A reader or two might be able to discern the meaning of the Latin title of this posting. I know it only because I ran across it during a recent reading.
The dictum principiis obsta translates roughly as “beware of beginnings.” Good advice, particularly for the group marshaling its resources to demand a full-time city attorney as its preferred solution to a woeful enforcement regime for city ordinances.
Learning Latin is an acquired skill. Some come to it naturally; others encounter it in their occupations (the law, medicine). Some are privileged to learn it in school, if their schools offer it as part of the curriculum. But for most of us, Latin is “Greek” to us.
Still, we can learn it as we need it, and apply it where it is useful.
In short, Latin is tough. So is the task the Neighborhoods Summit group has set for itself. Wading into the thicket that is the New Albany Code of Ordinances will be tough. Coming out the other end with a coherent recommendation (or demand, if you will) will be equally difficult.
A group of us spent considerable time in 2005 working on the very issues addressed at the recent meeting of neighborhood activists. Our work was comprehensive, consultative, progressive, and pragmatic. Unfortunately, many of the same individuals who now are eagerly racing to justify their call for a full-time city attorney rejected the whole idea of a comprehensive approach to ordinance enforcement in 2005.
Any rational examination of the state of ordinance enforcement in NA will lead to but one conclusion: Forces are aligned to prevent any effective enforcement.
I say “forces,” but what I mean is people. People who hold the levers of power. Elected officials who arrogate to themselves the right to inflict and withhold justice. Citizens are encouraged to believe that they live under the rule of law. But in reality, residents of New Albany are subject to the whim and caprice of anti-democratic thugs, and the venal interests of their paymasters. Whether that “pay” comes in the form of filthy lucre, insider information, or simply continued political power, these thugs have proved that might makes right.
The progressive agenda proposes, among other things, that this calculus is backward. Might flows from the rightness of a cause; that is, right makes might.
This week, we'll explore the reality and its implications...to be continued
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Gilderbloom
No there have not been any recent updates as we are still searching for funding.
I disagree, Brandon. I'll articulate it further, but I believe your group is on the wrong track, and then some.
Whether the mayor is part of the "forces" is not the relevant question. What's important is for the rule of law to be in effect. If the administration of ordinances is weakened by poor leadership, or weakened by being starved of resources, it is still weakened.
The Gang of Four loves pissing away money while screaming about the "taxpayers." Dan Coffey will gladly throw your money away on an additional lawyer, so long as nothing gets enforced.
Why would you press for more resources in the law department???? That is NOT where the bottleneck is. You're being played like a fiddle, and hurting the prospect of real progress by doing this incrementally, and working from the end rather than the beginning. I will agree the law department needs more resources, but that is the final step, not the first step.
Think I'm wrong? Then explain Dan Coffey's race to submit legislation to create a full-time city attorney. It's on the docket for Thursday night's City Council meeting. I know you won't be there to hear him present it, but I'm sure we'll be covering it here. Ought to be a real circus.
Is in not true that the position on city attorney is a full-time position? But the current attourney doesn't want to accept the pay cut? I could see it where an established lawyer could or would be making more money in the private sector.
Maybe what the city need is a full time legal department, made up of several attorneys, it seems by the budget that is what we have now any way, seems like every other line item is payment for legal services or advice.
Two part-time attorneys and a few legal assistants may be the better way to go.
But then again, what do I know, I am not a lawyer nor do I play one television!
There's a difference between idealism and naivete, Brandon. If you think what you're doing isn't political, you're wearing blinders.
The snap judgment that the law department is the bottleneck is evidence of just that, snap judgment. Who said the grunt work of enforcing ordinances had to be done by a member of the bar? Why not beef up the other departments so the law department can oversee the work. Most of it is work that involves application of the law, not interpretation of the law.
And I do not for a moment believe the council is prepared to pay what it will take to get an experienced attorney to give up private practice completely.
When Pam Badger was appointed, there was general agreement that she had been set up to fail. No additional resources have been allocated to make that prognosis change.
Put out your olive branches, if you like, but if someone is trying to kill you, you stop them by taking away their weapons. Not by asking them to kill you more slowly, or by using a more humane method.
All4Word,
While I agree that what's happening is most definitely political and that some council members will try to disrupt the process (Coffey is already doing it), you're off base as your arugments seem built on the premise that a citizen group is demanding a full-time attorney which is not the case. To say that the group is demanding anything or that there's been a decision that a full-time attorney is its preferred solution is to make assumptions that, at this point, aren't true.
Based on what the Board of Public Works and the City Attorney have reported, a lack of legal resources is a bottleneck in the enforcement process. As you said, there's much work to be done and little labor to do it.
What the neighborhood forum participants have decided to do is to speak with the administration and the legal department to better understand what specific tasks currently left unattended would, if completed on a consistent basis, help to ensure better enforcement. Beyond that, a small internal group has agreed to research the code enforcement workings of other municipalities, in an attempt to inform the conversation with multiple viewpoints and fresh ideas.
Whatever agenda Coffey is advancing, it certainly isn't that of the neighborhood forum. In fact, he's very much violated the trust and spirit of the group by acting out without consensus. I can assure you that very few who witnessed his behavior at the most recent forum meeting are surprised.
With the exception of a few cheap political ploys from the usual council suspects that were immediately rejected by those in attendance, the forum process has been impressively cooperative and thoughtful, purposely moving slowly and methodically in an effort to avoid any "snap judgements". To characterize the group as "being played like a fiddle" in order to advance a fued with a very small percentage of participants is inaccurate, unfair, and not at all helpful.
I'm assuming that this bit of drama is leading to some relevant points, gleaned from the work of 2005 that you mentioned. What are they?
Post a Comment