A Strange Council Meeting
September 23, 2008
A lot of emails, calls and comments on this blog about the city council meeting last week (9-15-08). It was an interesting day to say the least! I recommend anyone that can, to get a tape of this meeting and watch it- watch a true tug of war between trying to make progress and trying to stop progress. Really an example of government inaction- fortunately though the end result continues to keep projects alive (more on this coming in a new post soon).
Now I know there are many definitions of progress, and I certainly understand there are many who disagree with me on my definition and my stance on some of the big issues facing our city. However, as mentioned all over this blog, my main stand and my main reason for running for council is to stop the trend of debating issues to death, where either no action occurs, or if action occurs, it is over-turned at the next election, or perhaps even worse, if action occurs the end product is significantly whittled down due to a prolonged debate such that the result has nothing to do with the original intent and ultimately the project is doomed for failure.
Win or lose on issues, I will not constantly fight to overturn clear decisions made be an informed council with public input and open debate.
I have sat on these comments about the meeting for a week- my first reaction may have been a little extreme and full of frustration.
I really cannot understand the approach of Mayor Bowers and Vice Mayor Lea and cannot answer the question as to why they did what they did. When you look at any conceivable purpose behind their motions on Countryside and on the Amphitheatre it just makes no sense- other than a clear attempt to be political: to show their strength and a possible new majority on council. That has to be it- the issues didn’t seem to matter to them, the loss of money didn’t seem to matter to them, the fact the people they were listening to on the amphitheatre didn’t even like how they wrote their motion (community vs commercial amphitheatre- everyone wants a commercial amphitheatre- its the location that was at issue- perhaps they should listen better!) didn’t matter to them, the fact that they did not want to hear a soon to be finished and paid for intensive study on the amphitheatre didn’t matter, the fact that council had already decided to keep countryside a golf course and was planning to send out a request for long-term management of am 18 hole golf course didn’t matter, the fact that this came up quickly and was not an agenda item until late the week before didn’t matter, and the fact that they did not talk or return phone calls to many council members didn’t matter.
Yes I have been on a voting majority on council but when a controversial vote was coming, I called and asked to meet or talk with every council member whether or not I thought I had the votes. I felt it worth the time and the courtesy for them to understand my perspective and for me to understand their views on the issue. This happened several times over the last few years and every council member met or spoke with me except councilman Wishneff who never returned calls. The old thought of get to four votes and stop calling just does not sit well with me. I see the attempts on their part last week as “pay back”- “see how it feels, now we are the majority and we can overturn past progress.”
Win or lose, we need to work together, communicate together and hopefully show the world that we can make decisions and move on. As Mayor Bowers has said- “take a deep breath and move on”. Trust is a big issue- a lot of trust was lost at this council meeting. The purpose of our retreat in a week is to work on process, decision making on issues, rfp process, relations with administration, and moving forward for the sake of our citizens and the future of our city. As seen on My Purpose page above, I plan to remain dedicated to moving this city forward in a progressive and informed manner and hope to work with the entire council over the next few years in order to do so.
My true hope is this was an odd bump in the process encouraged by uninformed back room rhetoric with the last campaign fresh in their minds- but is done, tried and won’t be repeated too soon.
Dave:
Last week was the first council session I had ever attended, and I have to say that the entire spectacle was breath taking. A lot of people had assumed that the era of childish behavior was behind us, but it appears to be worse than ever. The most amazing thing was not the crude political posturing, but the fact that Mr. Lea’s motion was so poorly written as to be utterly incomprehensible. In the end it was a meaningless vote on a meaningless measure.
Take everything you said in para #5 and apply it to council actions of the past. See any likeness of the days of Cutler, McD, Dowe and FitzP or even your first two years? Oh, but those were different, right. I guess it’s just the nature of politics. Not to say it is right, of course, but that’s the way it is. If you want to address the issue of trust here is a novel thought. Wait until after public hearings and the voice of the public speaks on matters before council to make your decision. Strikes me you are admitting to running behind the scenes to collect votes, then the public is heard, then you ignore the voice of the public and do what you have already decided to do. Oh, I know it happens all over the country and maybe it is not technically illegal but why not consider the “vote” in a subsequent session following the public hearing. Bad idea, I’m sure. Elected officials really don’t want the public interferring with progress on personal agendas
Fair enough- but to say no public opinion was given during the last many years and especially the first year I had on council is just wrong and a myth- every meeting and with every consultant public comments were heard, public surveys were done, and many many letters to the editor and op-ed pieces were written. As we move forward on location recs per a new consultant we will continue to hear pros and cons of both sites- and believe me there are many out there on both sides. This is not a one sided discussion. The bottom line is eventually council should make a decision and try to stick to it and move forward- that is the difference I hope you will see with this council. How it becomes a personal agenda per your comment could use a little more discussion other than just a trrown meaningless barb.
Dave
Of course you always have a period of public commentary prior to the vote but my point is the decision is already made and it is all just a “formality” in hearing these views. I would be interested in knowing about any matter which was going to be decided, where the resolution had been written, and the vote was changed due to any person or groups comments at these hearings.Tell me that this is not the case? Not saying that the resolution may have had a point added, deleted or modified due to public comment, but you never change your position due to the public comments during these hearings. The comment as to personal agendas is not intended as a barb to anyone. Some suggest this meeting was a display of Bowers having established “control”. That’s an example of a personal agenda…if it is accurate. Fundamentally, there is no evil in a personal agenda but it seems to me that it should be formulated in accord with public views and where they may differ or be at odds with the majority of public sentiment, you owe the public information on why you are going to disregard conventional wisdom and public sentiment and do what you want to over the objections of the public. Example: Seems to me there is very strong support of keeping Countryside as a golf course. Presuming the financial case is also strong enough to do that BUT a council person voted to sell it off for development, that council person should make the reasons known why they take the position they do. I don’t think I ever heard a council person offer an explanation for doing something that ran directly in the face of public sentiment. Certainly our former mayor NEVER made any effort to connect with his opposition in the audience to qualify his views when there was strong public opposition to the action on the table. Short version: EXPLAIN, done RULE.
Well I would hope to abide by your premise and will make every effort to do so. I am usually pretty open about why I vote as I do or why I take a certain side on an issue. But also remember we get public comment all the time and it is often not in public information sessions where usually only those with a special interest in the issue are motivated to show up (this often can create a perception of a clear public opinion on an issue but often represents a minority with a clear bias, albeit often a legitimate bias). Public input also comes from going to meetings in the community, reading the paper and yes the blogs, reading and responding to emails, talking to people on the streets, hearing citizen input during council sessions. The perception of a majority public opinion on a certain issue doesn’t always jive with the public opinion received in these other venues. So at the end of the day I think we agree- listen, be out there, weigh, give a reason for your decision and vote and then, perhaps most importantly, move on.
Dave
Dave,
You are absolutely right about the perception of public opinion. I’ve attended a number of different meetings lately, and the audience is always dominated by the people with a vested interest in the outcome. If the public support for Countryside was as strong as the supporters would like us to believe, Valerie Garner would have been elected to the City Council. Voting is the ultimate expression of public sentiment.
Chris Berry: You are absolutely WRONG about Garner, Countryside and being elected. To get elected you first need a “machine” and then you need money. She had neither event though, in my opinion, is there is very strong support for keeping Countryside a golf course. The “machine” is basically a candidate of the Democrats…and please don’t bring up TMD or Boyers as proof that an “I” can win. If a connection to any significant issue was all it takes, please give me the great issues connected with Dowe’s first term? And his second victory was because there was $$ and a machine in place even thought he was the least favorite minority candidate. Voting is the ultimate expression of those who vote but hardly of public sentiment.