A.G. Gancarski
Mike Williams and Ken Jefferson have seen a lot of each other during the past few months. They’re two driven men, with driven organizations behind them, who want the same thing. You knew it was going to get heated, you just didn’t know when or how or who would be first.
After Tuesday night’s debate on First Coast News, there are answers to those questions. Plus, quite likely, we have a better idea who is going to win the May 19 runoff election.
The discussion got hot for the first time when Jefferson answered a panelist’s question about his oft-discussed plan to reduce crime by 25 percent during his first year in office. His answer was solid, along the lines of “letting the community know that law enforcement officers are partners” and that “we can’t arrest our way out of the problem” of violent crime.
Williams’ retort set the personal attacks in motion.
“My opponent has never has the responsibility to reduce crime by 1 percent, never mind 25 percent,” the Republican said.
Soon enough, Jefferson fired back, with an attack on Williams’ own tenure as director of patrol and enforcement.
“While you were director, crime went up 10 percent,” he said, as a cheer went up from the room where Jefferson’s supporters on hand, including Jimmy Holderfield, watched the debate.
From there, it went downhill fast for Jefferson.
Anne Schindler asked the Democrat a question about his police conduct report, and an incident he had a couple of decades prior charging he used too much force in an arrest.
“If the complaint had been sustained, there would have been discipline,” said Jefferson, about the incident “almost 20 years ago … executing an arrest.”
The person being taken down, Jefferson said, had a knife, which required commensurate force. The complaint came when the suspect said “I should not have taken him to the ground.”
During this section of the debate, Jefferson’s voice hurried, and there was the first incident of crosstalk between Jefferson and someone on the set.
It would not be the last.
Williams soon after laid into Jefferson about “forging a supervisor’s signature 16 times in 16 months,” which he called “egregious.”
Jefferson called that claim “almost accurate,” and was part of a “disagreement between myself and a civilian supervisor.”
The conflict between the candidates did not stop there. Jefferson brought up a forum appearance the two men shared at the Southside Businessmen’s Club where Williams said Jacksonville was “far away from Ferguson” in terms of its problems, in what seemed an attempt to throw Williams off.
Williams responded that the city could have issues, if we “take our eye off the ball,” then fired back a question about his opponent’s ability to lead.
“I was a leader,” Jefferson said, referring to his time running the local branch of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Drug Education for Youth (DEFY) Program under the Glover administration. “I managed the program. Reported directly to the sheriff.”
The fireworks proved most explosive in the closing statements, however, when Jefferson took the gloves off, setting the tone for a couple of debates next week that will prove to be must-see TV.
Jefferson talked about a postcard mailed out by the Williams operation regarding his financial past. He then said that Williams failed to mention his own repeated mortgages on his house, and that Williams was trying to “damage his reputation,” and that this was “no time for silly, foolish politics.”
“I’m just as much of a real cop as you,” Jefferson said, regarding the Republican’s claim of superior experience, and his slogan: “A real cop for a tough job.”
Williams played it cool during his closing statement, referring to the “stark difference” between his experience and that of Jefferson’s, whom he said had “nonexistent” supervisory experience and had never been responsible for a budget.
After the debate wrapped, the two men had to tape a question for the mayoral candidates. Jefferson reiterated his contention that he looks forward to working with whoever the next mayor is, a framing that suggests that he’s not completely down with Alvin Brown or thinks the incumbent will be re-elected. Jefferson stammered a couple of times during his statement. When asked if he wanted to record it again, he asked why.
Florida Politics spoke with both men after the event.
Williams said he thought that the debate “went well” and that he liked the “back and forth.” When asked about the foreclosure issue Jefferson introduced at the end, he said that “my opponent’s personal financial history is a disaster,” which suggested to me that those claims will surface again. He felt good about the messaging, and he should. His answers to questions on issues such as body cameras have been honed in forum after forum during the past few months, and his presentation is polished.
Jefferson needed a win in this one. My first question was why he went negative.
“I don’t think I went negative. I brought out what they’re doing,” he said.
“I would not make excuses and blame someone else,” he said, referring to the “constant pattern” of such in the Rutherford administration, and related it to Williams’ own personal history.
“He left when the seat got too hot,” he said, saying that Williams left $220K of DROP money on the table because he wasn’t meeting objectives in his role.
“I will lead, not leave,” Jefferson said.
What is clear is that the dirt has only started to fly in this campaign. The mailers will be nasty. The stakes are such that one man will be sheriff and the other will be retired. With more money at his disposal, and a seemingly more polished presentation, Williams increasingly looks like the frontrunner, which is a surprise to some given that he barely made the runoff.
