Cherelle Parker needs to show us who she really is

When I read about a telling misstep last week by Cherelle Parker’s camp — the latest in a series of especially odd developments since she secured the Democratic mayoral nomination in May — I could not get that old saying out of my head: “When someone shows you who they are, believe them.”

The words, often attributed to Maya Angelou, have been on an internal replay since I saw a social media post from the Philadelphia Hall Monitor, a nonprofit news organization.

An email from Parker’s campaign communications team was accidentally forwarded to Lawrence McGlynn, a journalist at the Monitor, in which Parker’s spokespeople discussed “pushing off” interview requests from McGlynn and one of his colleagues, Denise Clay-Murray.

Of Clay-Murray, who is African American, Parker’s principal spokesperson Aren Platt wrote: “Just be careful because she has already said that we are ignoring Black women journalists and truly independent media — irrespective of other circumstances. But we don’t want this to be too much of a narrative.”

I reshared the post on social media, along with just one emoji: a red flag — a warning, if you will, of the kind of stonewalling and obfuscation the city may face under Parker, who is poised to become the city’s 100th mayor.

But before we get to that, a few other important things to note: Parker’s camp is hardly alone in dodging reporters, and by extension, the public. Perhaps the only thing more certain than a local politician loudly insisting they’re all about “transparency” is that they’re also likely doing their best to make sure that tough questions don’t become “too much of a narrative.”

You might say all the attention this gaffe has been receiving is just a bunch of inside baseball — relevant only as it pertains to the often fraught relationship between the city’s political insiders and local journalists.

But if we’ve learned nothing else from the last eight years, in which Mayor Jim Kenney has increasingly retreated from public view, we know that we don’t need another chief executive in City Hall who deflects blame, shrinks from a challenge, and finds accountability contemptible.

For her part, Parker released a statement saying she was angry that her campaign team made “dismissive” comments about local journalists.

“I have made it clear that this is entirely unacceptable,” Parker said. “However, I understand the buck stops with me and I take responsibility for what comes out of my campaign.”

“The buck stops with me” is another saying that sounds good, but it’s not entirely accurate here. It doesn’t just stop there, it starts there. Public officials set the tone for their team, and it’s rare when the team steps out of line. If they had, someone would have been fired.

But back to the red flag — and this actually isn’t the first one. It’s fair to say that the revelation that Parker’s team defaults to “pushing off” tough interviews raises questions about some of the other very peculiar moments we’ve seen out of her camp in the last few months.

Let’s not forget that when Parker was a no-show to her own victory party on primary night in May, her supporters initially reported that she was dealing with dehydration and would be ready to speak the next day.

Only later did that story morph into another account that she had a dental emergency. After winning the nomination, it would be nearly a week before Parker’s first public appearance.

Given the insistence by Parker’s team that they must control the “narrative,” is anyone totally confident we’ve gotten the full story?

But there’s something else that dates back more than a decade — and that didn’t get nearly enough attention during her campaign to become the Democratic mayoral nominee: In 2011, Parker, then a member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, was arrested for driving under the influence in a state-issued car with a blood alcohol level that was reportedly twice the legal limit.

Parker later denied that she told the police she’d had two beers and a chocolate martini at a Germantown dinner spot before getting behind the wheel.

In 2015, Parker’s conviction was upheld, and she spent three days behind bars.

At the time, Parker’s lawyer said that she looked forward to putting the incident behind her and would not be commenting further on it. And she’s been true to her word: Parker repeatedly refused to discuss the incident during the campaign.

Look, I certainly believe in second chances. And as a Latina, I know women of color who hold positions of power often receive an extra layer of scrutiny that’s not imposed on others — an unfortunate fact of life that’s especially true for African Americans.

But taken together, the totality of these incidents warrants more discussion about Parker’s character and the soundness of her judgment.

In a majority Democratic city, Parker is all but guaranteed a win, and there’s likely not much that will change that — and maybe it shouldn’t. But because she’s so likely to win is exactly why she owes the people who will choose the city’s next mayor a lot more access, conversation, explanation, and yes, transparency.

And she also owes the city a debate with Republican mayoral nominee David Oh, which she’s been dancing around.

This isn’t just about an errant email or a one-time blunder. This is about a public servant recognizing her responsibility to answer tough questions and demonstrate that she’s accountable to the public as often as possible between now and Nov. 7.

Let her show us who she really is.