What No Boss Mayor did wrong

As we know, the anti-charter group No Boss Mayor was unable to convince a majority of City voters to vote NO on the new charter. Looking back at their campaign, I’ve tried to identify some of their failures, and have thought about what I’d have done differently.

Fear tactics

There were a number of very valid reasons to vote no on the new charter. Instead of highlighting them, No Boss Mayor went to the extreme and decided to run a campaign based on fear. They used drastic rhetoric in an attempt to convince voters that the mayor-council form of government would bring more corruption and consolidate all power in a single individual. In some cases, such as the claim that the proposed charter would allow City officials to skirt Sunshine laws, No Boss Mayor was simply dishonest.

I think they’d have had more success with a more balanced campaign, one that highlighted the strengths of council-manager government while simultaneously pointing out the risks of mayor-council government. Instead of highlighting what the council-manager government had done well, like providing top-class services, No Boss Mayor went all-negative. They gave folks plenty of reasons to vote against change, but few reasons to want to retain the current system. I’d have stressed that many of the proposed reforms could be achieved within a council-manager framework instead of simply going to bat for the status quo.

Lack of grassroots organisation

Aside from the $17,000 donation from council-manager group ICMA, there were just a few small donations to No Boss Mayor from a just a few different people. No Boss Mayor didn’t put together much of a field organisation to canvass neighbourhoods or do sign waving.

Contact is critical in these low-turnout, off-year elections. Many people won’t vote simply because they haven’t followed an issue and aren’t educated. That can be changed with voter contact, whether it’s through door-to-door canvassing, sign waving, or media advertising. NBM did spend money on robocalls, but I think those faceless, random contacts have less impact than others. Also, robocalls typically only impact landline phones, and thus don’t reach households which have dropped landlines in favour of wireless phones.

Lack of new media presence

No Boss Mayor’s new media efforts were lacking from the start. While they put up a website, it was unattractive and strangely organised. NBM didn’t utilise Twitter, Youtube, or Facebook, tools which can keep voters updates and involved.

This was an off-year election dealing with a complex issue. When uneducated voters sought information online, it was harder to find No Boss Mayor’s information. The pro-charter committee welcomed online visitors with an attractive webpage, YouTube videos from various citizens explaining why they supported the charter, and a variety of options to stay in contact.

Unwise campaign challenges

One of No Boss Mayor’s biggest follies was the unwise challenge it issued to pro-charter group Believe in a Better Pensacola in early November. After making a point of filing a campaign finance report earlier than required and publicising its initial donors, No Boss Mayor challenged Believe in a Better Pensacola to do the same. Better Pensacola responded promptly and begun releasing daily digests of contributions received.

No Boss Mayor was silent after that, and didn’t release any further information about its donors until the next scheduled financial report was due. We now know why they were silent — shortly after issuing the challenge, No Boss Mayor accepted a $17,000 contribution from ICMA, a national organisation dedicated to the advancement of the council-manager form of government.

Issuing a challenge for transparency and then being silent made No Boss Mayor look like they had something to hide — which they did.