The town council meeting of February 9th presented a dichotomy of events that struck at the cord of community.
Don Burns, who has served the community for decades, was honored for his service and his tenure as a member of Oakland’s town council. Notably the most independent of council members in recent years, Burns presented himself as one of the classiest acts in Oakland as he reminisced on his beginnings in politics and simultaneously offered advice for future generations of Oakland leaders.
Burns spoke of entering politics with the determination of never being a “yes man”, and over the course of near twenty years he sought that goal. In recent years he was the most senior member of the council in terms of age, but in spirit he maintained that of the youthful newcomer with questions and challenges.
Describing himself as an independent thinker, Burns referenced former council members who came to witness the tribute, and recalled their satisfaction in debate, sharing of ideas, and the willingness to listen to opposing viewpoints. He specifically pointed with pride to his willingness to support or oppose ideas based on merit and not party politics.
One theme that resonated in Burns’ remarks was the issue of respect, and how he may not have always been liked by his opponents but deeply appreciated their respect. The topic is notable as Burns’ independent nature most likely played a role in his being secretly thrown off the Republican ticket this past November which forced his run as an Independent; and, these circumstances made his acceptance speech during the ceremony all the more exemplary as a gentleman, scholar, and statesman.
Burns has accepted positions on a variety of boards and commissions in Oakland, and plans on continuing his passion of being an active member in the community.
On the flip-side, contention reigned at the town council meeting with a short goodbye to Mike Guadagnino who has served on the Oakland recreation commission for the past five years.
Guadagnino, in an obvious coincidence, expressed exasperation with the mayor over a lack of respect for his service to the community. While expressing indignation at a last minute notice that he would not be reappointed to the commission, Guadagnino expressed outrage concerning a letter from the mayor saying his reappointment was due to concerns of “intimidation” and “fear of retribution” within the baseball program he spearheaded.
Guadagnino accused the mayor of playing politics with recreation due to Guadagnino’s activism in preventing appointment of a paid recreational director which was strongly promoted by the mayor after the November elections. Hundreds of people packed town hall to protest the position which was estimated to cost over $100,000 a year. Guadagnino described the contents of the mayor’s letter as defamatory, and insinuated hypocrisy on the part of the town council to focus on bureaucratic compliance issues over the last months and never raising concerns of “intimidation”.
Oakland’s recreation program has gotten national recognition, a point often raised by the commission’s head, Steve Wagoner who spoke in defense of Guadagnino. Wagoner questioned why, if the accusations in the mayor’s letter were true, no one ever approached him or various other members on the commission. Wagoner also questioned why he was not consulted on new appointments to the commission, and strongly defended Guadagnino’s tenure as commissioner of baseball.
Wagoner described the program as having two levels, Oakland Rec and Travel, and commended Guadagnino’s efforts to protect the integrity of the overall program saying, “There’s 500-600 kids in the program and you cannot make all the parents happy when decisions need to be made”. Alluding to the fact that commissioners serve at the pleasure of the mayor, Wagoner surmised that mayors serve at the pleasure of the people. Mayor Szabo then accused Wagoner of threatening him.
While the exchange between the mayor and Wagoner ended with the close of the public session, the ongoing animosity between the town council and the recreation commission continues as the mayor has called for Wagoner’s resignation for the alleged “threat” concerning his ability to be re-elected. The content of the mayor’s letter was released to local media, and assumes the mayor has authority to dismiss a commissioner without process; Wagoner disagrees.
Beyond the unpleasantries associated with the lack of respect being extended to Mike Guadagnino, and the unfortunate circumstances that led to Don Burns losing his council seat, Oakland as a community has been well served by both men who brought skill, passion and commitment to their service. Both men have expressed their intentions to stay active in the community, and The Journal offers it’s own humble tribute to the efforts of these men.
Boy, the Mayor is going to be one busy guy between his day job, being the Mayor and I (assume) his new positions running both the baseball and rec programs. Could anyone be so self absorbed and selfish to FIRE volunteers?! I don’t think there is a line out the door to take these spots.
Hopefully there will be a crowd at the next meeting to see what the answers are for this one.
Very Sad what they did to Don Burns by replacing him with that Tim Jensen. He offers nothing to the town. The only think he offers IMHO is being a yes man to that Council President. Is it election day yet?
Don Burns was not secretly dropped from the Republican ticket this past November as you state in your article and as former President of the Oakland Republican Club, take exception to that assertion and demand a retraction. I appointed a search committee who in turn sent correspondence to ALL republican club members which included Mr. Burns, even though he was no longer a member in good standing at the time. the correspondence asked all those interested in running to submit a letter of intent and a bio to be reviewed by the committee. Councilwoman Marcallus and Councilman Jensen followed through and submitted the appropriate documentation, Mr. Burns did not follow through and decided to run as an independent. You can disagree with the means of communication, but cannot misrepresent the process and find it irresponsible for you to publish something like that without speaking to both parties first…I question your credibility.
Emmett Johnson
Editor’s Reply
The generally accepted definition of the word “secretly” seems to apply here.
We appreciate being alerted to incorrect facts, and work to remedy them immediately; but, even after consideration of your comment, the word “secretly” continues to appear appropriate.
I understand the definition of secretly and reviewed you accepted definition and the was nothing secret about the process. It was an open invitation to anyone wanting to run on the republican ticket and your distortion on the process is incorrect and troubling. We all appreciate Don’s years of service to our town but if you ask him, he will confirm he received the correspondence from the committee hence there was no secret about it. A retraction would be appropriate and as a publisher I am surprised you are allowing your bias to be in play.
Editor’s Reply
There is no bias, just an objective review of the facts at hand. While the facts detailed in your comments describe a process that was certainly open, they fail to counter the greater evidence indicating that there was a “secret” agenda or motive.
It is most logical that an incumbent, with a long public record of service, would believe that a general request for a “bio” to be reviewed was actually being directed towards others. A “bio” from Don Burns would appear to be a redundant and bureaucratic action of no value when compared to his very public tenure in office. The same logic can be applied to a formal request for a letter of intent.
With a record of service spanning two decades, Burns’ ability to win both a Republican primary and the general election were evident. Based on these facts, one would need to accept that Don Burns had no sincere interest in serving on Oakland’s town council for another term by choosing to run as an independent with no financial backing. These facts lead again to what appears to be the appropriate use of the term “secretly”.
I’m not going to get into a verbal tennis match and argue symantics with you because you will always have the final word. As a journalist you have a responsibility to speak to both sides before publishing an article with accusations and you were negligent in your responsibilities. Your readers will see through your agenda and be confused by your logic.
I cannot understand how anyone with a conscience could defend the actions of this mayor and council. They way they discard good people is appalling. Mr. Burns obviously wanted to run for public office again; you think the party that he has been loyal to for 2 decades would have given him the opportunity to run under their banner. Great article Oakland Journal! You obviously hit a chord of guilt amongst Oakland politburo.
Hi Emmett,
While I appreciate your concerns over my role as publisher of The Journal, my background is in technology and project management. This might explain my predilection towards semantics which are integral to technological development and implementation.
In any event, I think my agenda was quite clear concerning the portion of the article you find troubling, and that was to highlight the demeanor of Don Burns in relation to the situation. To lose gracefully is good, but to accept the additional challenges he faced made Burns’ speech at the meeting quite exemplary.
Thanks for the opportunity to discuss the situation.