Most of the strife centers around the firing of RP&L General Manager Steve Saum; the short version is that the Board of Directors unexpectedly removed Saum from his position after a negative performance review, and Saum along with others are concerned that he wasn’t given due process.  After the story hit the media, there’s been additional concern about the way the RP&L Board has (or has not) communicated the reasoning behind their decision and what it means for the future of the utility.  There’s a story in today’s Palladium-Item with some new revelations about the proceedings.

Few are in any good position to pass judgment on these matters.  In my limited interactions with Steve Saum I’ve always found him to be a person of good intent and competence in his leadership.  I also know most of members of the RP&L Board well enough to say they are people of good intent and great care for the future of RP&L and the City.  (Full disclosure: I ran unsuccessfully for election to the RP&L Board last year.)  And no matter what you think of any of their actions or decisions, it’s just a painful and messy thing when matters of someone’s employment and livelihood (or managerial methods) become a topic of public conversation.

But even with the limited facts available about this series of events, it seems there are some missed opportunities to reflect on moving forward:

First, if an employer thinks an employee is performing poorly, the annual performance review is not when they should find out about it. That this apparently happened in this case is the sign of a broken review process.  If indeed Mr. Saum had gone from performing “commendably” as his last review indicated to “unsatisfactory” and not serving the needs of RP&L, or even if he was just rubbing members of the RP&L Board the wrong way, as his supervisors they had an ongoing responsibility to communicate that clearly at the first sign of a problem that might even remotely lead to his termination. “Here’s our concern, here’s why this is a problem, here’s what we want you to do about it, here’s when we’ll check in again.”  If the board members were getting employee calls about Mr. Saum’s managerial decisions, they had a responsibility to include him in a constructive conversation about how to address those employee concerns well before they were used as evidence of his own poor performance.   Yes, there are some kinds of incompetence or insubordination that might necessitate fast, decisive action, but there’s been no indication by any of the RP&L Board members that Mr. Saum’s failings were so serious as to immediately endanger the future of the utility.

Second, in any given employment conversation, if the boss or supervisor is an elected official, the rules of the game change.  The same is true if the employee is in a leadership position of some prominence or public scrutiny, such as the head of a public utility.  Put those two together in the context of any kind of disagreement, and you have a recipe for an uncomfortable situation at the very best.  We should wonder whether it makes sense for elected members of the RP&L Board to be conducting performance reviews of the RP&L GM.  Are they in the best position to know how well the GM has performed?  Is there too much of a power imbalance for it to be a collegial, respectful conversation when disagreement occurs?  Or will the pressures of public scrutiny always mean that these review conversations are a power struggle instead of an opportunity for true professional development?

Third, an employer has a unique burden to bear if they’re going to give someone a negative performance review without firing them on the spot.  If you’ve just told someone they aren’t doing well enough at their job and then asked them to get back to work, this can put them in a pretty difficult position for figuring out what to do next.  It’s important to provide some clear next steps, especially when what happens next affects a lot of other employees, not to mention RP&L’s in-progress projects and customers.  That someone is frustrated about a negative performance review is not in itself a cause for their termination.  That they ask hard questions about the processes and information used to create that review is not a cause for termination.  Of course someone is going to be defensive if you’ve just told them they suck at their job. Of course someone might want to take some drastic actions to try to get on a more solid footing.  But if a supervisor and employee can’t have an honest  and open – even if tense – conversation about their different perspectives on how that employee is performing with a focus on how best to move forward, then the review process itself is probably a waste of time.

Why does any of this really matter to the rest of us?  Isn’t this just between RP&L and Steve Saum?

If there was some sense that this was an exceptional case of miscommunication or poor HR practices, I might not bother to blog about it.  But I hear too many stories in our community of employers and employees missing opportunities for more humane and constructive conversations around areas of conflict or disagreement.  The Really Cool Foods closing in November represents some of the worst of this: having employees show up to work only to be blocked at the gate as their employer announces going out of business that day.

The RP&L Board’s treatment of Mr. Saum is different, but no less a setback in any efforts to find a model of “doing business” that honors complexity of differing interests and needs, human dignity and effective conflict resolution. I don’t claim to be any expert at this, and as an employer myself who’s had to struggle with these issues, I know I still have much to learn.  As with every such case, it seems worthwhile to try to learn some lessons that will help us know how to do it better the next time around.

In the meantime, let us hope for some kind of clarity and closure for Mr. Saum and for members of the RP&L Board.

I won’t be able to attend, but as an employer of some younger professionals who gets to hear some of their concerns and struggles “engaging” in life in Richmond, and as someone who has spent my own young professional life in Richmond, I want to offer a few initial ideas about how to help connect and mobilize that demographic.  (This is in addition to the ideas already being submitted and discussed at RichmondBrainstorm.com.)  My hope is that others will add to the list over time:

1. Expand the traditional definition of a young professional.
   Sometimes efforts to engage young professionals are focused on people who work in offices and stare at computers or paperwork all day (e.g. people like me).  What about professional artists, professional carpenters, professional mechanics – how can we engage them too?  I think that by including others with different backgrounds, skills and experiences of the professional world, we bring diversity and creativity that will benefit the larger goals of a YP group.
2. Don’t tie community involvement to the ability to the attend specific events.
   Some young professionals have time to attend networking events, outings, and community service days, but some don’t.  In addition to scheduling specific events, create flexible opportunities for engagement that can be done at any time of the day.
3. Welcome newly interested YPs in a special way.
   It can be intimidating for someone to show up at “the monthly young professionals event” if you’re not sure what to expect, who you’ll know, etc.  When someone expresses interest in getting involved, issue a personal invitation to them and a few others for a smaller gathering – lunch, coffee, drinks – and get to know their interests and background.  Then it will be much easier to introduce them to other YPs who they can connect with, and will make their experience of their first larger gathering more personal.
4. Promote “unknown” YPs to serve on community boards.
   Often the boards of directors for local organizations are interested in incorporating perspectives of YPs, but are only really aware of YPs who have made a name for themselves by being well-connected, long-time residents or unusually active.  This is the safe approach, but what about asking relatively “unknown” YPs to join boards or at least serve on committees, so that organizations are benefiting from fresh perspectives and new skill sets in addition to folks who are already a core part of the community?
5. Create social gatherings that don’t require everyone to be “on.”
   Young professionals may be good at networking, but that doesn’t mean they want to be in professional networking mode all the time.  Opportunities to visit with other YPs and build some shared social/cultural experiences (watching the game, bowling, hiking, canoeing, visiting the museum, etc.) without the pressure of presenting your best professional self can sometimes yield more meaningful and engaging encounters than events designed around traditional professional contact.
6. Let advocacy and involvement be initiated by YPs, not organizations who want to benefit from YPs.
   Once there’s a critical mass of young professionals engaged and getting together, organizations around town will start to notice and say to themselves, “hey, we should include The YP Group on X” or “we should ask The YPs to help us with Y.”  Saying yes to this can be good, but it means that the issues and activities YPs engage in are driven externally instead of internally.  Poll the YP group regularly to see what kinds of issues and activities they want to participate in and spend time on, and then make contact with organizations that could help make that happen.
7. Promote dense population centers with walkable, bike-able opportunities for entertainment.
   Cities with thriving YP populations tend to have thriving cultural centers too, where someone can either live in the heart of it or easily make their way there, surrounding themselves with other people and plenty of opportunities to wander in and out of retail stores, restaurants and entertainment venues.  By discouraging sprawl while focusing on the Center City and Depot District areas for residential and commercial use alike, we have a better chance of creating areas where YPs can feel at home.

Those are some of my ideas for helping young professionals engage in Richmond, Indiana.  What’s on your list?

1. Build stuff people want, offer products and services people want to buy
2. Attract and retain quality talent
3. Raise capital to get fledgling ideas to the point of sustainability, create a density of “investors”
4. Create a world class culture that encourages people to stick around even when times get tough

These may not be comprehensive factors, but they could be useful metrics to view your city with.

If I had to rate my own city of Richmond, Indiana, I’d say we have plenty of room to grow in each area:

1. We have a lot of great infrastructure and a variety of desirable products/services but we’re pretty scattered on how to sell them in the global marketplace
2. We think we know a lot about what kind of talent we’re looking for, but there’s often a disconnect between that knowledge and our level of investment in actual attraction efforts
3. We don’t always make efficient use of the limited capital that’s available to us, but we have a lot of generous and heavily invested people living here
4. We’re often short-sighted when it comes to building an attractive culture, but there are pockets of people who see the big picture and are working for change

How does your city do when you look at it as a start-up company?

Perhaps the most striking point for me in Bischke’s piece is the question of leadership.  He says we need more than just strong or experienced leaders, we need people who can think like entrepreneurs:

As we roll into an election year, many cities are in a state of crisis. Budgets are a mess and job growth has been minimal for a good swath of the country. Cities in need don’t just need strong leadership, they require transformational leadership. It’s no easy feat but it’s likely that the more that mayors view their cities through an entrepreneurial lens, the better they will be able to adapt to a rapidly-changing world.

Almost any city across the country could adopt the slogan “Adapt or Die” and it wouldn’t be an understatement of the predicament they’re in and the approach needed to get out of it.  Many traditional businesses are in the same boat.  The businesses/cities that will not only just survive but flourish are the ones willing to use non-traditional methods to make ground-shaking changes in the way they operate.

Earlier today I attended the Indiana University 2012 Business Outlook Panel in its visit to Richmond.  It’s a group that “has presented national, state, and local economic forecasts for the coming year to business, political, and community leaders of Indiana” for the last 38 years.  I attended the same gathering back in 2005 and I have to say that today’s commentary wasn’t much different from what it was six years ago: “things are not great with the economy, but there are reasons to be cautiously optimistic.”

As I noted in my reflections from the 2005 event, there were a couple of troubling ideas that permeated the remarks, especially from the panelists looking at global and national trends.

The main one that I continue to struggle with is the idea that we just have to wait for the global economy to improve and drive things to get better at the national, state and local level.  In defending the power of globalism, one of the panelists even outright made fun of the idea of building a regionally self-reliant economy.

A more regional approach to economic development – instead of depending on the importation of resources from around the world – is exactly the approach that many others (myself included) are saying is key for communities like Richmond to surviving the increasingly intense effects of rising fuel prices, the falling value of the dollar and the destruction of the natural environment.  While I appreciate that there’s hope in what a thriving global economy might mean for midwestern cities, I’m not sure it’s reasonable to ask the people without jobs or credit or homes or disposable income to keep waiting it out, just another year or two.

Despite the inclusion of this troubling premise, the event was still interesting and perspective-bringing; some other tidbits shared by the panel:

• Political dysfunction at the national level is clearly eroding confidence in the ability of policy-makers (Congress and the President) to have any real effect on the economy
• To make sure we can survive through any kind of economic recovery, we have to address the Eurozone economic situation, stop implementing short-term, ineffective fixes domestically and start solving problems for the long term, open and evolve our financial system (“Federal reserve monetary policy currently penalizes people who save instead of rewarding them”), and pay attention to China’s emerging consumer culture.
• Despite the down economy, corporate earnings are up 11% and are expected to improve
• We have to do better at answering the question “what should investors do with their money?”  The market is too volatile, savings accounts don’t offer a return, and if we don’t have some good options, people will seek dangerous ways to get a higher rate of return (e.g. lending money to home-buyers who can’t actually afford it).
• Indiana has been hit harder than most states, using a quarter of a million jobs from 2007 to 2009.  Those jobs mostly aren’t coming back, in part because they’ve been lost from organizations that are more efficient and don’t need them any more.
• Private education and healthcare services are the two industries that are doing well in Indiana, with 36,000 jobs added in the last year.  The government sector has recently done well too as the result of stimulus fund application (there were 450,000 government jobs in Indiana as of May 2010) but that’s expected to level off or decline as those funds dry up.
• Housing sales in Indiana are down 3% and the average price of homes for sale are up 1% – not a good economic trend, and new housing construction has slowed significantly.

I also learned a new economic term that is very timely for my own hiring attempts at Summersault.  One of the event attendees asked the panel how they reconcile the issue of companies and organizations investing in lots of infrastructure and equipment to expand but then not being able to find qualified workers to fill those jobs.  The term for this is “structural unemployment” where there’s a mismatch between demand in the labor market and the skills and locations of the workers seeking employment.  Richmond is experiencing a form of this now, where we (including my company) have positions that are open but our workforce doesn’t always have the training or skills to fill them.  The panel didn’t offer any particular solution to this phenomenon, but the implication was that it is among our most serious challenges to solve.

Thanks to Indiana University East for sponsoring this event and to Reid Hospital for hosting it.  I hope it generates some useful conversation.

Some highlights from the unofficial results [PDF]:

• 5,945 voters voted
• 2,717 of those voted for me to be one of the three members of City Council At-Large, 201 votes short of a win

This has been my first foray into politics, and it’s been an incredibly rewarding journey. As I’ve walked through neighborhoods in Richmond, I’ve had a chance to hear from residents here what issues matter most to them. As I’ve sat down with community leaders and decision-makers, I’ve learned about the complexities of building a thriving city in tough economic times. As I’ve talked with supporters and members of the media, I’ve enjoyed being challenged to communicate my hopes and views concisely and authentically. In these last nine plus months I’ve come to appreciate how much important work there is to do in this great town, and how many opportunities we have to make it better.

I congratulate the winners of today’s election, and wish them the very best as they take office or continue in their existing roles. I ask each of them to stay true to the promises they’ve made during this election, and to hold themselves accountable to the ideas and vision that they set forth in their campaigns.

My campaign would not have been possible without the gracious support and enthusiasm of those who have lent their time and talents in many forms:

Thank you to everyone who has approached me over the last few years to encourage me to run for office.

Thank you to everyone who put a yard sign up or passed out brochures and door hangers to your friends and neighbors. I know that for many of you, this was the first time you have publicly endorsed a political candidate of any sort, and I’m honored by that.

Thank you to everyone who gave financial support to my campaign. Your donations helped get the word out in tangible, effective ways.

Thank you to my fellow candidates for putting yourselves out there for public scrutiny in the name of service to this community. Your time and effort has benefited Richmond.

I especially appreciate the ways in which fellow candidate Mike Bennett and I were able to partner around our shared messages, and the care and optimism with which he’s conducted himself throughout this campaign.

Thank you to the Palladium-Item and WCTV for creating multiple venues and resources for voters to learn in-depth about the candidates, and to other media outlets like WHON and RadioTroy.com for covering the election through candidate interviews.

Thank you to the Chamber of Commerce, the Human Rights Commission, the Center City Development Corporation and the Student Initiative for Equality and Justice for sponsoring various debates and forums.

Thank you to the many government officials and past candidates who helped me navigate the rules and customs of local elections.

Thank you to my friends and coworkers who have endured my unusual schedule and slightly scattered demeanor over this past year.

Thank you to my family members who have cheered me on from a distance.

Thanks to other individuals who have made special contributions of their time and talents: Emily Palmer; Roland Kreager; Cindi Goslee; Brett Stewart; Aaron Nell; Welling Hall; Justin O’Brien; my mom, Cynthia Hardie; Katy Elmore, Darren Palmer, Mark Stosberg; Matt Richter; Mayor Sally Hutton; Councilwoman Kelley Cruse-Nicholson; Sue Roberson.

A very special thank you goes to my wife Kelly. Over the last year we’ve had some amazing adventures together, some planned and some not, some wonderful and some difficult, and throughout she’s been a steady and encouraging presence that was essential to my own energy and passion for this race. As in the primary, Kelly challenged me to be the best candidate I could be while supporting and loving me all the way.

Even though I won’t be serving as a member of City Council, I’m committed to remaining an active participant in the work of making Richmond a better place, and I’m excited for the conversations and work that will continue in the coming months and years.  Stay tuned to this website for a forthcoming announcement about ways you can be a part of that.

I want to be careful to say that I don’t write about this trend in this space with any promise or implication that my election or anyone else’s could prevent individual crimes or save lives.  We know that no elected official and not even the best trained and funded police forces can prevent individual violent crimes when there are so many other background factors that go into these horrific events.

But I think our reaction to this trend as a community will speak greatly about our future prospects for building a version of Richmond that is safe, vibrant and thriving.

If we follow initial temptations to drift toward finger-pointing, increasing fear, vigilante justice and further isolation from each other as a solution, we risk unhelpfully turning against each other as members of an inter-dependent community.  In tough economic times, it is precisely because of increasing fear and isolation that the most troubled and under-served individuals in our society turn to more and more desperate and dangerous actions to survive.

People talk often about wanting smaller government and more individual freedoms, but a city with those qualities is also a city made up of people who know how to work together despite differences, to care for those among us who are at risk or in need, and to engage in our shared responsibilities around building relationships and resolving conflict, instead of abdicating that responsibility to centralized authority figures or resorting to violence.

So, how does a community address this particular kind of troubling trend? Is it about community policing and neighborhood watches and more funding for law enforcement? Maybe.

But could it also involve more interpersonal accountability, healthier families and neighborhoods, cultural shifts away from inherent fear of those who do not look or act like we do, examining the media messages we consume and what they encourage about problem-solving, better education of our children, and new models for how individuals can be valued, have self-worth and make a living? I think so.

City Council and city government has a role to play in that, but so do we all. It’s an intricate puzzle and no one elected official, election or legislative decision is going to affect our violent crime rate overnight. But if we step back from a fear-based response and look at the big picture, we can as a community decide to make changes that begin to address this and all of the interrelated issues we face.

That conversation has resulted in the creation of “A Pledge to Voters” – a promise that myself and several other candidates – including Libertarian candidate Matt Hisrich and Republican candidate Misty Hollis – are making as a way of indicating our commitment to honesty, diligence, transparency and respect. We might hope that these values are a given for our elected officials, but in today’s political climate I think it’s important to reaffirm our commitment to them, especially as we ask for the public trust in return.

The full text of the pledge is below.  I thank Matt and Misty for their commitments today, and I would encourage all of my fellow candidates for Council to sign on to this pledge, even at this late stage of the campaign, to show their commitment to these values if they are elected or re-elected.

A Pledge to Voters

Honesty

Both in the campaign and in office, we will strive to truthfully explain our positions and actions in clear and straightforward language. As part of this effort we will neither over- or undersell the capabilities and limitations of our offices to bring about change in the community.

Diligence

We recognize that a vote for any one of us represents a trust placed in the candidate to fulfill the duties of the Common Council office. This trust will not be taken lightly, but instead will be met with a strong commitment of time, energy, and effort to best represent and carry out the wishes of voters. This diligence includes a pledge to work toward delivering the highest quality of service to local residents at the least cost and therefore a full examination of budgeting priorities and solutions.

Transparency and Public Input

In addition to discussion of matters on the agenda at Committee of the Whole meetings of the Council, we will actively seek input from Richmond citizens through engagement with the media, online social networking, public meetings, and one-on-one conversations. The feedback we receive will be taken seriously and inform our actions as representatives.

Mutual Respect Among Elected Officials

We recognize that any elected official, regardless of party affiliation, has been put into office by citizens desiring that official to represent their views. As such, we will conduct our business with the understanding that all voices on the Council merit respect and deserve our attention and consideration.

At each event, as a candidate I’ve tried to balance a series of (sometimes competing) goals for my participation, including:

• Authentically presenting my true self to the audience while also trying to make a good impression
• Speak clearly and intelligently about those issues, getting specific whenever possible, in a very limited amount of time (“you have two minutes to lay out an economic development strategy for the next four years – GO!”)
• Highlighting substantive differences in approach and perspective between myself and my fellow candidates, without engaging in any personal attacks or petty remarks
• Actually answering the questions being posed while also tying them into the bigger picture and what might be meaningful to voters
• Being humble and gracious in my comments while also showing that I’m someone who will stand up for what’s equitable and just
• Making use of the time given to speak without dominating the conversation
• Showing respect and appreciation for all points of view while calling out problematic logic or misleading statements

As you can guess, doing all these things well and at the same time is quite an endeavor!  It’s one that I generally enjoy, but it also consumes a lot of energy and is quite a vulnerable experience.  My hope is that the end result is meaningful to voters.

I think there’s also value in previewing how a would-be officeholder might handle the debates, discussions and conversations that they would engage in once elected.  Do they actually get to the heart of the matter, or do they engage in pandering and circuitous logic?  Do they stay focused on specific positive outcomes, or do they keep coming back to what they’re against and who to blame?  Are they willing to listen carefully and change their minds along the way, or are they intent on showing everyone how right they are?

These qualities will directly impact the ability of (in my case) the City Council to get work done and move the community forward.  I’ve appreciated those who have told me that when they’ve watched the debates I’ve been a part of with these kinds of questions in mind, they’ve seen even more notable differences between candidates than even the answers to the debate questions might reveal.

Of course, not everyone watches debates that way.  For some people, it’s about who “wins” or who comes across as the strongest, most powerful presence.  I certainly understand that for the organizations hosting the debates, it can be more interesting to produce an event where some sparks fly and the tension rises.  That’s okay – I’ve said all along that we have to be careful not to be too polite to each other when the future of the City is at stake, but we also have to make sure we don’t turn the conversation into a shouting match, as some of the Presidential debates happening right now seem to have become.  It’s hard to talk credibly about collaboration and inclusive leadership when you’re also brandishing a knife.

I appreciate all the groups who have made the unusual number of local debates and conversations possible and accessible in this election: the Chamber of Commerce, the Palladium-Item, WCTV, the Human Rights Commission and the Student Initiative for Equality and Justice, Center City Development Corporation, Friends Fellowship Community, RadioTroy.com, WHON, and others.  Thank you!

I feel confident that in my own campaign I’ve provided a thorough look at how I would approach my role as a member of City Council.  I’ve posted a consolidated list of my views on a number of issues facing the community, I’ve continued to post updates and more thorough commentary on the topics that have emerged in this election, and part of my history in this community as a volunteer is some extensive writings on my personal website about Richmond and our approach to governance and community building.

Still, I thought it would be helpful to the paper’s readers and others if I could distill many of these ideas and proposals into a shorter and more easily digestible document.  So today I’m releasing “A Plan for Richmond, Indiana” – a brief PDF document that describes 21 specific, concrete tasks I will take on if I’m elected to City Council.  The tasks span across areas of improving Council’s operations and transparency, economic development, partnerships in the community, and improving our self-reliance as a City.  As I say in the document, it doesn’t even begin to cover all the great ideas out there for ways that we can improve Richmond or all of the tasks I want to take on, but we have to start somewhere.

It’s a challenging request to ask non-incumbent candidates for local office to provide detailed plans and strategy when they’ve not had the benefit of being in the role and putting in the significant time that is required to do that planning right.  But I hope that as a part of what’s now been essentially a 10 month long job interview, “A Plan for Richmond, Indiana” shows that I’m ready to start making City Council work better for the people of Richmond on day one.

The plan document will certainly be an evolving one; I welcome your feedback and suggestions.

We were asked about education, access to affordable housing, how to pay for proposed improvements in City government, the local Latino population, the community’s relationship with its workers, what we can do to keep more college graduates here, whether Council members should be injecting themselves into private business decisions, and more.

But I think the one question that was probably most  piercing for all of us was from Toivo Asheeke, who asked what we as Council members would do to restore a sense of hope and empowerment to people who live in Richmond.  It’s a huge, important, emotional question, and as Toivo was quoted as saying in today’s Palladium-Item, our answers as candidates were indeed “insufficient.”

As candidates running for one seat on a 9-seat local legislative body in a small city in the Midwestern U.S., it might be tempting to shrug off the call to play a role in restoring hope and empowerment in our citizens.  And politicians should rightly be careful to make promises they can’t keep – if you believed the statements that sometimes came out of President Obama’s election campaign, for example, as soon as he was sworn in there was going to be so much hope and empowerment flowing in the streets we’d choke on it; how’s that working out for us?

But I do think restoring hope and a sense of empowerment is something City Council can impact here in Richmond, and that’s what I said last night:

On the matter of hope, I said that we’re living in a world where hope is hard to come by globally, as economies decline, fuel prices rise and the gap between rich and poor grows larger, so it makes sense that the tension and uncertainty in the air is here in Richmond too.  But I think that every community has an opportunity to redefine what makes it hopeful.  We can shift from a culture that suggests you find hope in wealth, cool products/gadgets/clothes and defining yourself as a consumer to a culture that finds hope in the relationships we build with our neighbors and families, the way we treat other people, the way we care for those in need.  If we can show that hope exists in our humanity and in people instead of in economic indicators, I think we can model a life that our community members – especially young people – will find more hope in.

On the matter of empowerment, I agreed with Toivo that this is an area that City Council has done a disservice to the community, especially around the matter of the defunding of the Human Rights Commission.   As I said last night, you can argue the point of whether or not we need a government-funded HRC – that’s fine – but it should have been a two-way conversation that reflected a serious engagement by Council members with the perspectives and viewpoints brought by members of this Community.  Instead, it was a one-way conversation, with most members of Council agreeing outside of public meetings how they would vote and then not responding to the many concerns, questions and pleas for dialog that came from their constituents.  There are few things more disempowering than to feel like the elected officials who represent you at a local level – where the impact is felt most directly – are not listening, not willing to talk through the nuances of an issue, in some cases not even willing to respond.

That has to change.  If we want voters to care about an election, that has to change.  If we want our young people to feel more engaged with the civic life of Richmond, that has to change.  And if we want to build a version of Richmond that actually reflects the hopes and needs of its residents, that has to change.

I really appreciated Toivo’s question, challenging as it was.  My particular hope today is that voters here continue to push candidates for office with such thoughtful and relevant questions.  It’s good for us, and it’s definitely good for Richmond.