The mayor used to hang out at the air base golf course where I learned the game. He was a retired USAF colonel who had been commander at the base, and you'd see him sometimes sitting out with the base commander on the patio, sipping gin and tonics. I got to know him because I was a range rat and he was a garrulous sort, which I assumed was a prerequisite for being a small-town mayor.
I wouldn't say we got to be friends, but we played a couple of rounds together--he couldn't hit it out of his shadow, but he had a short game--and was well suited to his job, which he described as mostly staying out of the way while the traffic engineers and other professionals did their work.
He saw his role as largely ceremonial, as being an ambassador for his town, and while I don't know whether or not he was actually good at his job, I don't remember anyone complaining too much about him. He showed up at ball games and ribbon cuttings and collected a modest salary.
The only controversy I remember him generating was when he fired a police officer, who was popular with fellow officers, after a string of excessive force incidents, including one where he beat up a guy who had (legally) turned in front of him at an intersection.
The cop also pointed a .44 magnum at a guy he thought was hitting on his fiancee. While he was suspended for the gun-brandishing incident (there was some discussion about whether he cocked the weapon or not, as though it was important), he was stopped for drag racing a Ford Mustang. He got out of his car and threatened to blow the other driver's windshield out. His fellow officers dragged him away from the Mustang driver, but out of professional courtesy, didn't arrest him.
For the mayor, this was too much. By law, any "[c]onduct of a discourteous or wantonly offensive nature toward the public, any municipal officer or employee; and, any dishonest, disgraceful, or immoral conduct" was grounds for dismissal. So he fired the cop, a decorated officer. It took seven years, but the courts upheld his decision.
My idea of what a mayor should be was colored by this experience; most of the time a mayor can be like a bumbling sit-com dad, friendly, borderline competent and a little corny. And then, once in a while, when a tough decision has to be made, they need to step up and do what's right.
It's not that high a standard, but it requires a little character.
I'm not voting for anyone in the Little Rock's mayor's race. Since the last election, I moved across the river. I've spoken to friends and former neighbors in Little Rock, and a lot of them aren't voting in the race either. At least that's what they've told me--they might change their minds when they actually get in the voting booth. Sometimes you have to hold your nose; if I only voted for candidates I wanted to vote for, I might make it to the polls once or twice a decade.
I've talked to more than a dozen people, some of them pretty solid citizens with real skin in the game, some of them lawyers, and none of them are enthusiastic about their choices. Most of them voted for current mayor Frank Scott Jr. in the run-off the last go-round; they are disappointed in his performance and the lack of transparency in his administration.
The whole LITfest fiasco was ill-conceived (and badly branded--some people confused it with the ongoing Six Bridges Book Festival, though, to be fair, the book festival could and should have hung on to the adjective "literary").
Some people are still seething about the closing of two city golf courses. (A case might be made for converting War Memorial to a multi-use park, but closing Hindman Park took away a resource from an underserved community. Plus it was a pretty good track.)
Mostly they feel that Scott is less interested in being mayor than in raising his national political profile. He's just not that invested in fixing potholes. And he's disliked by the police, which may be one reason why you never see them downtown anymore.
Many are also reluctant to vote for Steve Landers, who, to be nice about it, strikes them as an amiable amateur given to Trumpian hyperbole and over-simplification. Most of them believe Landers will rely on Baker Kurrus, the man Scott defeated in the last mayoral election, as his actual policy producer.
Steve will do the baby-kissing and read statements on TV while Kurrus will handle the work. Some of them feel reassured by this, but others worry about Kurrus' motivations; a couple of folks offered that they hope Kurrus isn't motivated "purely by revenge."
I don't imagine he is, but if there is some arrangement between Kurrus and Landers, it would be an almost diabolical example of realpolitik. The Heights and Hillcrest folks could nudge, nudge, wink, wink and feel smug in their knowledge of insider baseball while the great unwashed who don't read this column could vote for the guy in the funny TV commercials.
On the flip side, I've also heard whispers to the effect that Kurrus' endorsement of Landers--a millionaire car dealer everyone assumes is at heart Republican--is a way to give "white liberals" permission to vote against Scott. White liberals are just as racist as other white folks, the reasoning goes.
There are alternatives. Almost everyone I talked to acknowledged that excellent food blogger Greg "Little Rock Eats" Henderson is an intelligent, good guy who doesn't have a chance to win (though if everyone who thinks he's the best choice voted for him, he'd probably win in a landslide).
And perennial candidate and marijuana advocate Glenn Schwarz--who I find delightful--is another colorful specimen in the grand tradition of unelectable political gadflies. (Which is not to say that Schwarz has not won some political battles; it took more than 30 years, but recreational marijuana legalization is on this year's ballots. All those years of collecting signatures paid off.)
It feels a lot different than it did three years ago, when we thought we had a surfeit of talent vying for the office with Scott, Kurrus and Warwick Sabin in the race.
Because we are the way we are, Scott may still be the odds-on favorite, because his core constituency isn't going anywhere. Landers will get a lot of votes because of his name recognition and the public perception of him as a fun guy. (He also sells a lot of cars, but not every customer is satisfied.) Henderson will peel away at least some of Landers' votes, but not many from Scott. Schwarz will--as John Brummett has observed--enjoy himself.
And I will pop some popcorn.
pmartin@adgnewsroom.com