In Studio: Leroy Brooks and Stephen Jones

Got a question or a tip? Send us a text

First, Zack and David dissect "an exercise in the absurd" as they recount the previous night's Democratic forum where Ward 5 Councilman Stephen Jones and County Supervisor Leroy Brooks spent more time trading barbs than discussing policy. The duo analyzes how these political heavyweights overshadowed other candidates while turning what should have been a substantive debate into what one audience member aptly described as "a comic strip."

Then, both Democrat mayoral candidates join us in studio for a heated discussion that reveals fundamental differences in their visions for Columbus. Brooks leverages his 41 years of experience and methodical approach, while Jones defends his council record and immediate action plans. Tensions flare as they debate city leadership structure, financial management, and the racial dynamics underlying Columbus politics.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
From the opinion page of the Commercial Dispatch.
This is Between the Headlines.

Speaker 3 (00:13):
This is Peter Imes, publisher of the Dispatch.
One of our hosts of Between theHeadlines is the managing
editor of our newsroom.
Typically, we try to keep newsand opinion separate, but
reporters have a unique insightinto the workings of local
government and their analysiscan be helpful for readers and
listeners.
The Dispatch remains committedto journalistic integrity and

(00:36):
our reporting will alwaysreflect that.
And now Between the Headlines.

Speaker 4 (00:43):
This week on Between the Headlines.
This week on Between theHeadlines, the citizens of
Columbus gather for the bombastknown as the Democrat debate,
and we got winners, we gotlosers.

(01:06):
Zach and I will break that downtoday, and also we'll talk a
little bit about theamphitheater.
And we've got in the studiotoday none other than Leroy and
Stephen at each other.
We break it down.
But first a word from oursponsors.
Retirement looks different foreveryone, so your plan should be

(01:28):
built around you.
For over 40 years, financialConcepts has helped people
create retirement strategiesthat fit their lives.
Our team in Columbus takes thetime to understand your goals
and build a plan that works foryou.
Wherever you are in yourjourney, we're ready to help.
We plan retirement.
Financial Concepts is aregistered investment advisor.

(01:49):
Do you need help achieving theright?
Look in your house At Lighting,unlimited and Uncommon Living.
You'll find quality, uniquepieces that will elevate your
home instantly.
Great furniture and lightingnot only reflect a style, they
also define a home.
With lighting, unlimited anduncommon living.
You can expect more.

(02:10):
Visit them at 1116 GardnerBoulevard or online at
lighting-columbuscom.
Benton's Maintenance andMechanical makes easy work out
of plumbing, electrical, heatingand air conditioner problems.
You can book an appointment byphone or online and rest assured
they will show up at theappointed time.
Call Benton's at 662-657-2583or visit them online at

(02:36):
bentonsinccom.
That is bentonsinccom.
And now a message frompolitical candidate Bill Strauss
.

Speaker 2 (02:45):
I want to thank the Commercial Dispatch for this
podcast, bringing differentviews in an open discussion.
I'm Bill Strauss, humbly askingfor your vote as next mayor of
Columbus.
You deserve transparency andaccountability for your tax
dollars.
I'm business friendly andcharitable.
Vote Bill Strauss Mayor ofColumbus 2025.
Paid for by campaign to electBill Strauss.

Speaker 4 (03:09):
And now a message from political candidate Jason
Spears.

Speaker 5 (03:13):
I am Jason Spears, candidate for City Council, Ward
6.
Over the past 20 years, Ifaithfully and effectively
served our community in manydifferent ways.
If elected, I will bringstructure and strategy to the
city's finances, help develop ablueprint to capitalize on the
growing economic activity in ourcity and work to strengthen
relationships with LowndesCounty officials, the Golden
Triangle Development Link and,most importantly, you, the

(03:34):
citizens of Columbus.
I approve this message and, onApril 1st, vote Jason Spears for
Ward 6, paid for by thecampaign to elect Jason Spears.

Speaker 4 (03:43):
All right.
So, zach, last night I went tothis event that was advertised
to me as the Democrat Forum andmost of the Democrat candidates
for council were there, as wellas Stephen Jones and Leroy
Brooks, and I got in there.
The candidates were in themiddle, but to the left was Mr

(04:06):
Leroy, to the right was StephenJones, and it was.
It was just a peculiar setup.
And these well-meaning wardcouncilman candidates,
councilwomen, they, theyintroduced themselves, they
introduced themselves, they gavea piece of their heart and I
felt like I got to know them.
But the whole dadgum time Ifelt like they were overshadowed

(04:30):
by these two behemoth gentlemenjust dominating the
conversation left and right, andso I just I left the meeting
not knowing precisely what Iattended.

Speaker 1 (04:42):
Well, that's pretty much what I got.
First of all, I don't think theCVB is going to want to use
clips from that forum in any ofits Catch you in Columbus
advertising campaign.

Speaker 4 (04:51):
No.

Speaker 1 (04:52):
And you know it was an exercise in the absurd.
It was absolutely entertainingat times and it was like a
comedy sketch show about acandidate forum, more than a
candidate forum itself at times.
And I'm going to tell you and Icould see it on the looks on
the council candidates faces whowere sitting between Leroy and

(05:12):
Stephen, as they were justlobbing bombs at each other from
the podium, it looked like theyshowed up unwittingly at an
intervention for Leroy andStephen and it wasn't going well
.
That's what it looked like.

Speaker 4 (05:26):
Definitely a problem in the sense that a lot of the
meat of the issues, a lot of thecontent, just got lost in the
back and forth and it wasdiscussed.

Speaker 1 (05:34):
All these barbs, the content was discussed and I want
to start there, david, with themayoral side here.
I don't think you know, lastnight I don't think either
candidate helped himself much.
First of all, I think Stephenstarted off pretty strong, if
you remember.
I mean, he starts off, he comesright at them with the you know

(05:58):
.
Thanks for inviting me properlyto this debate, unlike the
party proper to the debate Ididn't show up to.

Speaker 4 (06:05):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (06:05):
So he does that.
But then he goes right afterLeroy talking about.
Leroy has said several timeshe's got a seat at the table
with the link, he's got a seatat the table with all the good
tables.
Stephen attacks that and saysif that's been true, and that's
been true for all this time, howcome Columbus isn't reaping the
benefits of it?
That gets hoops, hollers,cheers.

(06:26):
These are Stevens people, thisis Stevens crowd.
He's holding them in his hand.
You can see it by the demeanorsof the two candidates.
You can see it in thefrustration that Leroy had Even
walking up to the mic.
You could see it in the swaggerthat Stevens started to embody
straight away.
Yes, you could see all of that.
But then he blows a goldenopportunity to really

(06:54):
differentiate himself positivelyfrom Leroy.
Because you've got Leroyfrustrated, you've got him mad
and he sort of goes into thisback and forth with Steven where
they're attacking each other,Passive, aggressively.

Speaker 4 (07:07):
Passive, aggressively , I would add, and sometimes
active aggressive.

Speaker 1 (07:10):
Yeah, yeah, Sometimes , Sometimes active, aggressively
.
So you've got this goldenopportunity for Stephen to seize
on.
You know, Leroy now is into hisego.
Leroy is attacking back andLeroy acknowledges in the middle
of this forum in one of hisanswers I'm not going to do that
anymore.
At the same time, he has gotteninto his ego at this point and

(07:34):
he is still presenting himselfas I am the Lord thy Leroy.
You know, I birthed Columbus asa virgin myself and laid it in
a manger.
And you need to remember that.
And so he was still in that modeand Stephen couldn't quit
hitting low.
Stephen couldn't quit hittinglow and it culminated in one of

(07:56):
the most epic what the kids callself-owns that I have ever seen
in a political debate in apublic meeting which goes to my
favorite part.
It's the very last question.
It's about retail.
Leroy answers first, which wasa different problem throughout

(08:17):
the night, but Leroy answersfirst.
They ask him about retail.
He says you know, retail's hard.
It's not going to be asituation with shopping online
the prevalence of that.
It's not going to be asituation with shopping online,
the prevalence of that.
It's not going to be asituation where companies are
going to be lining up down thehighway trying to come in.
However, that doesn't mean wecan't recruit it.
I'm going to go to where theyare.

(08:37):
I'm going to go to theconferences.
I'm going to go to where theyare.
I'm going to get them toexplain to me why not Columbus
and I'm going to be yourambassador.
I'm going to get them toexplain to me why not Columbus
and I'm going to be yourambassador.
And he comes out in front ofthe podium and he says and I'm
even don't you think I'm dressedfor the part, which I thought
was nice, you know nice flair.
And then he says and when I getin those audiences I'm going to
know what to say, I'm not goingto stumble and mumble my way

(09:00):
through it.
Then he goes on and finisheshis point.
It's very important to note herethat he has not made a direct
connection to Stephen at anypoint in this answer, including
the stumbling and mumbling.
Now you can infer what you wantto infer.
He may have been implying it, Idon't know, but he didn't do it
directly.
Stephen inexplicably starts hisanswer when he walks up there,

(09:23):
starts his answer by attackingthe moderator by saying he's up
here talking about stumbling andmumbling.
Y'all are letting him make funof me and that's OK.
But it's not OK when I make funof him.
Two things there.
One, why would you get up there?
Nobody's called youinarticulate.
So why would you get up thereand essentially self-own that

(09:46):
you might be?
Nobody's done that.
And second of all, nobodystopped Stephen from making fun
of Leroy at any point last night.

Speaker 4 (09:54):
I don't think anybody's going to stop either
of those gentlemen fromexchanging barbs.
I mean, certainly Stephen Joneswas on offense, which was
surprising to me.
He started out on offense andhe stayed on offense to an
absolute fault he did Because atthe end it just tapered off and
I could hear people starting tomoan like is he really still

(10:18):
doing that Right?
And in fact, by the time thelast question got mentioned that
you had talked about, one ladyshook her head and got up and
left.
So it left a bad taste, in myopinion, in the mouths of a lot
of people that were there.

Speaker 1 (10:33):
I think it did.
I think that Leroy's demeanorof you need to respect what I
have done and if you don't,you're wrong.
That didn't play well with alot of people but I don't think
he lost anybody because I feellike the people on the fence.
They liked Stephen's answers.
At the first they were clapping, but that clapping started to
subside, as you said, it startedturning into groans.

(10:54):
A lady sitting behind me passedme up a note toward the end of
the thing that says this shouldbe a comic strip and it was in
reference to Stephen's lastanswer.
So obviously you expect inpolitics that candidates will
throw barbs and try to createcontrast at their opponent's
expense, and that happens.

Speaker 4 (11:11):
But you know what?
I think the big winner in thatlengthy exchange between the two
mayoral candidates last night,the big winner was Darren Leach.
No listen, everybody talksabout Darren Leach.
I've been hearing this stuff.
Darren Leach is inexperienced.
Darren Leach is in bed withlobbyists.

(11:31):
Darren Leach hates kittens.
But you know what?
Darren Leach has largely stayedout of the mud of this ugly
political upheaval.

Speaker 1 (11:41):
Yeah, by not showing up.
He didn't show up for thedebate he was invited to.

Speaker 4 (11:49):
I don't buy that, but he's an independent.
I disagree with you.
He wasn't invited to this onewas he.

Speaker 1 (11:51):
He wasn't invited to this one, but he was invited to
the last one.
Okay, but to the point that Iwas making a while ago, you
expect in politics that peopleare going to throw barbs, create
contrast at their opponent'sexpense.
I think Stephen went too farlast night and I think that it
hurt him.
It got to feeling good to himand he wouldn't stop and, like
you said, a lot of the substanceof the debate was lost and

(12:13):
there was substance in bothcandidates' answers.
There was substance at timesand it got lost in all the
shouting and all of the show.

Speaker 4 (12:25):
There was a lot of substance.
Okay, Most of the substancethat I heard centered around
either parks and recreation orthe amphitheater.
And amphitheater, to me, wasone of the things that really
stuck out.
Because I was listening toLeroy.
He was talking money.
He was talking about what isfeasible, what is doable, what

(12:47):
is practical, what would hurtour city.
And then you've got StephenJones over there.
He's like hey man, what aboutthat?
I'm talking about that dang oldamphitheater.
I'm going to have that thingdone in six months.
I'm going to have that.
Maybe you should just end up inhere.
We've got to rock and roll, man.
And it's like, OK, can youreally do that?
That sounds good.
The voters want to hear thatbecause they're tired of looking

(13:11):
at it, as am I.
But are you going to reallyplace the whole city coffers in
the dump to do it?
I mean, well, you've either gotwe've talked about this before.

Speaker 1 (13:21):
You've either got over 60 percent of your capital
fund or you've got to raise thedebt and frankly, I don't think
the taxpayers.
I'm for the amphitheater beingfinished.
I think it'd be a great thing.
You know I disagree with Leroythat it shouldn't be a priority
at all.
I think that there should be adefinite push to finish it and

(13:41):
use it and let it be a goodasset for the taxpayers.
To finish it and use it and letit be a good asset for the
taxpayers.
But I don't know at this pointif you have to sell to the
taxpayers next budget year orthe next budget year that you've
got to raise the millage toservice the debt that you've
created for the amphitheater.
Yeah, that's a problem, that'snot going to fly.

Speaker 4 (13:59):
And the thing about it is you have people out there
it may not be a majority, butit's a sizable amount of people
that just believe flat out thatthe government ought not be in
the entertainment business.
They will say to you well, mykid is on the PlayStation, my
kid is on his phone, my kid goesplays in the woods, basketball

(14:21):
cart, whatever, and all thistalk about parks and
amphitheater and this and thatto a lot of people it's a
boondoggle.
I'm not saying that's right,but what I am saying is, as
they're left out in thisconversation, the path to
financial stability for the cityof Columbus is going to be, in
my opinion, putting stufftogether that's not going to be

(14:43):
such a burden, that is to say,the maintenance, upkeep.
All this stuff has to havegrass and things cut.
And I think, when we look atthese two candidates and we look
at the future of the money okay, who's talking money?
Who's thinking about the future?
Who's thinking about lettingthis whole idea be a net

(15:04):
positive in terms of moneyinflux?
Because our parks areliabilities right now and
everybody's talking about parks,but show me the money.

Speaker 1 (15:15):
But I want to talk about.
There's a duplicity with someof Stephen's words.
He and or some of his messagingI should say.
He comes to Exchange Club.
He talks about we're going tofinish the amphitheater, we've
got $5 million in the capitalfund, we can borrow money.
Also, I'm going to build thecapital fund.
He says this in essentially thesame breath.

(15:36):
So there's a duplicity therethat is interesting.
There's one that's a whole lotmore concerning is interesting.
There's one that's a whole lotmore concerning Last night and
other places that he's gone he'stalked about.
You know, we've got the way thatColumbus is portrayed and he
specifically says every time inthe media has to change and when
I'm mayor we're going to changeit.

(15:58):
Excuse me, what?
How are you going to do that?
You don't own the media?
Does that mean that you'regoing to have transparency
issues?
You're just not going to dothat.
You don't own the media.
Does that mean that you'regoing to have transparency
issues?
You're just not going to talkabout bad things?
I don't understand what thatmeans and I'd like that
explanation.
But he talks about positiveimage.
He talks about portrayingColumbus in a more favorable

(16:20):
light.
He's talking about the peopleare the things he's most he's
proudest of uh being in columbus.
But there was a load ofnegativity coming out of his
mouth last night and and I thinknegativity is was the theme of
his messaging.
And then he would say but weneed to have a more positive

(16:42):
image.
So if you're leading thatpositive image, stephen, is this
how you intend to do it?
Because there was a lot ofnegativity coming out of this.

Speaker 4 (16:50):
Yeah, you've got to embody positivity.
You can't just talk about it,you have to embody it, you have
to feel it.
And I don't contrast this towhat he was saying about in the
meeting, about making Columbus acollege town and branding us as
such.
I mean really confusing stuffthere.

(17:12):
I just don't see a heavy marketfor gear that has owls on it.
You know, and I mean, peoplecome to MUW to study.
They don't come here to partyand drink.
I think Sex and the City cameto Columbus a while back.
They were like there's going tobe some drama between MUW and
the Air Force and they were likethis party's quite boring.

(17:34):
I think we'll leave To ourtown's credit.
I was glad to hear that.
Actually I don't watch thatshow, don't care to.
But my point being you can'trebrand a town.
Ok, a town is what it is and ifyou're going to rebrand a town,
it needs to be on what isunique to us.
As I've said from episode one,it's that river down there that

(17:55):
nobody talks about.

Speaker 1 (17:56):
Well, I mean, the people are unique too.
This is a really and this issomebody who lives in Starkville
.
I love this town, columbus,really, and this is somebody who
lives in Starkville.
I love this town, columbus, Ilove Columbus, love the people
of Columbus.
There is something that whenyou're in Columbus, there's no
other place like it and it's oneof my favorite places in the
world because of it, and you canbrand around that and you can

(18:18):
brand around what's alreadythere without having to augment
it, without having to oversellthe W.
The W is the W and the W isgreat.
Columbus is Columbus andColumbus is great.
The friendly city Heck.
Even some of the idiosyncrasiesof Columbus that don't always
air quotes here play positive inthe media.

(18:39):
As Stephen would say, makeColumbus what it is and it's
great.
It's a great place and I love it.

Speaker 4 (18:44):
We have fun.

Speaker 1 (18:44):
And I think that you can lean into it.
Now I want to transition hereinto the council portion of this
.
Some of their answers werebetter than others.

Speaker 4 (18:54):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (18:54):
But they showed up.
All of them that showed up werewinners because they did.
They answered the questions,they told their truth, they
stayed out of the mud.
They didn't attack theiropponents.
They came up there for a forumand they acted like it was a
forum.
Leroy and Stephen acted like itwas a water balloon fight.

Speaker 4 (19:13):
That's a polite way of putting it.

Speaker 1 (19:14):
Yeah, Well or you know throwing, you know we've
got throwing midgets at darts ordarts at midgets or whatever.
We had those kinds ofreferences, midgets or whatever.
We had those kinds ofreferences in the council.
Part of this you didn't havethat.
You had people getting up theresaying what they had to say and
even with that, I think thatthere were two candidates that

(19:37):
and I'm not saying that that theothers, that the others did
poorly at all.
I'm not.
I'm not insulting them at all.
I'm not downplaying themshowing up and talking at all.
I'm not.
I'm not insulting them at all.
I'm not downplaying themshowing up and talking at all,
or what they had to say orarticulating their visions.
What I'm saying is there's twothat I felt like did that, uh
stood out in doing that, Okay,and one I think was Roderick

(19:59):
Smith.

Speaker 4 (20:00):
Yes.

Speaker 1 (20:00):
One of the younger guys up there.
He got up there and he was veryclearly proud of his city.
He was very clearly ready to dothis.
And then the other one was GaryJefferson in Ward 5, roderick
Smith in Ward 2, gary Jeffersonin Ward 5.
I think they both spoke verywell for themselves.
I was particularly pleased withRoderick's answer to why he's

(20:24):
proud of Columbus.
You know, I see my preschoolteachers in the grocery store.
They've seen me grow up.
They're proud of me.
I'm proud.
So I'm proud of that.
He talks about communitypolicing and he does it in
effective ways of how officerscan get into the neighborhoods

(20:45):
and build that trust back againwith the community.
On the other hand you had GaryJefferson, who a lot of talk was
about blight and about cleaningup the city and we keep doing
that.
But Gary Jefferson acknowledgedthat there was a blight
elimination program ongoing inColumbus and he kind of
understood how it worked andthat was impressive.

(21:06):
He also, I think, spoke wellfor himself on his experience as
a citizen, on his sort of viewof what leadership would be on
the council, and I thought hedid a particularly good job.
My favorite answer from him alsowas for the why are you proud
of being from Columbus or livingin Columbus, or what about

(21:26):
Columbus makes you proud?
And he talked about coming fromnothing and now he's got two
businesses.
He didn't think he could dothat anywhere else in the world
and I really thought that thatstuck out.
That resonates.
Of course, we've got the twobig losers from the council side
, so let's talk about that alittle bit big losers from the
council side.

Speaker 4 (21:47):
So let's talk about that a little bit.
Well, just real quick topiggyback.
I just want to say that you arecorrect in that you had all
this noise, and then these twoabsolute gentlemen just step out
there, and it was just such a.
It was refreshing to just havea quiet voice in the room that
was focused on the issues athand.
But yeah, to those who do notshow, I have nothing really good

(22:11):
to say about that, because thereality is, if you want to serve
in a public position and you'renot willing to speak publicly,
or you've got a canker sore andcan't make it, or whatever your
excuse is, I've got a big dadgumproblem with that, and so I
want to support all of thesecandidates, but I cannot support
the ones who did not make it,who are oh yeah, you know,

(22:36):
Councilman Mickens in.

Speaker 1 (22:37):
Ward 2 and one of his Democratic opponents, Ms Shee
Shee O'Neill.
She didn't show either.

Speaker 4 (22:44):
Do you think maybe there's like some kind of gag
order because of the courtswhere they could?

Speaker 1 (22:48):
well, I don't know.

Speaker 4 (22:50):
I mean, roger was there and they're not fighting
their their campaign in thebattle of public opinion.
They're they're fighting in thecourtroom, which I think is
pathetic.
You've been listening tobetween the headlines with zach
and david and we'll be right.
Let me say a quick shout out tothis sponsor.
Do you need a space for yournext event?

(23:10):
The 7th Street Center has justwhat you're looking for.
We can accommodate groups ofany size.
Call today 928-255-7836 toreserve your space.
Do you have knee pain, muscleweakness, swelling or cold feet?
Call King Associates Cardiologyfor an appointment today at

(23:30):
662-368-1169.
King Associates Cardiology wecare and it shows All right.
So that's that.
And now what everybody's beenwaiting for.
We talk to the big guys, thestars themselves.
I thank you both for being inthe studio today.
And Zach, take it away.

Speaker 1 (23:53):
We're joined today by the Democratic mayoral
candidates, ward 5 CouncilmanStephen Jones and District 5,
lowndes County Supervisor LeroyBrooks.
Appreciate y'all coming on theshow today, certainly.
Thank you for inviting me.
And first thing I want to askyou guys and answer in any order

(24:17):
you like last night was quite aspirited Democratic candidate
forum.
You two tied up on lots ofissues.
How do you think it went foryou?

Speaker 7 (24:23):
Well, I mean, I think it went pretty good.
Um, you know we're going tokeep to the, to the um, to the
subjects you know today and andhopefully people can see our
plan.
Okay, on what we're what we'reabout all right.

Speaker 1 (24:36):
What about you, mr brooks?
How do you think last?

Speaker 6 (24:38):
night.
I feel great.
You know I'm always open toforums, debates, um.
I listen to remarks from peopleafterward from across the
spectrum and I use that as kindof a judgment in terms of what
happened.
So just based on some of thoseremarks, I feel real good.

(25:00):
I think there was somecriticism about the way it was
structured, but neverthelessit's a hit and miss proposition.
So all in all, I'm good, okay,all right.

Speaker 1 (25:11):
Well, staying with you, mr Brooks.
What do you think, I guess, arethe one or two primary ways
where you stand out here as acandidate for?

Speaker 6 (25:22):
mayor.
Well, I think one of the thingsis I've been around a long time
.
People know me, whether theylike me or not.
I know some have been criticalof tenure, but with tenure come
experience.
But I've been more active.
I've got a lot of namerecognition and I think I've got
the practical and academicbackground to address some

(25:43):
issues.
I'm data-orientated, I'm verymethodical about what I do and I
think those are the things thatdifferentiate me from
Councilman Jones is, again, namerecognition.
I have a history and I knowthere are a certain group of
people in different ages thatmay not understand the

(26:05):
historical role I've played ineffecting some change in the
community and really don't havetime to try and explain it all.
But I think the thing is I knowa lot of people, I have a vast
network and so I think those arethe things that people are
looking at in terms of thedifference as candidates.

Speaker 1 (26:26):
Is that the training, training, the knowledge and the
experience well, I want todrill down on a couple of points
you made there, if you don'tmind.
Uh one, uh you talked about.
With age comes wisdom yes uh, mrjones last night called you, oh
right.
Secondly, do you feel like themessage of I've done a lot over

(26:47):
time, you over time.
You can see my footprints inthe park, you can see my
footprints in the street.
Do you think that that isresonating with today's voters?
Because, I mean, last nightthere seemed to be a mixed
reaction to that.
Do you feel like that isresonating with voters the way
that you know?

Speaker 6 (27:05):
Well, I think it is and that's the reason I've
continued to say that.
But then I'm still active.
It's not like I've been there along time and said on my
laurels I'm still involved.
I'm still involved in thecommunity.
You had a mixed reactionbecause you had a mixed group,
you had a different generationand certainly I think it's safe

(27:28):
to say that there is a certainage group that's going to be
more aligned with CouncilmanJones, because that's just the
nature of the beast.
But I think when you begin tolook across the spectrum of what
has been going on my role as amember of the Board of
Supervisors, the things that wehave accomplished, it's going to
have to play that.

(27:49):
I was a part of that.
Now I didn't.

Speaker 1 (27:51):
Right.
But I mean, are you forfeitingyoung voters Cause it sounds
like you said certain, oh no,you know you know I go in these
stores Walmart, I go in as Imove around.

Speaker 6 (28:01):
Um, there are young voters that say, mr Lee, where
are we going to support you?
You know we were part of youryouth organization, we know when
you revitalized the park.
So there is no one group thateither one of us will go without
getting some of the votes.
Certainly I'll get my portionof young voters and I'm not

(28:23):
conceding Whatever you callyoung voters.
I don't know.
You know the 40s, 50s.
I'm not willing to concede thatto Councilman Jones because of
the input that I've gotten asI've moved around to support the
people that are working for me.
So I'm not willing to concedeanything.
You know he again, he will havehis select group, I'll have

(28:49):
mine.
But I think when you add themall up together across the
spectrum, I'm going to haveenough votes across gender age
race to win this Democraticnomination.
So that's the way I feel.

Speaker 1 (29:03):
All right.
Well, mr Jones, firstdifferentiating yourself, how do
you feel like you stand out inthis race against Mr Brooks?

Speaker 7 (29:13):
Well, I feel like we've been doing the work and I
have a plan.
I mean, we still hadn't heardhis plan, you know.
Neither have we heard.
You know, he say he has a lotof experience but it's too long
to name.
But people want him to name itand he still hasn't named it.
They've been calling for him toname what you've done, but it
still hasn't been named.
Just a minute ago he said it'stoo long to name.

Speaker 1 (29:36):
Okay.

Speaker 7 (29:37):
So you know, I think we've been doing the work, we
have a plan and we're going tostick to that plan.

Speaker 1 (29:43):
All right, so to turn that back to you.
So what have you done and whatis the plan?

Speaker 7 (29:50):
I gave you a plan at the exchange, the five point
plan.
You know safety, we're workingon infrastructure.
We park and recreation.
We invested in our parks wherethey pulled out from us, but we
continue to invest.
And then when the group camethey said it was a good
investment.
You know cause it takes Countyand the and the city to work

(30:11):
together to be able to, uh, togive our kids what they need, um
water shedding, which is partof infrastructure.
Uh, we invested in the policedepartment.
We've given them what they need.
Um, of course you know they needmore people, but the cameras
help that you know they're shorton police everywhere, so we're
going to continue to invest inthe things that we need to

(30:34):
invest and create jobs where wecan create jobs with the
amphitheater, we're going tocontinue to grow Okay.

Speaker 1 (30:41):
I want to talk about the amphitheater in a second,
but you mentioned your fivepoint plan in exchange.
Yes, and I'm not trying toneedle you here, but some of
that sounded really familiar.

Speaker 7 (30:52):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (30:53):
You had city planner, the comprehensive plan, the org
chart.
These are things that thecurrent administration pitched
over the past four years and youvoted against at different
times.
So, why now and why yours?
And why wasn't it good enoughat the time that?

Speaker 7 (31:10):
Mayor Gaskin was, as I explained to you at the club,
it was all about the dollars.
You know you can't create 10things at one time.
You know you have to take astep and follow those things.
What was important to us wasgetting a grant writer so we can
start getting grants.

Speaker 1 (31:27):
Okay, well, that explains the planner.
But what about the org chart?
I mean, the org chart wassomething that you guys
dismissed with prejudice.
We do have an org chart?

Speaker 7 (31:32):
No, we didn't.
We do have an org chart.
Right, we have an org chart.
We may need to restructure it alittle bit, but we do have an
org chart no-transcript.

(31:53):
So it's always a you have towork hand in hand, and that's
what the mayor role is is tocommunicate with the council,
and then we come to agreements,and I think that's where I'll be
at.

Speaker 1 (32:05):
Okay, mr Brooks to his question what is the plan?

Speaker 6 (32:10):
Well, you know and again, I'm very methodical, I'm
data-orientated.
Not being in city government, Iwould certainly have to come in
and make an assessment of whatworks and what not works.
I've said I'll take 60 days,meet with the council.
The department has to evaluatethe strengths and weaknesses,
the financial need, and seewhether they are moving in the

(32:34):
same direction, see whether theright people are in the right
place.
Sometimes you have to shiftpeople around, so I don't think
you can go into any newenvironment without
understanding what you're goingto go into.
Is that?
Certainly the big issue isalways finances.
Now I keep hearing we're ingreat financial shape.

(32:54):
Councilman Stewart said lastnight we don't have any money
and so if you don't have moneyit's hard to do things.
But more importantly one of thekey proponents of anything you
can have all the resources inthe world If you don't have
leadership that know how tomanage and move things forward.
You just got resources.

(33:16):
There has been no one on thatcity council that has stepped
out and taken the leadershiprole.
It's been a continuous 42 voteon a lot of things.
There were some unanimous votes.
A continuous 42 vote on a lotof things.
There were some unanimous votesthere were, you know.
So my argument is if CouncilmanJones wanted to do these things
, he certainly had three othervotes.
He had three other votes tostart an annexation plan.

(33:42):
That didn't work.
They had three other votes topass redistricting with no
public hearing.
So they've shown that they havethe votes when they want to
have them.
So leadership would havesuggested.
You know I'm going to step out.
I've got three votes and I'mgoing to start these things
right now and that has nothappened.
But I think more important isit's not all about the tangible

(34:04):
things.
Sometimes there is a generalattitude in this community that
city government is dysfunctionaland people have lost faith.
And it's not the pressportraying them in a negative
light.
It's a reality when you havecouncil members that browbeat
employees in public, when youhave council members that you

(34:26):
know just doing a lot of thingsillegal and coercing with the
law.
So it's not a perception, it'sa reality.
Until there are some changes inCity Hall, there will not be
faith in this community to moveforward.
So it doesn't matter about afour-point plan, a five-point
plan.
It doesn't matter about afour-point plan, a five-point
plan.

Speaker 1 (34:46):
People are looking for a change, a new beginning
because, from what they'relooking at right now, they're
not satisfied with it.
Okay, well, I want to drilldown on that a little bit,
because you have said since thebeginning of your campaign that
you're going to have that 60days where you're going to
evaluate departments.
And you've said that, yes, butthe other side of your argument,

(35:11):
very often in the same speeches, you've said when I walk into
City Hall, the only thing you'regoing to have to tell me is
where the bathroom is, becausethat's the only thing I'm not
going to know.
So how do you reconcile theneed to talk with department
heads before you lay out a pointplan and all I need to know is
where heads before you lay out apoint plan, and all I need to
know is where the bathroom is.

(35:31):
How do you reconcile those twothings?

Speaker 6 (35:32):
Well, you know, and I've said to a number of people.
I said, look, I was just joking.
I said when you're old and on adiuretic, you have to know
where the bathroom is.
And so that was just a joke.
I understand better than anybodythat city government is
different than county government, but I also understand the

(35:53):
mythology in moving forward.
No one can just walk in there.
Even as councilman a joanbecomes the mayor, you're going
to have a different city counciland so you've got to sit down
and understand where you want togo.
You've got to bring peopletogether, understand what it is

(36:15):
they want to do and how youbring that in sync.
So no, the reality of it is itwill take a little time.
I'd be crazy to walk in thereand start doing things
recognizing.
I need to understand a fewthings, but the thing that I
bring is that I bring leadership.
I bring an understanding ofgovernment.
I bring the knowledge ofnetworking and knowing people.

(36:36):
So that's what I bring to thetable.
The thing about the bathroomwas just Well, I mean, that's
just what you said I was goingto the substance of it.
You said you would be ready todo one when you walked in but I
need 60 days to review things,and so that's what I was trying
to get you to recognize Well,you know and I did say that and

(36:56):
again is that when I walk in, Iwalk in as a person with some
sense of confidence that I havean understanding of people and
how to bring them together, andso that will be my major focus
is how do we bring people notjust within city government.
You've got to engage people inthe community.

(37:19):
People in the community havefelt left out of this
administration, and so you'vegot to bring people to the table
to get their views businessmen,lay people, and let's talk
about how you see Columbus, andso that's what I'm interested in
doing.

Speaker 1 (37:36):
All right, would you like to respond to any of that?

Speaker 7 (37:39):
Well, I mean he says he has the connection, the 41
years.
But look at Columbus over thepast 41 years.
I mean that's happened underhis watch.
If he has all these connectionsin Washington and Jackson, then
why do we still have Kurt McGeeover there in our ward?
Those connections should havebeen used.
Then you don't have to be themayor.
You know it's in his district.

(38:00):
It's a number of things thatneed to be done that he could
have helped with.
You know, if he has all theseconnections and it hasn't worked
.

Speaker 6 (38:09):
May I rebut that?
Yeah, you know, and I thinkthat's a misleading kind of
statement.
I think the mayor and citycouncil are real particular
about this jurisdiction.
I think there has been aneffort over the years where we
have had a good relationshipwith the mayor and city council
is we just haven't had with thisone.

(38:30):
You know, the last full meetingI went to, one of the council
members got up and browbeatedone of the other board members
for no reason and so that's beenkind of the relationship you
know that we've had.
We take care of those things inour jurisdiction.
So to suggest to people I'vebeen there 41 years and I didn't

(38:54):
do anything with the city.
I was one of the firstsupervisors to get a community
center built when Sam Scott wasclosed years ago.
We had I got $100,000 revenuesharing.
That was a discretionary fund.
Is I built a new building overthere, that walking track, that
pavilion is I did a lot ofpaving things that were

(39:17):
discretionary, that I didn'thave to do.
But is the city council hasbeen protective.
I can't walk into Ward 5without Councilman Jones saying,
well, let's work together andthat hadn't happened.
So to try and diminish 41 yearsof not doing stuff in the city.
It was not my job, you know.
I can say for the past eightyears I don't see much of what

(39:39):
he's done and I'm not beingcritical of him.
But if we're going to put therecord out there is that.
But then the other thing isjust not tangible things.
You try and empower people todo things.
I've had a lot of conversationlast night about youth.
For a long time had a youthorganization.
We did things, we worked withkids.

(40:00):
So those things are out there.
I was instrumental years ago instarting the Big Brothers, Big
Sisters.
So the record is there ofthings I've done.
And again, it's misleading tosay, well, you didn't do it in
the city because you got a mayorand city council.

Speaker 7 (40:17):
Well, people do pay taxes in the city and in the
county.
So some of those county dollarsshould be spent in the city.

Speaker 6 (40:24):
And they are.

Speaker 7 (40:26):
But since I've been up there eight years, I think me
and Mr Brooks probably havetalked about two or three times,
so it's not like he's reachedout to me to say let's work
together.
This is in my ward, it's in hisward, it's in Pierre's ward.
We all should be workingtogether and we're all
African-Americans, so wedefinitely should be sitting
down working together for what'sbest.
But you can look out in hisareas in Crawford.

(40:46):
You know what's been going onout there.
That's not my area, artesia,where you look out in.

Speaker 6 (40:51):
Artesia, you'll see a lot of things happen.
You look out through WestLounds, you'll see the
industrial park.
So, whether I reached out toyou or not, if you were
interested in working somethingtogether, I think that I reached
out to all you council memberswhen we got that offer money to
suggest to you all let's takesome of this money and set aside

(41:12):
, try and develop an affordablehousing plan.
It's been a challenge to tryand work with y'all.
Now I will say this is that Imean we have not been
antagonistic or confrontationalsince you've been in office.
You know we see each other, wespeak.
Over the years I've talked moreto Mickens Councilman Beard.

(41:33):
I helped raise money for him.
Last time he came by my officeI said I'd like to mentor you.
He said no, you're too hard,you know.
So I didn't feel compelled tojump over.
In city business is to try anddictate to you all.
This goes both ways.
But the reality of it is partof the money that we set aside

(41:55):
for millage for roads.
City get a part of it.
So there is a misnomer aboutthe city not working and the
county not working together.
Now you suggested last nightthat the only time we worked
together was when it was storm.
We sent four boom trucks in fora week and it wasn't a storm to
help pick up the trash.
We've got a number ofinterlocal agreements that we

(42:18):
work together on.
So that's a misnomer that wedon't work together.
We do, and I think the publicunderstand it and I think people
.
We fund the library, we do anumber of things.
That's in the city.

Speaker 7 (42:32):
Yeah, speaking of the opera money, we did set aside
money for the Blight program,but they pulled their money back
.
The five hundred thousanddollars.
We did and the county has somuch money that he stated last
night, why would y'all need thatmoney back then?

Speaker 6 (42:45):
Well, because after you all got money for Blight
yourself and then it took solong for y'all to do anything
and even now you've had themoney for a while and I
understand the bureaucracy butis when you all got the first
three million, we didn't feel itwas necessary to give our money
to you all.
But I took the lead toinitially do that because I had

(43:09):
talked to Mr Irby.
So at the time when y'all didnot have as much money, we were
committed.

Speaker 1 (43:15):
And a point of note here, that deal was made.
The city has since gotten $6million in federal money for the
Blight program and then thecounty pulled out after the
first $3 million.
That's my understanding, right?
Yeah, that was, but they stillpulled out after the first three
million, that's that's myunderstanding, right?

Speaker 7 (43:29):
yeah, that was, but they still pulled out they did,
and they still took their moneyback.

Speaker 1 (43:32):
But we still have blighted program houses in
columbus so it still could beused well let me change gears
here, because one of the thingsthat has been a push point in
your campaign, especiallyrecently, is finishing the
amphitheater.
That's halfway done.
You have been opposed to usingit for local events while more

(43:54):
money is sought, and now you'resaying, if I'm elected, it's
going to be finished by the endof the year.
Yes.
And you've also talked aboutusing the capital fund.
You've talked about borrowing,you've talked about trying to
find a blend or a combination ofthose two things.
So I guess, how do you arriveat that, and especially the
borrowing part?

(44:14):
Is that something that concernsyou at all, that y'all would
potentially borrow?
Or you would potentiallyrecommend borrowing money to
finish the amphitheater.

Speaker 7 (44:23):
And why the amphitheater?
Because we need to finish itand people want to see it
finished and it's going to bringin two percent tax.
That will fund other things.
No, it doesn't bother me.
I said we need to look at alloptions.
We're finishing it, we couldtake money from the general fund
and finish it.
We could take money from, wecould go approach the CVB.

(44:46):
They're going to increase intwo% taxes once it's finished.
So there's a number of waysthat I plan to sit down with our
CFO and I had sat down with himand he told me that you know we
have the money Right.
So it's a combination of things.
You can't just look at onething and say we're going to
take it all out of this.

Speaker 1 (45:08):
Well, your CFO?
To be clear what your CFO said,he said, yes, we have the money
Right, but he also said hedidn't think it was responsible
to spend it that way.
He didn't.

Speaker 7 (45:14):
he did not say that in a private conversation,
though he said that he said in apublic meeting he said that,
but in a private conversationthat's not what he said to me he
said he thought that we couldfinish it and and that we had
the money to finish it.
So we could finish it and andthen we had the money to finish
it, so we just have to figureout how we want to finish it,
and we will finish it.

Speaker 4 (45:32):
Would it be a concern that the coffers would be so
low that money that would begoing toward this amphitheater
would be taken away from theroads that everyone keeps
complaining about?

Speaker 7 (45:42):
no, because the road, the roads is not, uh, what we
use that money for to pay, butyou.

Speaker 4 (45:47):
But you said general fund though.

Speaker 7 (45:48):
Yeah, but that's the other money that we use to pay
doesn't come from general fund,it comes from the use tax.

Speaker 1 (45:53):
Okay so, but again to his point.
Say you take it out of thegeneral fund, that's over 60%,
or I'm sorry, the capital fund,not the general fund, but that's
over 60% of what y'all.

Speaker 7 (46:06):
Well, I certainly didn't say take it all from the
general fund.
I said, come up with a plan tofinish it All right, so y'all
got $30 million of debt though.
So if you blend that withborrowing, you add to that and
we have some debt that will befalling off.
That's what I said Take a lookat what's falling off, one way
that we're going to be able topay for it.

(46:26):
It's a combination and figuringout that combination and what
works best for the city.

Speaker 1 (46:36):
Okay, mr Brooks, you are against prioritizing the
amphitheater.
You've said it over and overagain.
Why in your mind is Mr Jones'plan wrongheaded in this?

Speaker 6 (46:40):
regard.
Well, because it's not a plan.
He has said if I'm mayor, I'mcompleted it in six months.
But yet he's sitting heresaying, well, we got to figure
out how we're going to get themoney.
And that's the problem from thevery beginning.
Is they built that anticipating, I guess, money from the

(47:01):
legislature?
The city has not put any oftheir money into that, and so if
you're going to build a house,I think you would have at least
know where the money is going tocome from before you start
building the house.
So you can't bank on politics,because it changes.
The other thing we've got to bevery cognizant of in this world

(47:23):
we're in today, with everythinghappening in Washington, we
don't know whether you know howgrants are going to roll down.
We don't know whether you knowhow grants are going to roll
down.
We don't know the impact it'sgoing to have on city government
, state government.
So we have to be verymethodical about how we spend
money.
The CVB is already doling out$400,000 to the city, $300,000

(47:43):
to the county, $250,000 to thelink.
So they're not going to have.
It's not much money you can goand get from them when they're
trying to do some other thingsto promote tourism I went down
there the other day is that itlooks good.
Okay, it's a good looking thing.
You have to question whereyou're going to park.

(48:05):
There's a host of things.
It's not going to generate alot of money.
I mean, you know it's not goingto generate a lot of income
back to the city, you know.
So my thing is, in the schemeof things, is, you know, is
crime more important?
What's more important than theamphitheater?
But I'm saying is, in thescheme of things, it would not

(48:29):
be my number one priority.

Speaker 1 (48:30):
Okay, well, one thing that you suggested in the
debate you I don't know howcasually you were suggesting
this or how serious you wereabout it, but trying to offload
the amphitheater to a privatebuyer or leaser who's going to
buy a half-done amphitheater.

Speaker 6 (48:48):
I don't know, but I'm saying that's one of the
options we need to explore,whether someone would want to
come in there and look at that,and it's predicated on the very
notion that it's.
Obviously the city doesn't haveall the money right now.
There are a number of people inthis community that have no
idea that the amphitheater isout there.

(49:11):
Now we go and complete theamphitheater tomorrow and we
start having activities All of asudden.
Now we've got to have morepolice protection.
You're going to have peopledrinking, so you're going to
have to have law enforcement.
We already limited and I'm surethey can work this thing out,
but the amphitheater is just notsomething right now at the top

(49:32):
of my list and people talk aboutcrime.
I want to look at that, butagain, I think I have a local
legislative delegation will bemore receptive to trying to work
with them, because they arereally not tying in with the

(49:54):
group over there now.

Speaker 7 (49:56):
As he stated, I am in municipal government now, so I
do know, and he doesn't knowbecause he's not there.
So I do know the plan that wehave and we do look at the crime
.
We're focusing on that.
We're adding cameras.
We've we've ordered 21 cameras,which is a big deal, because

(50:16):
now we're able to see around thecity and police is able to see
what is going on in the city.
So that's going to help betterthan than having, you know, more
officers right now, becauseit's hard, it's hard.
People don't want to be police.
Everybody is short.
Every municipality, every city,state, you know everybody is

(50:36):
short on police.
So these are the things.

Speaker 1 (50:38):
Technology is the only way that you're going to
advance your police departmentright now, and I have one more
question about the amphitheaterand I want to move on to
something else.
You have suggested that, andthe original plan was, once we
get this finished, we're goingto let an outfit run it Red
Mountain or maybe someone elsewho can plan events there.

(51:00):
But how do you know that that'seven still a possibility, or
any of those types of companiesare even still at the table for
something that would be thissize?

Speaker 7 (51:10):
Because I've talked to Kevin, our city engineer, and
he's talked to them.
They say they are interested.
They are interested, yes, oncewe finish it.

Speaker 1 (51:17):
Now, that was something that you were talking
about.
Let's get them here, let's talkabout it.
So that seemed to be.
Y'all didn't seem to be quitesure if they were still at the
table.
You're saying now that they'restill at the table.

Speaker 7 (51:26):
Yeah, I talked to him a couple of days ago.
They're still at the table.
They actually told us to lookat LaGrange, georgia, which is
very similar to Columbus, andthey do real well there, and Red
Mountain does manage that oneno-transcript.

Speaker 1 (51:58):
You're talking about portraying a different image of
the city and you're talkingabout leveraging the mayor's
office to get the media toparticipate in that.

Speaker 7 (52:10):
No, I never said leverage the mayor's office.
I said we have to put up abetter image ourselves.
I said, and as I stated lastnight, some of our image is
self-inflicted Right, some of itis created by the uh, the media
.

Speaker 1 (52:24):
What part of it is created by the media.
What part of it isself-inflicted?

Speaker 7 (52:30):
at the exchange club.
When stuff happens instarkville, y'all might say
october hall county.
If something happens incolumbus, you might say lounge,
can I mean?
If it happens in lounge county,you'll put it on the columbus
uh, and even as as y'all portrayit on the front page, or even
in, um, like the shootings thathappen in starkville, y'all had
it on the uh back pages of thenewspaper.

(52:52):
Uh, page six, uh, probablyabout this big.
But if it was in Columbus youwould have had it on the front
page.

Speaker 1 (52:59):
You know so a lot of stuff like that.
We have a Starkville edition ofthe paper that different things
go on the front of.
Starkville and Columbus,depending on you know where it
happens.

Speaker 7 (53:08):
But we've seen it over the years, the way that the
media portrays it, and not justyou all, I mean even the packet
.
You know some years the waythat the media portrays it, and
not just you all, I mean eventhe packet.
You know some of the stuff thatthey write um.

Speaker 1 (53:21):
So we have to all buy in and we all have to put a
positive image of our city outthere.
Okay, say you're the mayor andsay it's one of these
self-inflicted things thatyou're talking about, and I'm
talking to you and I'm askingyou questions about it.
Now, obviously, one of yourpriorities is to project a
positive image of the city, andI understand that that's a given
and I understand why you wouldwant to do that.
And I asked you this atexchange too Where's the line

(53:45):
between the prioritizing hey, wewant to portray a positive
image right here and beingtransparent about the dirty
truth of something that may notbe so great.

Speaker 7 (53:56):
You can always be transparent.
I mean, if something happened,it happens.
I'm just saying portray it thesame way across the table.
You know, we all should betreated equally.
Um, I'm not asking you to hideanything yeah you know, put it
out there, let the people see it.
I'm not opposed to transparency, but it's still always ways
that can be and hopefully, as weget a PR person, that PR person

(54:18):
will put it out there the waythat we want to put it out there
.

Speaker 1 (54:20):
Okay, and my last question that I have for you and
have one of similar weight foryou, mr Brooks, there is a
belief out there that I mean Iknow that the former mayor,
mayor Robert Smith, issupporting.
There is a belief, there is aconcern out there that you know

(54:41):
you may be Robert 2.0.
So how do you respond to thatand certainly not insulting
Mayor Smith, he's his own man,he's his own administration, but
I'm assuming that you wouldwant to be as well how do you
address the concern that one youwould be Robert 2.0?
And how do you differentiateyourself from the former mayor?

Speaker 7 (55:05):
Well, I mean, the people can see that you know I
don't know where that story camefrom Just because I talked to
Robert, or just because we'reassociates or we work together
that you know he's controllingme.
I don't know how that is.
I guess that was put out therejust to scare people.
But I've always been my ownperson, even when Robert was in
office.
I mean, you would call me and Iwould say whatever was on my

(55:26):
mind.

Speaker 1 (55:27):
I mean, y'all didn't always get along.

Speaker 7 (55:29):
Exactly so.
Nobody controls me not Robert,not Mr Brooks, not anybody.
You know, I'm going to speak mymind and I'm going to say
what's on my mind and I'm goingto be my own person and I'm
going to do what's best for allthe citizens of Columbus,
Whether it be something that youmay like, or something that you
know he may not like, orsomething that Mr Brooks may not
like.
If I feel that it's best forthe citizens of Columbus, then

(56:01):
that's what I'm going to do.

Speaker 1 (56:01):
My job would be to represent all the people,
whether you're Republican orwhether you're Democrat, whether
you're black, whether you'rewhite, I will represent the
people of Columbus to the bestof my ability, and, mr Brooks,
for you.
Some of what you've said isthat you're wanting to have a
big tent.
So, black, white, republican,democrat, just like he said.
You've said it on the front end.
It seems that you've madeconsiderable headway, capturing
some white support, someRepublican support, and that has

(56:26):
caused at least some of not MrJones directly doing it, but
some of his surrogates,councilman Mickens among them.
How do you respond to concernsor how do you deal with the
issue of if someone were to saywell, you're, you know what you

(56:49):
are in this race is the whitecitizens black candidate.

Speaker 6 (56:53):
You know and I hear that I laugh.
I think that I've establishedmyself very well over the years.
I don't think black people thathave some stature and influence
even question my character.
I think you know it's apolitical ploy.
Look, I'm running for office.

(57:14):
Is white folks are going tohave to vote for somebody.
You know there's only oneRepublican Ward, so if they want
to participate they got toparticipate in the mayor's
election.
So I'm reaching out to everyonebecause what they are telling
me is they've been left out ofthis administration.

(57:34):
There have been a consistent4-2 vote.
It's been almost like a littlesmall mafia that we're running.
This is that there are peoplethat refer to it as chocolate
city because of the way thatthey've managed this, and I
think that's one of the reasonsthey're supporting me, because
they know I can reach across theaisle, they know that they'll

(57:57):
have room at the table.
And what I've said to thosewhites that have contributed to
my campaign contribution doesn'tmean control.
That's one thing people know,whether they like me or not.
I'm my own man, I'll speak upand I am the person that can
bring people to the table.
And I am the person that canbring people to the table is to
take the position that we don'tcare what whites say because

(58:19):
we've got these majority blackwards.
That's insane and that's whathas happened.
And so now here's anopportunity to bring people to
the middle of the road.
I've met with black ministers,white ministers.
I've met with white businessmen, black businessmen that are

(58:39):
supporting me because theyunderstand they value.
There are a few people thatwant to diminish my tenure and
experience, but they value that.
They know what I've done, theyknow the people that I know.
So, yes, I don't care, jewGentile, white, black,
republican Democrat, I want yourvote because I want to win this
.
And as for it, and I don't care, jew Gentile, white, black,
republican Democrat, I want yourvote because I want to win this
.
And I don't think there's anyblack person in this town would

(59:01):
characterize me as a sellout.
And I've said in public I meanI'm a very Afrocentric black man
, but I don't mean Idiscriminate against white folks
and I think that's been theproblem of city hall.
And they talk about theperception.
The perception is not so muchabout people killing everybody,
it's about the seeminglyineptitude of managing city

(59:24):
government.
You know, when you got councilmembers that browbeat employees
in public or you got a citycouncil member that is so nose
remorseful for all the thing hedoes.
Nobody has stepped out as aleader over there.
It's been a four-two vote.
You know, we're in charge,we're going to run this, and the

(59:45):
reason I find such disdain forthat?
Because I've had to live underthat kind of rule at the board
of supervisors, where threewhites didn't give a damn.
Can I say that about what theothers thought?
I am for equality and justice,black or white.
Years ago, when a bunch ofwhites were fired, I testified

(01:00:09):
in court for all of them becauseit wasn't done right.
So I don't color code it.
Yes, I want white votes.
So if his camp and some of hissurrogates are trying to promote
that out there, that's a thud,that's a bump.
I'm looking to get as manywhite votes, hispanic votes, as
I can, and I'll stand on top ofthis building and say I'm proud

(01:00:30):
of that.

Speaker 7 (01:00:31):
Well, first of all, I don't have any surrogates.
You know, people speak whatthey want to speak and, as he
talked about City Hall, none ofthat stuff has referred to me.
I've never been one that youknow discriminated against
anybody.
When I was first elected, thepeople over here on South Side
said we're glad to have youbecause you came over here and
done some work and we hadn't hadanything done over here in a

(01:00:52):
while, so it's never been a fourto vote because of that.
The one thing that we all havein common is that the current
mayor that we had have is notchosen to work with the council.
So that's been the problem.
It's all about communicationand getting people to work with
you.
That's why because he doesn'tcommunicate with us, that's why
sometimes you end up with a 4-2vote because he does not

(01:01:13):
communicate and try to getwhatever votes that he needs.

Speaker 6 (01:01:17):
Let me say this I'm not criticizing Councilman Jones
in any way.
All I'm saying is he, noranyone over there, has not
stepped out in a leadership roleand say we're going in the
wrong direction.
He was part of promotingannexation.

(01:01:38):
He was part of theredistricting plan.
That was the worstgerrymandered map I've ever seen
.
And then they would not hold apublic hearing to let people see
where they were.
And when they get their cars,they all surprised.
That's what I'm talking about.
He didn't step out and sayCouncilman Beer, you're
embarrassing us.
He has not stepped out on aleadership role, he's just gone

(01:02:01):
along to get along, to maintainthose votes.
I'm not like that.
I've stepped out and I've saidwhat I had to say, and so that's
the criticism I'm loving andthat's the reason I'm getting
white support, because they feelleft out, you know.
And let me say one other thingabout crime is that you do need

(01:02:23):
boots on the ground when youhave people continually leaving
from the police department.
Somebody needs to ask thequestion why.
Somebody needs to explain whyare people exodus, people that
were brought in from otherplaces?
They left, you know.
So they don't talk about theminimum amount of policemen they

(01:02:46):
have on the street.
They hide that discussion.
The other thing is there needsto be a greater effort for the
sheriff and police chief to sitdown, not just when something
happens, but as a part of lawenforcement operation, that
we're going to work together,and so.
Those are the things people arecomplaining about.

(01:03:07):
But, more importantly, it'sjust a sheer lack of leadership,
not to say they're all bad guys, it's just no leadership.
And so you know the question Ihear why should we promote
someone to a high position whenhe has not shown that he can
handle this?
The good book says to you be arule of few things, you'd be

(01:03:30):
faithful over a few things.
I'll make you rule over many.
And again.
So again, I exemplify, I think,what the community want.
I believe I'm going to win this.
I believe I'm going to win withwhite votes.
Republicans, because they'reready to move in a different
direction, because they havegiven this council the
opportunity and they have notreally moved the city forward.

Speaker 7 (01:03:52):
Okay, first of all, the mayor is the leader of the
city.
He runs the day to day.
So for me to step on.
At one point Mr Brooke wassaying we're not working with
the mayor and we're not uh, youknow listening to the mayor and
and working his plan, but whenhe never said that the mayor is
not listening to us.
It's always the four blackcouncil.
It's never been the problem ofthe mayor to communicate with

(01:04:13):
the council and get what heneeds done, so it's always been
us.
He never criticized none ofthem.
Well, I need to rebut this.

Speaker 6 (01:04:21):
If you all can, without the mayor's support, try
annexation without the mayor'ssupport, redistricting you don't
need the mayor, You've got tovote.
You all have done the thingsthat you wanted to do and then
you put it on the mayor.
You've got to vote.
You all have done the thingsthat you wanted to do and then
you put it on the mayor.
You don't need the mayor to doanything.
You've got four votes to doeverything and so that's the

(01:04:43):
deal.
I don't know.
Y'all may talk and laugh anddrink coffee every day, but from
the public perception, you havebeen the one that put it on the
mayor.
No, I haven't criticized themayor because you all in charge,
you all like to advocate astrong council and when you do
something good you want praise,but when you do stuff bad, it

(01:05:04):
ain't me.
If y'all had a wanted to moveforward on that amphitheater,
you had the vote, so you've hadthe votes to do whatever you
wanted to.
Y'all have been into power playover there.
You and others have allowed thevice mayor to just go crazy,
browbeating people and doingeverything.
You all run city hall.

(01:05:24):
It's a strong council, weakmayor, so you can't put it on
the mayor.
I don't know what the mayor'sbeen doing.
I know what y'all have beendoing.

Speaker 7 (01:05:33):
We don't run city hall.
We run the council, but wedon't run City Hall.
The mayor runs City Hall.
But speaking of redistricting,if you go back and you look at
their redistricting, look attheir areas on what they did
when they redistricted.
They had one meeting early onemorning that nobody got to

(01:05:53):
attend and people didn't knowwhere they needed to vote on
their election.
So they did the exact samething that we did.
They just did it in a differentway.
We had a public hearing.
We had a number of meetings.

Speaker 6 (01:06:04):
We had a number of meetings.
We adhere to the not only thelaw but the spirit of the law.
But then when you go back andlook at the city redistricting,
what y'all tried to do isminimize white votes.
You shift them and tangle themall up and move them from Ward 5
to Ward 1.
Ward 1 was already a heavymajority black district and

(01:06:25):
you'd carry it up to about 80percent, I mean.
And so who?

Speaker 7 (01:06:28):
does that.
We put more white people inWard 1 now than there's ever
been.
That's my whole point, right?
That's my whole point.

Speaker 6 (01:06:35):
Okay, is what you tried to do?
You tried to diminish the twowhite wards and and pack the
other one.
No, we, no, we did not.
I went off the recommendation,I went off the recommendation of
.

Speaker 7 (01:06:46):
I didn't change anything on my ward.
Personally, I went from thevery first start.
I did not change anything thathe recommended.
Well, there were people on yourcouncil that did you talk about
transparency?
It was transparent.

Speaker 6 (01:07:02):
We know about your councilman going up to Oxford
and creating the smallest ward.
I mean, let's be honest, seeone of the advantages I have
that other people may not have.
I'm part of thisAfrican-American community that
you talk about.
I know what's going on.
You know you talk about.
You want to dispel the notionof Robert.

(01:07:24):
Why is he on the school boardand light and water board?
He was out campaigning with you.
We all know the influence he'shad on you and continue to have.
You know an interesting thing Ithought last night you talk
about.

Speaker 7 (01:07:34):
Just because somebody's out campaigning with
me, that don't mean that theyhave an influence over me.

Speaker 6 (01:07:37):
Well, if he's out campaigning with you and
donating to your campaign, he'sgot influence.

Speaker 7 (01:07:42):
But the black community knows that.
Okay.
But you turn around and say thesame thing Harry donated to
your campaign.
No, harry had not donated apenny.

Speaker 6 (01:07:49):
Meghan said that that was a lie and I didn't feel the
need to dignify it and thepacket is donated to you also.

Speaker 7 (01:07:58):
We'll find out on March 24th.
You'll find out on March 24thwho's donating it.

Speaker 1 (01:08:03):
This has been a very spirited discussion.

Speaker 4 (01:08:05):
I appreciate both of you, gentlemen.

Speaker 6 (01:08:06):
That's what we do when we come together.

Speaker 1 (01:08:07):
That's right I appreciate both of you,
gentlemen, for joining us todayand speaking to the voters.
Thank you all very much thishas been Between to you,
gentlemen for joining us todayand speaking to the voters.

Speaker 7 (01:08:17):
Thank you all very much.
Uh, this been between theheadlines, uh, and I do have a
question for david.
Uh will we see any republicandebates, since you're the chair?

Speaker 4 (01:08:22):
there will be actually there will be a forum
between the two uh candidatesfor ward six.
So that is in the make.
The other ones are unopposed,and so we won't be exhausting
research and time in that regard.
But I just want to take amoment to thank you, fine
gentlemen, for being here.
It takes a lot of testicularfortitude to put yourself out

(01:08:45):
there and to just be a publicservant and then to air it out,
to put it out in the open, totalk about it and give the
people of the city of Columbusthe ability to make a choice
based on what they've heard fromthe horse's mouth itself, not

(01:09:05):
these rumors out there.
So kudos to you and to you forbeing on the program today
You've been listening to Betweenthe Headlines with Zach and
David.
And that's what old people do.
That is so again, I want tothank our listeners for joining
in today.
Please help us talk it upsubscribe, rate and share, and I

(01:09:28):
hope you'll join in theconversation If you want to
follow up with us.
Tips at cdispatchcom Again,tips at cdispatchcom.
You can also follow me onFacebook or x at dchism00.
You've been listening Betweenthe Headlines, with Zach and
David signing off from CatfishAlley Studio in historic
downtown Columbus.

(01:09:48):
Your host has been the king ofcurl and managing editor, Mr
player, and my name is davidchisholm.
Until next time, keep it realand keep it friendly.