Healthy honesty

Fort Smith Mayor Ray Baker says the mayor’s job is largely ceremonial, with little to no authority to govern or provide leadership. His opponent, Mr. Sandy Sanders, sees it different, saying a mayor may use the position to encourage those with authority to move the city forward.

A Baker supporter was eager to provide attendees of a Friday (Oct. 22) mayoral forum with a one-page copy of the Arkansas statute outlining a mayor’s role in a city administrator form of government. There was some irony in the eagerness, because the single paper intended to convince readers of Baker’s point of view instead pointed to three areas in which the mayor may impact city government.

First, there is the power of veto the mayor has “over all decisions made by the board except matters relative to city personnel.” Sure, a 5-2 board vote will override the veto, but a mayor with the cult of personality to sway three directors — less than 50% of the board — has serious power.

The law also says the mayor is to “serve as chairman of the board and shall preside at regular and special meetings of the board.” Those who understand the power possible in managing a committee/board agenda, or who have seen Mayor Baker preside over a board meeting or special session know this is not entirely a ceremonial task.

A real surprise of the law — and I admit here embarrassment at not already knowing this detail — is that the mayor “shall be recognized … by the Governor for the purposes of military law.” The odds of martial law being imposed here where life is worth living are certainly low. But it’s not unreasonable to consider that a Fort Smith mayor could one day welcome a Girl Scout troop to the city and the next day be involved in the command of military troops throughout the city.

Baker and Sanders are correct in their respective views. The law clearly prescribes what the mayor is allowed to do under Fort Smith’s city administrator form of government, but it in no way limits the intangible power a popular and/or effective mayor may exert through the politics of personality and persuasion.

This both-men-are-correct belief is not a fence-sitting measure made to appease the two candidates and their supporters. It is a statement recognizing the legitimate philosophical differences of both points, and a statement recognizing that Fort Smith voters in the previous five mayoral elections (20 years) are more comfortable with limited ceremony than an expansion of the mayor’s role.

But the real and unasked question at the Friday mayoral forum was, and is: “Does the mayor’s role in this particular election really matter considering the health of Mayor Baker?”

To be sure, the Friday mayoral forum — which marked the first time the two candidates appeared together to make the case for your vote — made secondary any debates about mayoral law and responsibilities. The more than 100 people who attended the forum — or the thousands who viewed web and television coverage of the event — saw an emaciated Mayor Baker who is clearly not healthy.

It was Baker’s first formal public appearance since Aug. 18, and it came less than 24 hours after being released from St. Edward Mercy where he spent more than a week recovering from an infection. Previously, Baker entered St. Edward Mercy Medical on Aug. 18 with severe dehydration and was released around Sept. 13. He has not attended city board meetings since the Sept. 13 release.

Us reporters aren’t supposed to be sympathetic, guided by superficial reality or let emotion interfere. But Baker’s appearance is sad on the human, heartwrenching level. Forget politics. To hell with politics. I wanted Mayor Baker to go somewhere and be comfortable and not have to face the stress of a candidate forum. There was a moment of collective guilt; that maybe we were all the mean boss who requires employees to come to work no matter how sick they are. I mean, this is a real person facing something more serious than dehydration, infection or voter opinion.

Goodwill requires us to hope that Mayor Baker is indeed recovering from whatever has reduced him to a skeleton lookalike of the energetic and bubbly mayor we knew less than 90 days ago.

But, of course, we can’t forget politics. Nov. 2 will not allow us that luxury.

And so the collective guilt was soon repressed by the thought that citizens deserve to know as much as possible about candidates — ceremonial or otherwise. Which means Mayor Baker, if he truly respects the people of the city he has ceremonially governed during the past 20 years, should come clean about his condition and prognosis. As much as Mayor Baker may want to complete a sixth term or die as Fort Smith’s mayor, the city’s people, history and future are more important than the wishes of an individual.

Mayor Baker has often professed his trust in the citizens to make good choices when presented the facts. Facts about his medical condition should be released if he is to be considered faithful to those past professions. We deserve to know if our votes will continue the term of a ceremonial mayor, or if they will result in a special election for a new mayor.

If citizens aware of his medical reality vote to retain Mayor Baker while knowing a special election is likely, so be it. In fact, that would not necessarily be an unreasonable or unlikely outcome.

In the debate about the appropriate levels of leadership and ceremony, let’s simply note that either preference should require a mayor to be honest with citizens.