Pilot endorses in Norfolk races

I had planned to put up a post predicting the Virginian-Pilot endorsements in next Tuesday’s Norfolk council races but never got around to it. And now it’s too late, because Tuesday’s paper announced the editorial board’s choices.

Let me remind you what the editorial page editor Donald Luzzatto said last fall about the paper’s endorsement policy:

There are no hard or fast rules, but we do proceed from a few premises: We tilt toward incumbents unless they’ve done something bad or been particularly ineffective. Seniority matters, especially in the General Assembly. So does a good mind and seriousness of purpose. We hope that a candidate’s opinions on the major issues match our own, but that’s only one factor among many.

As a corollary, the board has consistently required challengers to answer two questions:

• Why to fire the other guy, and
• Why to hire the challenger

Given the nature of these races and an almost unprecedented number of candidates, the board’s endorsements should surprise few.

For mayor, the board chose to stick with the incumbent Paul Fraim. Not only do we have the incumbency bias here, but also the board doesn’t believe that Fraim’s main opponent, Daun Hester, made the case for firing Fraim.

Based on the board’s premises, I can only think of one or two people in the entire city that have the stature to meet their expectations. One of them I talked to about running for mayor last fall, before Hester got in the race, and was flatly told no – no way, no how.

I agree that, with all that lies ahead, Norfolk needs leadership. I remain unconvinced, though, that Fraim can be an effective leader for all of Norfolk. By the board’s own admission, areas of the city have been neglected during his tenure and openness and transparency in our government are lacking.  Will the board push Fraim to do more for the rest of us? Will the board push him to be more open and transparent about the workings of our government? Will the board scrutinize the appointments to the various boards and commissions to ensure that those appointed are representative of our entire city and not just the same people, recycled from one post to another?

If they are unwilling to do these things, then they did Norfolk voters a disservice by recommending we support the status quo.

Oh – and if the board is going to give Fraim credit for Norfolk’s successes, shouldn’t some of that credit go to Hester, too?  After all, she’s been there and contributed.

~

In the contest for the open seat in Ward 1, the board endorsed Andy Protogyrou. From the sound of it, he impressed them as a Fraim-like candidate. I’ve not had the opportunity to attend as many candidate forums this year as I had in the past; in fact, the only time I’ve seen the Ward 1 candidates was at the Norfolk Federation of Civic Leagues forum.  Others have told me that Chuck Brewer, the retired police officer, has the best grasp of the issues in the ward, a point the board hints at in its endorsement. The argument – city-focused or ward-focused – could be made either way.

~

Where the endorsements got interesting was in Wards 3, 4, and 5. In each case, the board did not endorse the incumbent. It seems that each did “something bad or been particularly ineffective.”

Although they did not endorse one of the three challengers in Ward 3, they refused to endorse incumbent Anthony Burfoot. From the beginning, I had hoped to not see three challengers in this race. Not only does having three dilute the votes, but it also dilutes the resources – people and money. This makes it much more difficult for the challenger to get the firm footing that is needed to wage an aggressive campaign, not to mention impress the editorial board.  Thus, I understand the non-endorsement in this race. Having observed the candidates in this race on two separate occasions, I believe the decision again boils down to a ward-focused candidate – in this case, Mamie Johnson – versus a city-focused one – Bill Mann.

The Pilot editorial board doesn’t much like Ward 4 councilman Paul Riddick. I think they would have endorsed a dead challenger over him.

Saving the best for last, the Pilot editorial board endorsed challenger Tommy Smigiel over Ward 5 incumbent Randy Wright. The board focused on the light rail debacle and charged him with lack of oversight. (Interestingly enough, Fraim admitted in Monday evening’s forum that council had not done enough to oversee the light rail project, so while only Riddick and Wright are on the HRT board, all of council is responsible. Of course, the board could have been thinking of this article from Monday, in which HRT announced no more overseas junkets, like the ones in Rome and Helsinki that Wright and Riddick attended.) I suspect light rail is not the only reason the board rejected Wright, but due to space constraints, limited their comments.

~

There are those who say that newspaper endorsements don’t mean much. Usually the folks saying that are the ones who didn’t get the endorsement. I disagree: as long as the newspaper hits 200,000 households in Southside Hampton Roads every day – and newspaper readers tend to be voters – the opinion of the editorial board matters. I’ve said before that this board isn’t your daddy’s editorial board. I think they proved, once again, that this board, while acknowledging its past, is willing to look to the future.