Dayton937

Things to do in Dayton | Restaurants, Theatre, Music and More

Local Government/Politics

An Interview with Jared Grandy- Former Community-Police Relations Coordinator

By

Daytonians joined activists around the country at the end of May in rising up against police brutality following George Floyd’s state-sanctioned murder in Minneapolis over Memorial Day Weekend. All of this led to an awakening of sorts, wherein white people rather suddenly seemed to come to an understanding that racism hadn’t, in fact, been eliminated in the 1960s and anti-Black racism continues to be a driving force in every imaginable sector of American life.

In the absence of a robust organized resistance, Dayton city leadership and police were able to squash local discontent by Sunday, May 31st, when a 7 PM curfew enforced by armored military vehicles, helicopters, and eerily fascist police announcements threatening arrest cleared the streets, paving the way for Mayor Nan Whaley to declare “Black Lives Matter” even after her city government used the very tactics activists have been marching in the streets to dismantle.

It was against the backdrop that I wanted to speak to someone who’s been at the forefront of trying to solve the problem of municipal police states since well before white people began paying attention. Jared Grandy is the former community-police relations coordinator whose resignation coincided with the national unrest over police brutality. The story he told me over a nearly 90-minute talk holds stark lessons for how high the mountain is that we must climb in Dayton if we care as much about equality and justice as public proclamations and social media say we do.

Jared Grandy

Grandy was the type of civil servant every Daytonian should want out of a city worker. Born and raised in Dayton and a graduate of our public schools who found his passion for learning at Sinclair Community College before undergraduate studies at the University of Cincinnati and law school at Northern Kentucky University, he represents the best of who we can be as a city. 

What he found, however, when he assumed the community-police relations coordinator role, however, wasn’t a welcome mat rolled out for someone with deep roots, a solid legal understanding, and a passion for the city. Instead he ran face-first into Dayton’s bipartisan white supremacist foundation.

Jared Grandy: The reason I was interested in that particular position [community-police relations coordinator], is because at the time I was naive enough to think that, you know, there was a difference that could actually be made locally.

By that time, I mean, that was 2016, so we’ve seen Trayvon Martin, Alton Sterling, Michael Brown, John Crawford, on and on and on, and I just thought this was an opportunity to make a significant difference in my local community, in my hometown, the town I know and love so much, and you know over time it just became apparent that it wasn’t the case that we were there to make any significant change. 

Jason Harrison: What made you think that? Well, how quickly did you make that realization?

Grandy: Relatively quickly. Within a few months I realized that [Dayton Police] Chief  [Richard] Biehl and the Commission to a certain extent wasn’t interested in having the difficult conversation. You would hear Chief Biehl even say to this day that the CPC (community-police council) was about mutual accountability which is another way of saying that you know the community is responsible for ending its own gun violence and we’re here to help with that process. And I don’t necessarily disagree with that, right? That idea of mutual accountability, yes, we are responsible for our community but don’t make that assumption that there aren’t people working on those issues. You know there’s pastors and youth leaders and private organizations that’s been working on gun violence in the urban environment for years across the country.

Harrison: It’s the old trope about “black on black crime.” Just because you’re not aware of the work that’s being done—

Grandy: Correct. That’s exactly it. And Chief is smart enough and savvy enough to not say “black on black crime,” you know he just says “mutual accountability” instead.

Harrison: It’s rebranded.

Grandy: Yeah. It’s just rebranded. That’s my issue with Chief Biehl specifically is he’s so good about using the same old tropes, rebranding them, sounding progressive, sounding liberal, and I think the community gets confused about what they got. With Trump, we know exactly what we have. When you tweet “when the looting starts, the shooting starts,” that’s a pretty clear message, right? But when you say, you know, we’re working on this issue, we care, you think you have somebody who’s listening and progressive but in reality the policies that are implemented are no different than what a conservative like Trump would implement. And that’s what we get stuck with. 

The Dayton Daily News reported Grandy’s resignation as the community-police relations coordinator on June 3rd, just hours before Mayor Nan Whaley held a press conference announcing five police “reforms.” The timing of the city’s press conference—just hours after the Dayton Daily report on Grandy’s resignation—raises questions about whether that press conference was intended not to begin a process of reform but to distract us from Grandy’s message. (Two of the five reforms are mere continuations of existing policy).

Aside from Grandy’s eloquent rage, what I found most interesting about the article was how Chief Biehl used time-honored tactics intended to silence, dismiss, and discredit. But the quotes attributed to the chief fail to puncture Grandy’s arguments and instead serve to highlight just how steeped in supporting status quo white supremacist notions of “objectivity” the Dayton city government is.

Responding to Grandy’s contention that the Dayton police have a “warrior-like” mentality—an accusation I’ve heard from other people close to police officers—Biehl didn’t offer a substantive response, and instead chose only to offer that “Grandy’s three-year experience doesn’t compare to the decade-long relationship his department has with the Community Police Council.”

This is the part of Grandy’s story that I think is worth every Daytonian considering, and it’s a story that every Black person in this country will find familiar. The city was hostile to the idea of meaningfully transforming the police, Grandy recognized this quickly, and left when his conscience wouldn’t allow him to continue giving the city cover for its anti-Black policies. Then that resignation is used as proof that somehow Grandy isn’t serious about making positive change, despite the fact that he’s dedicated his entire professional life to the uplift and security of Black people. 

Grandy simply wasn’t “objective” enough to do his job—which led to two separate write-ups in his personnel file—but the problem is how that objectivity has been traditionally defined in Dayton and around the country. White people have always been in charge of defining who is objective and who isn’t. They’ve even been able to define what data are and are not objective. 

When Grandy and I spoke at my personal training studio, the tense protests that had swept through the country were still fresh. So I brought up an infamous moment from Buffalo when police officers brazenly pushed an elderly man, causing him to fall, hit his head, and sustain serious injuries. Here’s how a police spokesman initially described the event:

“…a 5th person was arrested during a skirmish with other protestors and also charged with disorderly conduct. During that skirmish involving protestors, one person was injured when he tripped & fell.”

Tripped and fell. Thankfully there was a viral video to show otherwise.

Harrison: The passive language is how they’ve been able to get away with it.

Grandy: So, okay. While I was with the CPC, for two years in a row we commissioned and released this data report. Right? And the findings were that the vast majority of use of force incidents that were reported were investigated by the professional standards bureau and those officers were exonerated, right? You could look it up, but I think it was 847 instances of use of force and 841 of the incidents were exonerated.

Harrison: 841 out of 847.

Grandy: Yes. Meaning that, you know, yes, the use of force happened, but the use of force was sanctioned and all was good, right? 

Harrison: Honestly when you said that I was thinking it would be like 80 percent or something like that. That’s damn near 100 percent. 

Grandy: Almost 100 percent. I mean, for statistical purposes that’s 100 percent.

I did look it up, by the way. Grandy’s recollection was exactly right: 841 out of 847 exonerations. You can read the 2018 report here.

Grandy: I was no longer interested in commissioning that data report because the data itself was so biased and it told a false story. Because the data suggests that yes we arrest people and yes we use force but the force is necessary. If the police determine what force is necessary then of course there is going to be a bias.

Which is why I talked to Dr. Richard Stock from the University of Dayton who we paid to do the report, and he said “I can’t figure out how to account for that bias.” So I’m like I’m not doing it anymore because I’m not advancing the narrative that cops are using force legitimately for all practical purposes 100 percent of the time. 

Harrison: This is like the racist claim that like, well Black people commit more crime. 

Grandy: Yeah. For sure. For sure. It advances that. And if you read the FOP response to my resignation they use that in there. They say well Jared Grandy praised the police and reported that most use of force was legitimate. And that’s such a mischaracterization of what happened. Yes, I did at the time praise the professional standards bureau for the way they do their investigations. It was very transparent. It seemed to be thorough. But they left out the part, which never made it to Commission because Commission is this Disney presentation, you know, it’s not meant for hard-hitting conversation. It’s a PowerPoint slide for goodness sakes. Right? But you know, to take that presentation without the context of the conversations that had prior to that presentation and prior to that report where we discussed at length the implicit bias and favor of the police department in this data. So I was frustrated.

Harrison: Did you find that a tension between being a city employee and doing that work?

Grandy: Yeah. I mean, yes. 

Harrison: That’s a perfect example of like, that was a big part of a conversation, but then when it comes to present it publicly there’s pressure—

Grandy: For sure. For sure.

Harrison: There’s a machine here now.

Grandy: Correct. That’s what I’m getting at. There’s a machine. Everything is hunky dory coming out of the commission. Everything is hunky dory when the mayor speaks. So as a city employee, as somebody who works directly under the commission as an HRC employee, of course. Of course I feel the pressure to get on board with that culture, because if I’m the one dissenting opinion then I am the one who is, you know, you have to get rid of that right? 

Jared Grandy is one of the rare people who has been willing to sacrifice the comfort of his public service job to sound the alarm for the rest of us, all the while offering a discomfiting glimpse inside the Democratic Party machine that stands in the way of the transformation necessary to build equality for Black people in the city of Dayton.

I asked Grandy about those personnel write-ups mentioned in the Dayton Daily News article. He said that people were more upset that that was included in the article about his resignation than he was. 

Grandy: People were a lot more offended on my behalf than I actually was. I’m like “Yes! I had a problem being objective. Like, sure, I’m a Black man, of course I’m going to side with the people every time. The thing is they wanted me to be an objective facilitator of conversation. Which at times I tried to be, but over time I realized that some of these people [from the community] wanted me to open the door for more contentious conversation so as to feel like we were making some progress because beforehand, my first year-and-a-half in, I’d invite people to CPC and kid you not, I quote, “Jared this is bullshit I don’t want to be a part of this,” right? “Because why are we here? We’re not talking any of the things that really matter to the community.” 

What Grandy did was even the playing field for ideas, such that the voice of the people was elevated to be equal to those of the officials in power. He had the temerity to declare their lens of the world as critically important in a city and a country that views the white lens as normative. 

Grandy: I wanted to give them permission to talk about the issues that they really cared about. Prior to that moment what we had, was, you know, even though we had very smart courageous people on the CPC, it’s intimidating to have the chief of police, the city manager, the commissioners, sitting there, and they took advantage of that power dynamic and they really controlled the narrative.

The Dayton Daily News article about Grandy’s resignation was a case study in attempting to control the narrative. “Grandy has struggled to maintain neutrality in his role as community-police relations coordinator and serve as a facilitator, instead of an advocate, according to a January 2020 performance improvement plan in his personnel file.”

But Grandy isn’t ashamed of those write-ups. He’s proud. And we should be too. 

Grandy: That whole article to me was like, yes, indeed, I did all of this stuff. When my grandkids read this article they’ll be proud because I’m on the right side of history.

CO-OP Fest brings Friday night fun, food and music to support Gem City Market!

By

On Friday, October 25th, The Yellow Cab Tavern is excited to host CO-OP Dayton for their second annual CO-OP Fest, presented by IUE-CWA. With support from local labor unions and independent, cooperative, and employee-owned businesses, CO-OP Fest is a celebration of Dayton workers and cooperators. It is also a fundraiser for the Gem City Market incubator, Co-op Dayton. The event features some of Dayton’s finest food trucks, bands, poets, worker and cooperative initiatives, raffles, and games!

The musical acts include some seriously funky bands!

6:30pm – Deron Bell Band
8:00pm – Premium Blend Music
9:30pm – Freakquency

There will also be a tap takeover at the Yellow Cab’s bar with Fifth Street Brewpub, Dayton’s own Co-Op Brewery!

Founded in 2015, Co-op Dayton is committed to incubate cooperative businesses to bring sustainable jobs to Dayton and address Dayton’s food crisis through the Gem City Market co-op.

How to Go?

Friday, October 25th, 2019 at The Yellow Cab Tavern 

Cover starts at 5pm with food trucks and meet & greet

6pm the spoken word performances and live music begin.

$15 at the doors / $10 for Gem City Market co-op members.

Luminaries of Dayton: Daniel C. Cooper

By

What if Dayton had been named Cooperstown?

Seventeen days after the Treaty of Greenville, Judge Cleves Symmes of New Jersey, sold the seventh and eight ranges of his vast land holdings, between the Great Miami and Mad Rivers on one side and the little Miami on the other to Governor Arthur St. Clair, General Jonathan Dayton, General James Wilkinson, and Colonel Israel Ludlow. Jonathan Dayton was one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence but he never saw or visited his name-sake city. Gen. St. Clair employed Benjamin VanCleve and Daniel C. Cooper, a surveyor, to be their agent. Cooper blazed the trail from Fort Hamilton up the east bank of the Miami River to the mouth of the Mad River. The next expedition was conducted personally by Colonel Ludlow on November 4, 1795.

During the winter of 1795, forty six men in Cincinnati agreed to settle in the new town but when the time came, only nineteen responded. William Hamer and George Newcom were in charge of the two overland parties, which would follow the trail laid out previously by Cooper. Newcom’s party, walked the distance of 55 miles, taking two weeks to make the journey. The Samuel Thompson party made the journey in ten days, by pirogue. Benjamin VanCleve was one that helped propel the boat. It was a long narrow boat which had boards running along each side which walked those who would propel the boat. They would hold their poles against the bottom of the river near the head of the boat and bringing the ends of the poles to their shoulders and then walked slowly down the running board to the stern, returning at a quick pace to the bow for a new set. VanCleve, who surveyed with Daniel Cooper, was so impressed with the Dayton area, that it was his enthusiasm which enticed the settlers to make the journey.

Newcom’s Tavern was the first cabin erected, and soon the town was well under way, but trouble soon erupted in 1800, and the town nearly folded. Judge Cleves Symmes had not made good on his government land contract. The U. S. Government decided to increase their demand for payment from the original 68 cents per acre to 2 dollars per acre. Some of the Dayton settlers left town in disgust. In 1802, only five families remained in Dayton.

Cooper Female Academy

It was Daniel C. Cooper who came to the aid of the settlers. Most of all it was Cooper’s utmost faith in Dayton which moved him to action. Therefore a petition from his own hand was dispatched to Congress telling them what a hard time the Dayton people were having, how faithfully they had worked and how cruel it would be to dispossess them after such a good start. Cooper then took over on his own responsibility the title risk and bought outright from each settler his holdings, until practically the whole of Dayton was his. Because of Cooper’s generosity, the town was forever free of invalid titles and all future arrivals had their titles secured. Cooper donated land areas for churches, schools and businesses and even two cemeteries.

Daniel Cooper was the first surveyor, he also donated the land for the first graveyard located at Third and Main streets in 1805 and again donated land about 10 years later to establish the Fifth Street Graveyard located between Ludlow and Wilkinson streets. It was at his mill in 1799, that the first death was recorded, that of John Davis, and due to the death of Mr. Davis, the first fire department was established. Mr. Cooper also had the first distillery which was located on his farm in 1799, and he ran the first carriage in 1817.

“In no way did Daniel Cooper confer a greater benefit upon his town,” wrote Robert W. Steele in his history, “than by inducing a number of men of

superior education, character and business capacity to come here from his native New Jersey and other places between 1804 and 1808.” Charles Russell Greene, Joseph Pierce and Horatio Gates Phillips were among those men.

From the Roz Young series of articles written about Cooper and published in the Dayton Daily News in 1994, she writes:

On the morning of July 13, 1818, Phillips walked to Cooper’s house. “The church bell was delivered to my place this morning,” he said.
Cooper looked at his pocket watch. “There’s time to take it to the church before lunch,” he told Phillips. “I’ll pick it up directly.”

He fetched a wheelbarrow from his barn and pushed it to the store on the southeast corner of Second and Main. He set the wheelbarrow down by the bell where it rested on the gravel street. It never occurred to him to ask Phillips to help him load the bell on the wagon. It was heavy, and he tugged and pulled and strained to hoist it into the barrow. The veins on his forehead head stood out as the blood rushed through them as he struggled. Finally with the bell in the wheelbarrow, he started for the church.

He started down Second Street, but before he had gone very far, his hands lost their grasp on the barrow handles and he fell over in the street.

Daniel Cooper was dead. A blood vessel in his brain had burst.

When he died, Cooper was 45, the leading citizen of Dayton. He had a beautiful wife and a 6-year-old son. He had recently begun building a new home, which was planned to be the most imposing, elegant house in Dayton.

His death stunned the community.

Of all the land that Cooper gave to the city, only the plot he gave “for a public walk forever” still remains. The Montgomery County Public Library was built on the land, and for a few years the surrounding area was called Library Park. But finally the city fathers passed a resolution that it should be called Cooper Park.

Cooper Park Historical Marker

Near the rear entrance of the library the Montgomery County Historical Society erected a marker in 1974, which reads:

Cooper Park

Daniel C. Cooper (1773-1818) perhaps more than any other deserves to be called the founder of Dayton. A surveyor with Israel Ludlow, Cooper settled in Dayton in the summer of 1796 and became the titular owner of the town when the original proprietors defaulted. He platted the city, laying out broad streets “four poles wide” and built most of the early mills. Cooper served as Dayton’s first justice of the peace and as a member of the state legislature. He donated ground for a graveyard, lots for churches, schools and public buildings, as well as the land for this park.

Daniel Cooper died on July 13, 1818. He was the 28th interment at Woodland Cemetery having been removed from the old 5th Street Cemetery to Woodland on May 4, 1844. He is located in Section 55 Lot 1.

July 13, 2018 marks the 200th Anniversary of the death of Daniel Cooper. We hope you will come out to pay a visit to the “Father of Dayton” and thank him for putting the Gem City on the map.

Luminaries of Dayton: Charles Russell Greene

By

Charles Russell Greene was born in Newport, Rhode Island on December 21, 1785. His family moved to Marietta, Ohio in 1788 with the Ohio Company. Mr. Greene’s sister married Daniel C. Cooper, who influenced Charles to settle in Dayton in 1806. Charles entered into partnership with Cooper and soon after had a store on his own. In 1822, he was appointed to succeed Benjamin Van Cleve as Clerk of Montgomery County, Court of Common Pleas, holding that office until his death. He was one of the first to serve on the Board of Directors of Dayton’s first bank. His position as Dayton’s first fire warden was what led to his death. 

Mr. Greene had ordered Matthew Thompson into the line to pass water buckets during a fire. The man refused and Mr. Greene used his authority to force him to comply. The next day Mr. Thompson made complaint and had Mr. Greene summoned before the Squire. During Mr. Green’s inquiry, Mr. Thompson, while under the influence of alcohol, struck Charles on the head, which resulted in his death.

Charles Russell Greene died on September 10, 1833. He was one of those that was removed from the Old Fifth Street Cemetery and re-interred at Woodland on December 11, 1844.

Woodland Cemetery, founded in 1841, is one of the nation’s oldest rural garden cemeteries and a unique cultural, botanical and educational resource in the heart of Dayton, Ohio. Visit the cemetery and arboretum and take one of the many tours Woodland offers free of charge. Most of Dayton’s aviation heroes, inventors and business barons are buried at Woodland.

Woodland Cemetery and Arboretum is located at 118 Woodland Avenue off of Brown Street near the University of Dayton Campus. The Woodland Office is open Monday through Friday 8 am to 5 pm and Saturday 8 am to 12 pm. The Cemetery and Arboretum are open daily from 8 am to 6 pm. The Mausoleum is open daily from 9 am to 5 pm. For more information, call 937-228-3221 or visit the Woodland Cemetery and Arboretum website.

Dayton Receives Perfect Score for LGBTQ Equality

By

For the second consecutive year, Dayton has received a perfect score on the Municipal Equality Index of policies and practices supporting equality on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

The annual Municipal Equality Index is compiled by the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest LGBTQ advocacy organization. The 2017 index rates a total of 506 cities, based on 44 criteria.
Dayton’s perfect score reflects its anti-discrimination ordinance, inclusive employment policies, law enforcement practices, municipal services and equality leadership. The 101-point raw score exceeds the index’s 100-point maximum.
Dayton was also named an All-Star City for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights. The All-Star status results from earning a score higher than 80 despite being located in a state without protections for LGBTQ people.
“Dayton continues to be a leader in supporting equality, often exceeding state and federal protections,” said Mayor Nan Whaley. “Our commitment to diversity and inclusion is the right thing to do and is essential to Dayton’s future growth.”
“Dayton believes its diverse tapestry of residents, from all kinds of backgrounds, has been key to its successes in the past and will be key to its future success.  Being a welcoming community makes Dayton a better place for everyone,” said Kery Gray, Director of City Commission Office and the Mayor’s Liaison to the LGTBQ community.
The full report and Dayton’s scorecard are online at hrc.org/mei.

OPINION: Voting as Defensive Action – Why I’m Voting for President Obama

By Leave a Comment

Lately many people I love and admire have said either, 1) They refuse to vote, or 2) They have decided to vote for a 3rd Party candidate. Let me first discuss the issue of voting. The rationale for refusing to vote, is that “voting doesn’t matter” as expressed by the Facebook meme “If voting made a difference, it would be illegal”. While I am sympathetic to the frustration and disillusionment with the system as articulated (Citizens United, etc), I would like to offer evidence that voting does matter precisely because Republicans are going out of their way (and have been for many years) to make voting illegal. The recent Voter ID laws are simply the latest in a string of tactics designed to disenfranchise voters.  In addition to more overt attempts to marginalize voters, we’ve seen some of the same disinformation and threatening tactics used in the past, resurface in Wisconsin. Recent examples in Ohio include attempts to curtail early voting, which was thankfully overturned. We have seen ‘creative’ tactics used in “swing” states to suppress the vote. For instance, mailers sent to voters that usually vote Democrat, that have the wrong voting date or polling place. These and the billboards in Milwaukee are just the latest, in efforts sustained over decades, schemes to keep folks away from the polls. Not to mention those disenfranchised by virtue of their criminal history.

It is hard to believe that “voting doesn’t make a difference” with so much money and effort being spent to disenfranchise voters. With such abysmal voter participation rates already (Presidential elections see the most voter turnout, with the 2008 election being decided by 56.8 of the electorate, while only 37.8 voted in the midterm election of 2010), someone(s) must think it is worthwhile to further discourage voting among target populations. Perhaps voting would make even more of a difference if more people voted, not less.

Bear with me, discussing the 3rd Party vote promises to be a bit more long-winded. The reasons most often expressed for voting 3rd party include, 1) “I cannot in good conscience vote for the lesser of 2 evils” and 2) “Until things get really bad, no one will wake up”. Let me preface my comments by saying I think a viable third party would be just grand. In fact, I would love to see even more viable parties. However, we work with what we’ve got. Let me also suggest, that I am just about as idealistic as one can be. My research, activism and teaching reflect my ideals. I make no claims to being neutral, because as Howard Zinn said, “You can’t be neutral on a moving train”. I long for a just world. I believe it is possible. I believe it will take a lot of work and I’m willing to engage in that work. Most of my friends could say the same, because I have great friends.

“I can’t in good conscience vote for the lesser of two evils”. Let’s discuss this one first, because I think it is so illogical. There are two important pieces to this statement, the part about conscience and the bit about the lesser of two evils. They overlap of course, but I want to tease them apart a bit. I think most folks acknowledge that the two presidential candidates are quite different. Romney wants to move the neoliberal project along as quickly as possible by privatizing everything- in other words, profit over people. He has made this crystal clear. He doesn’t care about 47% of the population-they are disposable. He wants to rip up the last shreds of the social compact. He will repeal “Obamacare” if given half a chance. He wants to wrest from the earth every last drop of profit, climate change be damned.

Obama is no progressive, but his vision is fundamentally different. He actually acknowledges  climate change. He is the first president to be able to get some sort of health care reform passed, no mean feat in this political climate. Some folks suggest he used all his political capital on this venture and that it was a waste, since we didn’t get universal healthcare. Those in need of health care, that are now gaining coverage, probably think differently. Obama assumes that government plays a role in protecting its citizens, not just through the military (I know, this one is a sore spot-I hate drones), but also through social welfare programs and education. I am suggesting that there are many ways in which he falls short of what I would describe as progressive, but he is most definitely the lesser of two evils. I think all of us who would describe ourselves as some sort of left of center are in agreement on this point. So my real confusion with this statement, “ I can’t in good conscience vote for the lesser of two evils”, is that knowing that one candidate is “less evil” than another, we can somehow describe this as a calculation based upon good conscience.  Particularly, when any alternative candidate that might be more closely aligned with our ideals and goals has no hope of being elected? How is that really different from voting for the greater evil or not voting at all? Wallerstein (2004) conceptualizes voting as defensive action, because “The world’s populations live in the present and their immediate needs have to be addressed” (p. 272). But, he reminds us, we don’t engage in electoral action to prop up the existing system, “but rather of preventing its negative effects from getting worse in the short run” (p. 272). We can hold a different vision for the world and still vote for “less evil”.

This brings me to the final point. “Until things get really bad, no one will wake up”. This argument, this one, makes me splutter in indignation. I wonder whom “we” mean when we say things have to get bad. Get bad for whom? Whose son or daughter? Whose parents? Things are already pretty bad for too many people. There seems to be this desire to rush the “revolution” through human misery (see, http://revs4romney.org/, for instance). Really? How is this different from Right wing propaganda suggesting we all take our lumps for the good of the market? Sure, they argue, some folks will have to tighten their belts, but that’s the price of progress (remember the applause for, “some will die”?). In other words, how are we any different from the ‘other’ side if we make this sort of argument? The hard-line adherence to a radical philosophy is one of the critiques of the Occupy movement I find relevant to this discussion. Journalists, primarily, have criticized the OWS movement for being too theoretical, or too ideologically rigid, for caring more for theory than for people, for eschewing praxis in service to process. It is certainly worth consideration in relation to voting or voting third party.

So here is where I lose my radical credentials, I suppose. Letting my emotions get the best of me (Because of course emotion is bad/feminine, and rationality is good/manly). However, I am not willing to sacrifice my brothers and sisters to any cause, with the knowledge that is exactly what I would be doing! Chomsky argues, for the same reasons as Wallerstein, that if we live in a swing state, we should vote for Obama.

In a recent interview, Cornell West argues similarly, despite his repeated and pointed critiques of the Obama administration, “We have to prevent a Romney takeover of the White House. No doubt about that. It would be very dangerous in terms of actual lives and actual deaths of the elderly and the poor. Those people who are dependent on various programs would have to deal with the ugly damage of the further redistribution of wealth from the poor and working people to the well off” [emphasis added]. It doesn’t get much clearer than that. I must, in good conscience vote for the lesser of two evils.

Voting matters. Voting, while not direct action, is defensive action. Voting is an act of solidarity with our brothers and sisters. Voting for the lesser of two evils is a sort of praxis. Voting is not where it ends, however. Voting in and of itself is not enough. To have a true democracy, we must work, shift, push, from outside the system as well, toward the world we would like to see (A third party, economic democracy, etc.) These scholar/activists also make this clear. Voting is but a beginning. But it is a beginning.

 

OPINION – Lack of details and potential impact to Cooper Park mean NO on Dayton Metro Library’s Issue 70

By 4 Comments

Early 20th century Downtown Dayton Library in Cooper Park

A little girl checks a book out of the library.  It is a story about the queen of Daytonia.

The queen realizes it is a great responsibility bestowed on her, and she must keep her kingdom safe and happy.  The King of Daytonia really rules the kingdom, but the queen has a lot of power.  King has strict rules, and the queen wants people to be happy and go along with the rules.

After listening to her subjects, the queen realizes that there is a desperate need in the kingdom for new libraries. So she sets about building one big library and several small ones.  She finds some consultants that tell her it will cost 230 million in gold.  The queen knows that the King will not giver her permission to spend that much of his gold, so she tentatively asks him a series of questions (through polling) to find his spending limit.  After a lot of hinting around, she figures out that the limit is probably 187 million in gold.

How will you reduce the price of the libraries you want to build? asks her good friend Belinda.

“I will just make the work go faster and really push the workers to be efficient.  If I do it faster, I don’t spend as much money.” replied the queen.

Belinda was dubious.  She knows that you can go fast and do less, or go cheap and go slow (or do less), but has never seen anyone go fast and cheap and do the same amount of work.  “Can you still build all the buildings and make sure that the kingdom is not filled with empty buildings?”  Of course replied the queen confidently.

Belinda was concerned.  She knew that the big library was very important to the kingdom.  She knew that the plan the queen had come up with for the big library was not very detailed.

“Are you going to build the library in the same place?  Because so often it floods.”

“Oh yes, and I think it would be super if we provided space underground for all of the horses to be parked while the people were in the library.” Replied the queen.

“But couldn’t the horses drown if they are so close to the water underground?”

“I don’t know…” said the queen.  “Maybe we could build them a room on the first floor in the open garden to put the horses… and build more space for the library on top. We will figure it all out later.”

Belinda was confused.  The horses always parked on the street and there was a lot of space there to look out over the garden where the children played and the people of the kingdom enjoyed their lunch.  It seemed like it might upset the people if the garden is ruined.

Belinda tried a different tactic.  “Wouldn’t it be easier to just build a new library in a safer place and build exactly what the people want?”

“Belinda, I would do that we can’t build that for 90 million in gold, which is how much we can spend on the big library.  That would cost 96 million in gold.  I can renovate the existing library for less money and just use the garden and current land because it is “free.””

Belinda was thoughtful for a moment.  Perhaps the queen had a good idea, but still… only a difference of 6 million in gold?  Belinda thought maybe it would make more sense to spend a little more money to get something perfect.  She wanted to know more.  She asked…

“How much of the garden would you use?” “Oh, I don’t know…” said the queen.

“How much would you save if you just used the parking space that is already available for the horses?”  “$7 million in gold” said the queen.

What will the library look like?  “Oh, I don’t know.” said the queen.

“Will it have all the important new features that the kingdom wants?” asked Belinda.

“Oh certainly.” said the queen.

“Tell me how the 90 million in gold would be spent…”

“Well, I can give you some rough estimates from the consultants, but I don’t really have any details” said the queen.

Belinda shook her head and said.  “My dear queen, I think a new library is a great idea.  But I know the king and he will want more answers before he will approve spending all that gold.”

“Well, I am going to ask anyway.” said the queen testily.  “We can just figure out the details later.

Belinda said “Dear queen, the king would be foolish to give you that money without a way to hold you accountable.  You need a detailed plan and a timeline that makes sense, and to be 100% certain you could deliver what is truly needed – and best for all -to take on such a project.  The big library must be built very thoughtfully.”

Cooper Park

The little girl put the book down and went to eat dinner with her parents.  As she ate she saw saw a page of facts about the library being proposed for downtown Dayton.

  • $87,687,798 is the budget for the new main library and should reflect the actual  requirements for the facility, but in fact is based on a “price per square foot estimate.”  There is no detail to what this number means, it is just a high level estimate.
  • Members of the Board of Trustees for the library even questioned why we would renovate the library rather build new to save only 6.5 million of a hypothetical, high level budget estimate.
  • From the plan: The current building has a number of issues that prevent it from being a candidate for expansion” with the most significant being that “Now the library is literally floating on top of aquifer and 25% of the main library’s space is regularly at risk of damage from flooding.”  This would make underground parking as proposed in the plan nearly impossible.  Significant, under-utilized parking exists all around the library today.
  • The plan includes a 100,000 square foot expansion of the library that would be built on existing green space in Cooper Park, which the library leases from the city for free.
  • The city has said they are not aware of any plans that encroach on Cooper Park.  The executive director was quoted by the Dayton Daily News saying “About half of Cooper Park, which abuts the library, will be preserved under the current plan…”   Despite strong resident resistance to losing much of the park, the plan says, well “at least a portion of Cooper Park and many of its signature trees will remain in tact.”  (Dayton Daily News – Oct. 26, 2012)
  • Cooper Park has benefited from improvements being made by the city as part of the Patterson Blvd. project.  New paving, new lights and improved amenities will all be finished in 2012 – but that money will have been wasted if the library decimates Cooper Park during the library renovation.  Residents expect to see property value increases due to the park renovations – some estimated up to 10% based on studies for the Trust for Public Land.  All property value increases (and derived tax benefit for the city) would be delayed at least 4 years.

[dropshadowbox align=”left” effect=”lifted-both” width=”250px” height=”” background_color=”#ffffff” border_width=”1″ border_color=”#dddddd” ]“About half of Cooper Park, which abuts the library, will be preserved under the current plan…” Tim Kambitsch, director of the Dayton Metro Library[/dropshadowbox]The concept of the levy is solid, but the implementation details are too light for voters to make an informed decision or to hold the library accountable to the promise that the levy holds for the main branch.  The plan to renovate the existing facility (vs. build new) does not make sense financially (nor does the parking component) given the loss in property values and income tax revenue over the next four years, nor has it been fully vetted.  With a little creativity and additional time, I am confident that the library can come up with a facility plan that gives us a new building, possibly cheaper, while still meeting all of the site selection criteria identified for a main branch.  This could allow the expansion of green space rather than the retraction of it.  Please vote no on Issue 70 so that we can get the library and green space that we deserve downtown.

Editor’s Note – this article does not necessarily reflect the opinions of Dayton Most Metro or its contributors.  Your opinions are welcome in the comment section below.

Get Informed – Updayton Election Forum

By Leave a Comment

On Wednesday, October 24 from 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm updayton will host its fourth annual Election Forum. Attendees this year will hear both sides of State Issue 2 and will have the opportunity to question County Commission candidates on their plans for Montgomery County. The forum will take place at Dayton Liederkranz-Turner (1400 E. 5th St.) and will be moderated by the League of Women Voters of the Greater Dayton Region.

Updayton’s Election Forum is the exclusive pre-election event dedicated to accepting questions on behalf of local young talent and then connecting them with candidates and issues of importance to them. “Our annual election forum bridges the gap between our target audience and elected officials by bringing the season’s hottest races and issues straight to these young voters,” says Shanon Potts, the updayton Advocacy Chair.

All are welcome to attend, regardless of age or county residency. Questions and important issues may be submitted in advance for consideration online to getinvolved@updayton.com, subject line, “updayton 4th Annual Election Forum.

Invited participants include:

  • Incumbent Debbie Lieberman and challenger Ashley Webb for Montgomery County Commission
  • Incumbent Judy Dodge and challengers Dave Vore and William Pace for Mont. County Commission
  • Speakers from both sides of Issues 2: Ohio Redistricting Amendment

 

How to attend:

Where: Dayton Liederkranz-Turner, 1400 E. 5th St., Dayton

When: Wednesday, October 24, 2012; 5:30 Registration/Networking, 6-8:00 pm Forum

How: Free to attend, but please RSVP to getinvolved@updayton.com

Updayton is dedicated to spurring economic growth within the region by attracting and retaining young talent. As part of its mission, updayton advocates to local, state and national leaders to make the Dayton area more appealing to young talent.

(submitted by Laura Estandia of Updayton)

Response to Mayor Leitzell’s Occupy Dayton Article

By Leave a Comment

(The following was submitted by Shawn Cassiman – a member of Occupy Dayton since its inception. She is involved in the education working group, the process and facilitation group, and others as the need arises and time allows.)

Reading Mayor Leitzell’s perspective on Occupy Dayton illustrates the nature of truth as partial (i.e. there are many truths) and contextual. My version of the truth bears some similarity to Mayor Leitzell’s, but not much. However, before I address the content, I would like to address the tone.

The Mayor begins his missive by describing “truths, half truths, and outright lies”  associated with the events that lead to Occupy Dayton leaving Dave Hall Plaza, and then declares his narrative the truth. He goes on to discuss his efforts to “educate” Occupy Dayton on local government and permitting processes, while referring to the “mostly” young people of the movement. In fact, as he may have noticed at the General Assembly meeting he attended, the average age of our members is probably somewhere in the mid-thirties. There are retired people, working professionals, students, working–class and under and unemployed people that identify with Occupy Dayton. Some of the youngest members of our group might be the “campers” that were arrested after not being given a chance to leave their location-despite claims otherwise.  It is unsurprising that campers would be young, since frequently young people are more willing and able to endure the physical conditions required by the camp experience. It is also unsurprising that many young people would be attracted to the Occupy movement, since we, as a society, have gone busily about the business of criminalizing youth. There are few safe spaces for young people to gather without drawing suspicion. It is no wonder that young people seek a space that offers them a sense of community and equal participation in decision-making when they have few other places to turn. However, to dismiss the movement as “mostly young people” serves distinct discursive purposes; it trivializes the experiences and contributions of young people, while continuing to perpetuate the stereotype of young people as dangerous.

It is true that Occupy Dayton did not apply for a permit. Perhaps Mayor Leitzell is unaware of the symbolism associated with this occupation movement? By eschewing the permit application in the process of occupation the movement draws attention to some of the very problems identified in the Occupy Wall Street Declaration such as the erosion of our rights, for instance, the right to peaceably assemble. The occupation also draws attention to the continued privatization of public space-the relationship between corporation and government. This is why many chants you might overhear at Occupy events include phrases such as, “Whose streets? Our streets!”  Ours. The people’s. Not the corporation’s.

The Mayor also condescendingly suggests that Occupy Dayton’s “complaint is with the federal government”. While I certainly agree that there is much to complain about in relation to the federal government, our local government must not attempt to absolve itself of responsibility to its citizens. Some of the same practices we might identify at the federal level certainly occur locally. In fact, after the campers voted to move to Dave Hall Plaza (at the suggestion of the DDP, City and County) in order to ease the minds of the public and not interfere with the “Grand Illumination”, they were then served, simultaneously, with two documents; 1) a ‘reminder’ of city park rules, and 2) a notice that the county was in the process of changing the ordinance on Courthouse Square in order to ban any activity between the hours of midnight and six am. The ACLU has registered a complaint as a result and had a representative in attendance at the second meeting of the County Commission dealing with this topic. Despite many people speaking out against the new regulations of Court House Square the vote passed unanimously in less than a minute. The erosion of rights is not only a federal problem. Occupy Dayton did not have an opportunity to move back to Courthouse Square. Perhaps you’ll pardon me for thinking that was the plan all along. As for “understanding the system”, I believe this sort of practice contributes all to well to our understanding of the system.

Hello World – Welcome to Dayton

By 1 Comment

When Dayton announced its Welcome Dayton Plan last month, it met with mixed reviews from the public. This was hardly surprising since the topic of immigration is currently a hot button issue in the United States. As the country is still struggling to regain its economic footing the subject of immigrant job seekers is and has been a particularly touchy one. Because of this strong stigma, the Welcome Dayton Plan may face its share of difficulty.

According to Mayor Gary Leitzell – who is himself an immigrant from England – the majority response to the Welcome Dayton Plan has been quite positive. “It’s so simple, it makes sense, all of the people that we’re trying to facilitate are already here anyway,” he said. The mayor added that those opposed to the plan seem to be those who are anti-Hispanic. The complaints he’s received regarding the plan have raised concerns over Dayton becoming a haven for illegal Hispanic immigrants.

However, Welcome Dayton is aimed at legal immigrants only. If an immigrant job seeker or business wants to find their place in Dayton, they have to go through all the verification processes. The word “immigrant” has become tied to the idea of Hispanic or Latino immigrants. However, Dayton has more than just one type of immigrant. A great example is our Ahiska Turk (or Meskhetian Turk) population that has been around for many years and continues to grow. Dayton also regularly receives refugee immigrants from many different countries.

“let’s come up with something to attract immigrants, and therefore attract entrepreneurs…” – Gary Leitzell

Mayor Gary Leitzell said that earlier this year as he and his staff began looking at immigrant statistics in Dayton, they realized the city’s immigrant population was incredibly diverse. In addition to Ahiska Turks, Hispanics and Latinos, the city is also home to people from Nigeria, Libya, Sudan, Iraq, Bosnia, Philippines, and Korea to name a few. “So we basically said let’s come up with something to attract immigrants, and therefore attract entrepreneurs, and come up with a plan that would facilitate their success in Dayton,” said Mayor Leitzell. The decision was influenced by the success the Ahiska Turk population has had as well as immigrant-related research and statistics. The committees were then formed to do just that and they drafted the Welcome Dayton Plan. Mayor Leitzell noted that the plan is a working one and is open and subject to change as new ideas or needs arise.

When it comes down to it, Dayton is on its way to becoming a very diverse population. The Welcome Dayton Plan seeks to make the most of this increasing population resource for all parties involved. But the question is, does Dayton really want to be recognized as an immigrant friendly city? The answer may very well be yes. With big businesses like GM and NCR leaving the state, Ohio has seen not only a revenue loss but also a population decrease as people migrate to other states looking for jobs.  Greaterohio.org has a good layout of this data and the immigrant population here. The Welcome Dayton Plan’s report notes that government studies – such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s report “Immigration Myths and Facts: Labor, Immigration & Employee Benefits Division” – have shown areas with similar economic issues have been rejuvenated with the influx of immigrant business and workers. They brought in jobs and money to these areas. Immigrant entrepreneurship could be a critical tool in the fight to stop the loss of business and profit in Dayton.

At its most basic level, the plan is designed to entice immigrant business and workers to Dayton by making itself immigrant friendly. This means Dayton will begin a two-way education campaign. One end will be aimed at immigrant entrepreneurs educating them on supportive resources to help reduce potential barriers to their integration. Specifically, access to and help understanding government services, laws, and health services. In example, there was a suggestion to put up a website regarding these services for the immigrants to easily access the information. Also recommended is a team of volunteers and public agency workers to help immigrants in their job searches and the process of opening a business. The other end will be aimed at current residents emphasizing the benefits of cultural diversity, immigrant business, and cross-cultural communication.

You might have noticed the mention of the word ‘volunteer.’ Some of this plan depends on community support in the form of volunteer services – the most important service being translation. For the Limited English Proficient (LEP), the plan suggests providing language services like ESL classes and translation support. Translation of both cultural mannerisms and linguistics are some of the largest barriers immigrants and non-immigrants face when it comes to integration.

Volunteering as an interpreter may simply require that you have a number at which you can be easily reached. If there’s an issue late in the night and an interpreter is needed, you may be able to fulfill your function from home through the telephone. Volunteerism could also keep more of the city’s budget in the black as it works to implement the plan, although some positions will be an expansion on current public jobs with a small stipend for the extra work. Now more than ever, being bilingual is an essential asset to any business and we can expect to see more job openings looking specifically for multi-lingual workers in banking, law enforcement, healthcare, and more. For college students wanting more real-world experience, or something nice to put on their resumes, volunteering as an interpreter could be for you.

The plan’s report also mentions the possibility of turning East Third Street in Dayton into an international marketplace. Mayor Gary Leitzell said that his vision is to open up space for a weekly open-air market. He believes selling in the proposed market could provide immigrants with the means to earn around $500 each month; which the mayor noted was typically the difference between owning and renting a house. So far, he’s received permission from Sandy Mendelson – who owns 70% of the large parking lot and the building behind the Webster Market – to set up the outdoor market at Third and Webster. The same rules that apply to Turtle Creek Market and Traders World would also apply to the International Market. This market could bring in more money from the suburbs and other areas as they seek out new flavors, decorations, and the like.

“Everyone needs to be open-minded and realize that when we talk about immigrants, we’re focused on a global aspect and if we can attract people from all cultures and all cultures, then we will increase the flavor that is Dayton,” said Mayor Leitzell. “Let’s realize that anyone who comes here from another country […] comes to America usually with a very open mind and the American dream in their head and they see America as the land of opportunity. And it turns out that a foreign born national is two times more likely to succeed as a small business than somebody that’s native born here.” He noted that not all immigrant workers will focus on small business. Many immigrants come over with specialized degrees that could benefit open positions in Dayton that lack qualified applicants. Perhaps the reason more of the qualified immigrant workers fail to obtain these jobs is due to a lack of understanding how to search for and apply to these jobs.

I’ve heard some people complain that it seems like Dayton will be bending over backwards for the immigrant businesses. I’d like to point out that cities and even states do more for big American businesses – typically including significant tax cuts – just to get them in their area. Big businesses don’t always invest as much in their locales as smaller businesses might because they aren’t terribly dependant on their locations. Especially with outsourcing being such a popular and cheap option.

For those of you still not convinced on the benefits of this plan, keep this in mind. New businesses pay rent, buy groceries, pay taxes, pay for utilities, buy furnishings, pay for construction work, and provide jobs directly and indirectly. New positions will be opening up in the coming years for workers with multiple language skills and to help set up or run services that provide support for immigrant businesses and workers. It’s important to remember the potential percentage of money that will be injected back into Dayton through any new local business. The more successful they are, the more they might spend to improve their business and expand.

There are still more facts, figures, and components included in the plan that I can’t cover here. I highly recommend that readers take a look at the easy to read plan for themselves here: http://www.daytonohio.gov/welcomedaytonreport.

Ohio’s Issue 2 – Where do YOU stand?

By Leave a Comment

Governor Kasich

If you’re anything like me, you’ve been barraged with rhetoric from both sides of the Senate Bill 5 issue. Rhetoric is often persuasive, but it doesn’t really give a person any solid facts to stand on. So what is the bill really about?

At its core, SB 5 (also known as Issue 2) is another effort put forward by government officials to cut spending in the public sector with the bill largely affecting public and government workers. Although many Americans are pushing for stricter spending budgets in the government, SB 5 allows for some big changes that have been causing a lot of controversy.

For teachers, SB 5 eliminates the “step raise” statutory salary schedules in favor of performance-based-pay determined partly on student performance. It abolishes all continuing contracts for teachers except for those made before July 2011. It removes seniority and length of service considerations from decisions regarding layoffs. The bill also eliminates current rules of leave and places the authority to set new policies on the Board of Education.

For health care benefit costs, SB 5 limits public employer contributions to 85 percent. So public employers will still be helping significantly with health care benefit costs and still more than what the majority of employers offer in the private sector. The bill also removes unions’ most effective bargaining tool: the strike action.

Perhaps the most controversial issue in the policies in SB 5 lies in changes to collective bargaining rights. Many of the bill’s policies reduce the types of collective bargaining that public workers with public employee unions can do. Specifically the bill states that bargaining for things like class sizes, wages, hours of employment, and terms and conditions of employment cannot be collectively bargained for. The bill also limits new collective bargaining agreements regarding sick leave and the certain types of leave that can be accumulated. However, the bill continues to allow collective bargaining for some benefits like pensions or health care as well as work safety issues.

Although collective bargaining and striking is out of the question in SB 5 it doesn’t limit what an individual public worker can bargain for. In that way, SB 5 seeks to put public employees in the same shoes as private workers. It’s not that a public worker can never try to get their pay raised or change the terms and conditions of their employment – they just have to do it individually, as it is done in the private sector. They also align more with the private sector workers in that the ability to gain a pay-raise is more performance and result based. Seniority may play a factor in job security, but no more than it does in the private sector should SB 5 be brought into law.

The reason collective bargaining and strike action removal is such a big issue goes back to the founding of the first unions. Unions were created to put enough power in the hands of employees to match or nearly match the power the employer had. They emerged during the Industrial Age in response to jobs that had poor and often dangerous working conditions for minimal pay and benefits. The individual worker had so little bargaining leverage that there was usually nothing they could do to improve their situation. However, together in a union the workforce became strong and able to level the playing field and demand better terms in the workers’ interest. The unions’ biggest and most effective weapon against unfair management was the strike.

This is why SB 5 is so controversial. It breaks down something that has been in place for nearly a century. To go back on anything that has such a long history is never easy and often worrying. After having the ability to collectively bargain, strike, and more for so long, the unions are concerned that the dissolution of them will cause public employees to suffer.

Those in support of SB 5 argue that it deflates the bloated levels of power public workers have had for many years now. They believe unions have become too effective and have abused their power and allowed many public workers to become lazy and entitled. Their view of SB 5 sees the bill as a way to cut costs in hard times where it can and needs to be cut. Many have largely supported the performance-based-pay and job evaluations as a much needed change in the public work sector. They argue that cutting workers who don’t perform in their jobs will increase efficiency and encourage better working practices in other public employees. Supporters believe that the necessity for union abilities like collective bargaining has lessened as standards are more easily enforced and that it’s time for each public employee to be hired or fired on their own abilities.

Those opposing SB 5 see the bill in a very different light. Some have even gone so far as to label it as dangerous, unfair, and detrimental to the economy. They are also keen to point out that while government officials are cutting from the public sector, politicians have failed to make cuts in their own benefits and wages. Opponents also believe the changes will lead to things like decreases in emergency task forces and cause shortages in health care workers and lead to overpopulated health care facilities with limited staffing. They say public sector employees have already had to take enough cuts and believe Ohio’s budget trouble stems from big corporations. They are concerned that without collective bargaining, individual workers will once again fall prey to greedy management and return to working conditions that existed prior to the rise of the union.

Wherever your opinions fall on Issue 2, I hope you’ll take away something from this article and make your voice heard November 8th at the polls.

Speak your mind…

By 2 Comments

I’m only one person….

My vote doesn’t matter….

I don’t really know the issues that well….

I don’t live in the city limits….

NO MORE EXCUSES!

Everyone is fed up. Between ‘tea-partiers’ upset at government and ‘occupiers’ upset at corporations – everyone has an opinion. Now it’s time to hear how opinions manifest into action for the City of Dayton. What can the City of Dayton Commission do to make our region a place for young professionals to live, work and play? How will you vote on Issue Two: is it asking everyone to pay their fair share or is it a violation of rights? Learn more – be informed – come to the updayton election forum.

Regardless of where you live, what happens in the City of Dayton affects your neighborhood
and everyone in Ohio votes on State Issue 2!

You are one person and your vote does matter.

Participants at updayton election forum

On Wednesday, October 26 from 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm, updayton will host their third annual Election Forum. The Election Forum provides young creative professionals the opportunity to ask the questions that matter to them about State Issue 2 and to question City Commission candidates on their plans for Dayton. The forum will take place at Harmon Business Center (530 N. Main Street). In partnership with updayton, the forum will be co-moderated by Monica Schultz and Gary Leppla of the League of Women Voters of the Greater Dayton Area.

As part of their mission of attracting and retaining young talent to spur economic growth, updayton advocates to local, state and national leaders. The Election Forum has become a mainstay of updayton programming. This yearly event provides this younger demographic a chance to ask tough questions to area candidates and learn about important issues.

Scott Murphy, updayton chair, welcomes young creatives to election forum

Updayton advocacy chair, Shanon Potts, stated, “Updayton is relentlessly devoted to collecting data on young talent attraction and retention, but we can’t stop there. We must use this data to advocate for our future in this community. Updayton’s Election Forum is the exclusive pre-election event dedicated to accepting questions on behalf of young, creative professionals and then connecting them with candidates and issues of importance to them.”

All are welcome to attend, whether you are a City of Dayton resident or “young” professional or not. Questions and important issues may be submitted in advance for consideration online at http://updayton.com.

Potts would like to see the forum encourage young people long after the final question is asked. She says, “We hope that our dynamic Election Forum may even serve to motivate and inspire more young leaders to run for office!”

Confirmed speakers include:

How to attend:

Where: Harmon Business Center, 530 N. Main Street, Dayton

When: Wednesday, October 26, 2011; 5:30 Registration/Networking,
6-8:00 PM Forum

How: Free to attend, but please RSVP to yvette.kelly-fields@updayton.com