We deserve a family-focused fighter who will show courage, motivate residents and represent minority views
If you have already voted, ignore this editorial. If you are still undecided, let us persuade you.
On Oct. 6, two local men with whom I have sparred and disagreed over the years extended their hands to say thanks for co-hosting the Larson Newspapers mayoral debate. Both men, my social seniors, shook my hand in a gesture of respect. Handshakes predate civilization, appearing in sculptures of Assyrian King Shalmaneser III in 900 BCE and being referenced in the Iliad and the Odyssey in the 12th century BCE. We shake with our dominant hands to demonstrate to potential enemies that we are unarmed and greet each other in peace and respect.
Yet after the vigorous debate we hosted, current Vice Mayor Scott Jablow visibly dodged the offer of a handshake extended by his opponent, Samaire Armstrong. The younger person, the woman, the single mother, offered her hand. The retired older man, the ex-cop, the elected official, the public servant, refused it. It reeked of cowardice, misogyny and disrespect and spoke to the character of both people on stage.
The snub begs many questions: Where does Jablow’s partisanship end? As mayor, will Jablow refuse to shake the hand of Ken Bennett, a Republican running to be our state senator? What of Republicans Selina Bliss or Mark Finchem, should they win their races? Or congressional candidate Eli Crane? Senate hopeful Blake Masters? What about Kari Lake, should she be elected governor?
More importantly, what about the Sedona residents who want to serve on city commissions or committees or who receive awards for their service? I was undecided before the debate, but that show of disrespect, in our house, as our guests, was unacceptable. We demand that our mayor rise above pettiness to serve all, but it appears Jablow is not yet mature enough for the office he seeks. Armstrong has met with liberals and conservatives, gaining their support, and has shown herself to be more adult than her challenger. Therefore, vote Armstrong.
Let’s examine the pressing issues.
Six council members who will govern Sedona for the next two years will vote in lockstep on nearly every issue, based on what they said at the forums. It is hard to discern differences among them and even some of our readers got confused about who was who this cycle. This bloc already has a six-vote majority; giving it a seventh vote benefits no one. One divergent vote can be the devil’s advocate, the questioner, the loyal opposition, the counter-balance, the voice of residents ignored by the 85.7% majority on the council. Having a unanimous council defeats the purpose of a republic’s legislative assembly, which should represent a spectrum of community ideas, not become an ideological monolith or dictatorship. For diversity of ideas, vote Armstrong.
Critics say Armstrong has no experience in city government. Nor did two of the three council members who were just elected in August, nor did two current members of the council, nor did numerous other council members who have been elected over the last 20 years, many of whom were never appointed to committees or elected to other government bodies. They were directly elected to serve the public and did so admirably. Elections are about ideas, not about rewarding those who earn political favors in a patronage system with committee slots en route to more power.
Armstrong admittedly has a lot to learn, but she is currently part of the Sedona Citizen Engagement Program, learning what makes our city function. Other council members have been elected and served knowing less, and it shows.
City Council is merely a governing board that gives direction to staff, as our current mayor often states. The city is run by its manager and staff, not by the mayor directly, so experience with the bureaucracy of government isn’t paramount. After all, the mayor has no special power; the office is just a voice in a choir. Having all seven parts singing in unison makes for a boring melody. One voice singing in contrast to six isn’t chaos, but harmony with counterpoint. Therefore, vote Armstrong.
Prior to COVID-19, our departing mayor would speak to me vigorously about editorials she disliked. We rarely agreed, but I appreciated the pushback, and knew my editorials had to be logically and rhetorically sound to pre-emptively counter her objections or rebut her criticisms.
Conversely, Jablow has rarely, if ever, contacted me about an editorial he dislikes, or a story he disagrees with, or one that counters his viewpoints or critiques his votes. Instead, we hear second-hand whispers and rumors from others that Jablow complained to them. Only when confronted does he then admit to us he dislikes this or that.
I give him 50/50 odds he’ll call me after this one.
As a council member or vice mayor, aversion to bravery is trivial; as mayor, such behavior is perilous for the city. A mayor lacking pedestrian courage to rebut us won’t suddenly lose that cowardice when awarded the mayor’s office. It offers no armor. If he won’t stand up to us now, he won’t stand up for our city against the counties, or against the state legislature, or against the governor.
Armstrong has contacted us often during her short time in the public eye regarding statements or stories reporting on her candidacy. Whether you like her or not, Armstrong is a fighter, vocal, passionate and relentless. When representing us as mayor, she will fight on our behalf. For courage, vote Armstrong.
Votes matter; the officials who cast those votes matter less. The vitriol directed at Armstrong targets her as a person, but, significantly, not her local policies. Conversely, people criticize both Jablow the man and the policies he voted into law over his eight years in office. Considering how few members of the public attend City Council meetings regularly to interact with the mayor or other officials, if both candidates are disliked equally, but one has fewer faults on policy, vote Armstrong.
Opponents deride Armstrong for being a Hollywood celebrity as though that’s a negative. Armstrong has star power, which means something in 21st century America, for good or ill. The reality is that news stations will cover her speaking to the legislature about the harm caused by vacation rentals not simply because she’s mayor of a small Northern Arizona town but because she is a celebrity. Lament that if you want, but “influencer” is in the parlance of our time. Armstrong can also motivate thousands of Arizona fans on Instagram to message their legislators to act.
Jablow can go to the legislature to argue against vacation rentals, too, but legislators will be dealing with an ex-cop turned mayor who retired here from New York and now wants to tell legislators how to run our state. Legislators born and raised in Arizona now representing Safford or Yuma or Kayenta tend not to appreciate “out-of-staters” to the same degree as we do in the sophisticated small city of Sedona. No, it’s not fair, but it is a factor to consider.
Jablow has gone from the Sedona Fire District Governing Board to Planning & Zoning, to City Council to vice mayor. He ran precisely because he thought the current mayor wouldn’t, and now presumes the mayor’s office is his simply because it is his “turn.” Such progression of political office may be how the Roman Republic functioned, but it is not how our American republic works. Here we value innovative ideas, public charisma and the drive to serve the public selflessly. Leadership roles are not “deserved”; they are not items to be checked off on a curriculum vitae. Armstrong earned her place in the runoff because she built a coalition and defeated two other candidates. She was owed nothing. It’s time for a fresh start, so vote Armstrong.
Armstrong remains consistent in her positions and policies, though it’s clear that she can be persuaded with a good, logical argument. Conversely, Jablow is known to sway with the wind, changing his votes based on who last had his ear before a council meeting. Even allies and donors note this unsteady fickleness. Adaptability is a virtue, inconsistency a vice. Voters need a mayor who is reliable and consistent when they give their word; therefore, vote Armstrong.
Jablow has motivated members of his clique but few others. Armstrong has motivated a bipartisan group of residents, retirees and workers, young and old, workers and business owners, liberals, moderates and conservatives to get behind her. A mayor should represent everyone, or at the very least a diverse cross-section of the electorate, not simply retirees and NIMBYs who pay the same dues to the mayor’s partisan club. Jablow’s supporters knocked on doors in this campaign, but skipped those of registered Republicans and independents, apparently deeming it too hard a task to convince moderates to vote for him to fill the nonpartisan mayor’s seat. His partisan club will hate this editorial and me personally, but most do already. We still enthusiastically cover their events because community matters more to me and this newspaper than their hate. Armstrong understands this. Jablow does not.
Jablow collected an impressive $51,601.06 locally, but Armstrong garnered $71,387.09 locally, or 38.3% more.
Armstrong also had double the number of small donations, i.e., folks who support her but don’t have the means to give more than $100, as well as double the average donation. More of her donors are workers and business owners, who know the struggles of coping with tourist fluctuations and raising a family here, while two-thirds of Jablow’s supporters are retirees. It’s hard to argue that one supports Sedona’s workers when the people funding his campaign are not the working class desperate for rentals and housing but retired homeowners.
Crucially, Armstrong reinvested $75,571.65 of her campaign funds locally in ads and materials, while Jablow sent 52% of his $40,362.67 in campaign spending out of the Verde Valley, including to vendors in Texas. Surely voters should want a mayor who supports the local economy of the town he wants to run.
Some foes point to Armstrong’s support of the former president heading into the 2020 election. It was a heated election definitively decided at the ballot box. Most Americans have moved on and now look toward the future; demonizing 74 million Americans merely for voting for a one-term president, including thousands in the Verde Valley, does not heal the rift of hyperpartisanship. The 2020 election has no bearing on municipal governance in 2022, which Armstrong reiterated numerous times. Repeating these arguments shows who really can’t let the past election go. If we are serious about looking forward, that takes voters on both sides deciding to move on.
When not working this round-the-clock editor’s job, my wife and I take our children all over the Verde Valley. When I’m out and run into Jablow, we always talk of politics and city affairs. While that’s fine, the few times I’ve run into Armstrong, always at city parks, she’s spent more time talking to my 4-year-old daughter than to me.
Armstrong is a single mother raising her son here, and by that very circumstance is focused on family and improving the lives of Sedona’s children, our youngest residents who cannot vote for their leader. On their behalf, vote Armstrong.
If elected, Jablow will be an adequate mayor, perfect for residents who think of Sedona as an adequate town. We will certainly work with him to make Sedona better. Yet “adequate” isn’t how most residents think of our city, instead touting Sedona’s exceptionalism as a place unique and special in Arizona, a place with magic, beauty and “Sedona moments.” Armstrong conveyed this at our debate, at public events, in person and on social media. If adequate is sufficient, Jablow is enough. If you want something better, if Sedona can be more, if you want fresh ideas and different views, if you want someone who will respect others enough to shake their hands, vote Armstrong.
Christopher Fox Graham
Managing Editor
David Jolkovski © Larson Newspapers
