O’Connor Interested : Cleator in Favor of 4 TV Mayoral Debates

In the opening salvo of the San Diego mayoral runoff, San Diego City Councilman Bill Cleator proposed Friday that he and his opponent, Maureen O’Connor, appear in four televised debates “so that voters can compare us face to face . . . and make an informed choice” in the June election.

O’Connor, a former councilwoman, said she is “willing to meet (Cleator) any time in any forum,” though she noted that whether the debates occur “is something the TV stations, not the candidates,” will ultimately decide. Three local television stations held forums before the Feb. 25 primary, and several stations have expressed tentative interest in televising debates during the runoff campaign.

In last week’s 13-candidate primary, O’Connor finished first with 81,265 votes (46%) but, by falling short of the majority needed for outright victory, was forced into a June runoff against Cleator, who was second with 53,239 votes (30.1%). Displaying strong, balanced support throughout the city, O’Connor carried seven of eight council districts and all but a handful of neighborhoods--an impressive showing that makes her a heavy favorite in the runoff.

Although Cleator, who announced his proposal at a downtown news conference, is widely regarded as an ineffectual public speaker--a perception shared by even many Cleator partisans--both the councilman and his strategists conceded Friday that the series of debates perhaps offer his best chance to close that 16% gap.

“Basically, I don’t think I’m going to win unless individuals really understand where I’m coming from on the issues,” Cleator said. “This is a way to show people who Bill Cleator is, and to let people compare the two of us while we debate all the issues in a positive way.”

Cleator’s call for the four televised debates also is in keeping with his top aides’ faith that, in the words of consultant Ken Rietz, “people who know Bill Cleator like Bill Cleator.” In support of that contention, Cleator’s handlers, perhaps looking for a silver lining to the cloud in the primary, have emphasized that the only council district that he carried was the 2nd District, which he represents and in which both he and O’Connor reside. Cleator’s victory in the 2nd District was a very narrow one, though, as he edged O’Connor by only 37 votes--7,864 to 7,827.

“It’s encouraging that in the area where people know Bill Cleator--the 2nd District--he won,” Rietz said. “What we have to do in the (runoff) is to make sure that more people know Bill and know where he stands. If we do that, I think we’ll win.”

Whether the televised debates, assuming that they are held, would help or hurt Cleator is problematical, however. Cleator himself admits that he has “plenty room for improvement” in terms of his carriage and demeanor on television; he often speaks in broken sentences, sometimes appears to lose his train of thought during long, rambling answers and, in general, presents a less polished image than O’Connor.

“Maybe (TV) isn’t my strong point, but I feel a lot more comfortable today than I did six years ago,” Cleator said. “Have I grown? I think I have. And I think I can grow more in the next two months.”

Under Cleator’s proposal, the four hourlong debates would be held in consecutive weeks during the final month of the campaign, with each being broadcast live by a different television station from neighborhoods throughout the city. Cleator sent letters Friday to the general managers of four local stations asking that they “consider participating in . . . a meaningful presentation of the issues.”

Each of the debates should “focus on different subject areas so that the discussion of the issues can be wide ranging yet in-depth,” Cleator wrote in the letters. As possible topics for the four debates, Cleator suggested the names of the City Council’s four standing committees--Transportation and Land Use, Public Facilities and Recreation, Public Services and Safety, and Intergovernmental Relations (Rules Committee).

While receptive to Cleator’s general idea, O’Connor argued that the councilman’s suggested subject areas “really aren’t the most logical if we want to cover the major issues in the city.”

“I mean, what does the public care about the Rules Committee?” O’Connor said, referring to the panel that determines which matters go before the full council for debate. “And an hour on transportation? That would bore everybody and really have people turning the channel.”

Rather than limiting each debate to a separate subject area, O’Connor said she would favor structuring the debates so that “wide-ranging, general-interest topics,” including growth management, municipal finances and crime, could be discussed in all four televised appearances.

“That way, if people miss one debate, they might be able to pick up what they missed in the next one,” O’Connor said. “I doubt that many people would watch all four, so I think there’s a hazard in making each one different from the others. I don’t want the debates to be so narrow in focus that they don’t cover all the topics.”

Saying that she is “not comfortable dictating to the TV stations or anyone,” O’Connor added that she would abide by whatever ground rules or formats were favored by the stations “if they’re generous enough to offer us the time.” Cleator said Friday that he hopes that the two campaigns’ aides could meet with the television stations’ staffs to work out “a mutually acceptable agreement.”

Although her strong showing in the primary would appear to indicate that O’Connor has little to gain from any televised debates, the former councilwoman said she is “enthusiastic, not fearful,” about Cleator’s proposal becoming reality.

“As mayoral candidates, I think we have an obligation to answer any question on any topic at any time,” O’Connor said. “If that’s on television or somewhere else, that’s fine with me.”