Frank Jackson and the Message He Sent
By Roldo Bartimole
Doesn’t Mayor Frank Jackson have anything to do?
That’s the obvious question to ask after reading in the Plain Dealer that Jackson spent two days at the trial of his granddaughter, Janesha Jackson.
Shouldn’t he be working?
As PD reporter Jim Nichols put it. “Her acquittal ended a two-day trial that the mayor watched his subordinate prosecute start to finish.” (Emphasis mine.)
What message does that send to employees of the City of Cleveland when the mayor sits in judgment of his employees in that manner?
It says don’t cross the boss. It says special treatment should be extended his family members. It says he doesn’t trust his own law department.
Jackson made a bad choice by attending his granddaughter’s trial.
The 18-year old was charged with obstructing the police who, at the time, were arresting her boyfriend.
Mayor Jackson instead should have sent other relatives to support his granddaughter at the trial.
It sent the wrong message to Janesha, too. Whether the police overreacted or not, the lesson she could draw from her grandfather/mayor’s attention isn’t that she should watch her behavior but that she can depend upon him even if she missteps.
Jackson should have allowed justice to apply to her just as it would to any other person. As it was, the jury exonerated Ms. Jackson in less than a half hour, said the article.
Was this decision based on testimony or the mayor’s attendance? That’s a question we don’t and won’t have answered.
Jackson’s repeated comment that “I’m here to support my granddaughter” doesn’t stand the smell test. Congratulations to reporter Nichols for asking about his attendance and pressing the mayor to answer.
Mayor Jackson is not “any grandfather” as implied by his statement. He’s the mayor and everyone at that trial surely knew that, including the jurors and especially the city prosecutor who admitted her discomfort to Nichols and said, “His name is on my paycheck.”
This episode reveals a troubling trait in a man who plays his cards so close to the vest that few seem to know his character. It’s revealing because any hint of how the mayor acts and what he thinks hints of his character and how he might act in other situations.
Jackson’s start as mayor has been rather inauspicious. As one veteran city hall observer when asked about this short tenure intimated, “Where’s the beef?”
At the start of his eight month in office, we still cannot perceive what the promise of a Jackson administration will be. It seems slow on developing a personality.
To be fair, he has said he wants to provide the type of services that Cleveland residents need. The same observer who notes the lack of beef does credit Jackson with his efforts to see that ordinary services are improved.
Further, Cleveland State University’s Ned Hill, professor of urban affairs, said, as reported in the PD, “We can’t say he (Jackson) talks the talk because he doesn’t talk. But he certainly walks the walk. He’s one of the most exciting things I’ve seen in the 21 years I’ve been here.”
I don’t see or feel that excitement. In the same article on fighting poverty, it was noted that Jackson refused comment, relying on a staff e-mail to give some feel the administration. That form of withdrawal from public discussion isn’t beneficial.
Exacerbating that tendency, Mayor Jackson seems to view public records as his private material. His press relations will suffer as they already have. It would surprise me if the Plain Dealer continues to put up with this behavior. The paper has made some editorial censure but it likely will be more forceful as Jackson tries to avoid transparency.
The city at this time also needs some signs of hope and change. That calls for articulation of some theme or design of the Jackson administration.
Thus far, there does not seem to be spark to his administration. It seems to operate in neutral. His chief of staff Ken Silliman – a position that often becomes an important face of the administration – would be described a hard, loyal worker. However, he’s more a second in command type who can carry out orders than the in-charge guy who leads.
These are early warning signals that the Jackson administration needs to get its engines started or it will be a long four years.
PD Causes Stir; Will That Be The End?
The Plain Dealer caused a big stir with publication of two articles on Sunday, July 23. Both pieces questioned the value of major esteemed local economic development groups (mostly non-profits) in the Greater Cleveland area.
What was surprising was a display of six photos of leaders with notations of their salaries accompanying a piece by Henry Gomez, his finale before moving to another business subject. Gomez will write about real estate where he will have the undesirable job of competing with a former colleague, the indefatigable Stan Bullard of Crain’s Cleveland.
Gomez’s piece – seemingly a finale to his time on the tech beat - on the business pages, entitled “High-tech success eludes NE Ohio,” was accompanied by a front-page piece by Becky Gaylord and Sandra Livingston, entitled “Team NEO: Idea works, but not here.”
A double-barreled critique questioned the value of Cleveland’s cherished private institutions aiming at economic revival here.
The articles triggered a flurry of comment on George Nemeth’s Brewed Fresh Daily, a daily web site where things mostly local are often hotly discussed. This debate registered more than 100 comments, the most ever on the site.
At first, I suspected that some inner conflicts within the Corporate Establishment might have triggered the PD’s interest and the critical articles. However, it appears not to be the case.
I say that because in the following week, the Plain Dealer failed to editorialize even once about its own stories. Not even a Cheers & Jeers mention. That is hardly a way to encourage enterprise reporting at the PD. The paper dropped the subject like a hot pan.
In addition, despite the robust debate on Brewed Fresh, I could not find a single letter to the editor in the newspaper that touched upon the subject.
The newspaper ignored its own reporting.
That’s a shame because if anything needs debate here it is the economic condition of this area and region.
These non-public institutions with their high paid leaders (the article used photos of six of them with stats on their 2004 out-of-sight income headlined – “Cleveland’s 1-million BRAINTRUST”) reveal a traditional Cleveland characteristic. Doing things privately.
There’s a high dependence here upon non-profit institutions to do the work of the established forces. Always has been, as far back as I can attest.
In 1967, I and Murray Gruber, then with the CWRU’s School of Applied Social Science, wrote a piece called “Cleveland: Recipe for Violence” in the Nation magazine.
The issues were different than today. There were riots then for the Establishment to control. Now there is long-term, serious economic decline. However, let me quote you a paragraph that I believe has elements that still apply, particularly about the private sector:
“Cleveland had its progressive reform movement too early, at the turn of the century with Mayors Tom L. Johnson and Newton D. Baker. Since then it has depended upon caretaker mayors. Corruption-free government has been more important that planning and problem solving. The private sector – rampant elitism, a powerful welfare industry and well-financed community foundations – has been sanctified, and almost all problems are delegated to committees of private citizens.” (Emphasis added.)
I came to Cleveland in 1965 in part because people I respected back East felt Cleveland had a strong progressive character and that interested me. I found that it was merely image, not reality.
Corporate control - particularly through what I would call “front groups” as the Greater Cleveland Partnership - dominated then and now.
These institutions seem to keep themselves in business with their healthy executive salaries by not solving the problem.
When I read the PD pieces, my thought was, “Did J. D. Rockefeller need a Cleveland non-profit to tell him how to make his billions and create an industry here?”
“Did Bill Gates need Computer Jumpstart to create and nourish Microsoft?”
I also found preposterous that Parker Hannifin needed a Team NEO, one of the non-profits cited as not working well, to find the corporation a place to relocate, as it did to South Carolina. Something else propelled the company to move from here to the South.
Cleveland has been losing big corporate headquarter companies for nearly a half a century. When I came here in 1965, Cleveland proclaimed to be the third city – behind New York and Los Angeles – for Fortune 500 company headquarters.
With the loss of these corporations has gone the decline of the city’s big law firms. The law firms may still reside here but in name only. Their major offices are elsewhere, having followed the corporate migration.
We, however, are still pushing new “front groups.” Two weeks ago the PD business page heralded the hiring of Joe Marinucci, former city economic development director, as head of the Downtown Cleveland Alliance, a relatively new entry in Corporate Cleveland’s concentration on downtown Cleveland. Downtown Cleveland Alliance morphed from the Downtown Cleveland Partnership.
Names for organizations, this community can certainly originate. They proliferate. However, a plan to stave off the economic decline?
We may have to wait another century. One of our non-profit leaders offered us a cure recently. Wind power as a savior, espoused by the highly paid Ronald Richard, the Cleveland Foundation’s $360,000 a year boss. The PD had space for this solution.
My solution for these organizations: Next time when you change your name use SOLUTIONS in the designation as in Greater Cleveland Downtown Solutions. That should keep the high salaries for another decade or two.
From Cool Cleveland contributor Roldo Bartimole roldoATadelphia.net (:divend:)