middle ground is a philosophical minefield.
But, Tom, transparency! Doesn't this invoke transparency in a way? Similar to how gun control debates always devolve to the possession of a bazooka or a Sherman Tank, don't we need to allow the province of "national secrets" in our discussions of transparency. Surely, the most fervent advocates for transparency (that vague and fickle god) would agree that national secrets, involving in some respect about 20% of all federal expenditures, should be protected from disclosure. So, from there, we agree that transparency is a flexible term that should only be invoked with some purpose. "Transparency is necessary in this circumstance because..." Sure, it is many more words than just "Transparency!", but the effect is a more persuasive sentence.
What do I think about Mr. Snowden? I think he is someone that did not have this discussion with himself, but similarly one who thought he was doing the right thing; someone who could not stop himself from releasing what he released. That is the personal dynamic of an abstract discussion. For that, I'm not willing or interested in attacking him as a person. Nor am I all that interested in defending him. This is a dangerous area of policy, law, and security that does not allow much room for error. The sad thing is that all we can say for certain is that Mr. Snowden can never come home again.
That's all for today. Have a great Tuesday doing what you love! Rock on.
But the fundamental question is -- Who decides what we get to see?
Is it Edward Snowden? Bradley Manning perhaps? Some other rogue government contractor turned media darling? Or the shadowy halls of the NSA and CIA?
That decision is made somewhere, oftentimes for arbitrary reasons. As you may presume, the preference is to err on the side of redaction/classification. Once something is "out", it cannot be pulled back in (although there is an unbelievably archaic [almost ceremonial] procedure for recalling unintentionally released protected material).
What happens when our basic understanding of that fuzzy boundary between the "gubment" and "us" is in the balance? We go about our day-to-day, presuming the government is "there" and we are "here", operating with some comfort in that distance. If the government crosses that line, through some discrete provision in law or regulation passed under the distress of attack, should we be alerted? Who decides?
And how about the Constitution? If Congress and the Executive have legislated themselves out of the jurisdiction of the Courts (happens more often than you may want to know - particularly when it comes to "national security", which is exactly the kind of circumstance that is exploited in times of tyranny), what then? Isn't knowledge the last line of defense for individual liberty? If my rights to due process and the protection against unreasonable search and seizure are being breached, and there is nothing anyone can do about it, aren't I at least entitled to the knowledge that it is happening? And if so, who decides?
The most intriguing thing about this debate is that it is seemingly one of absolutes. Either Snowden is a law-breaking self-righteous prig making ungoverned decisions about what is right and wrong, to be punished to the full extent of the law OR he is a liberator of sorts, standing up against the size, force, and reach of the United States Government, and this behavior should be encouraged, thereby making vulnerable all national secrets at all times. Any middle ground is a philosophical minefield.
But, Tom, transparency! Doesn't this invoke transparency in a way? Similar to how gun control debates always devolve to the possession of a bazooka or a Sherman Tank, don't we need to allow the province of "national secrets" in our discussions of transparency. Surely, the most fervent advocates for transparency (that vague and fickle god) would agree that national secrets, involving in some respect about 20% of all federal expenditures, should be protected from disclosure. So, from there, we agree that transparency is a flexible term that should only be invoked with some purpose. "Transparency is necessary in this circumstance because..." Sure, it is many more words than just "Transparency!", but the effect is a more persuasive sentence.
What do I think about Mr. Snowden? I think he is someone that did not have this discussion with himself, but similarly one who thought he was doing the right thing; someone who could not stop himself from releasing what he released. That is the personal dynamic of an abstract discussion. For that, I'm not willing or interested in attacking him as a person. Nor am I all that interested in defending him. This is a dangerous area of policy, law, and security that does not allow much room for error. The sad thing is that all we can say for certain is that Mr. Snowden can never come home again.
That's all for today. Have a great Tuesday doing what you love! Rock on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)