In case you’ve forgotten, Tuesday night is the appointed time for a remarkable exercise in self-government. At 6:30, motivated residents will gather in the common hall of The White House Center, 222 Pearl Street, the putative nerve center of downtown New Albany, to brainstorm ideas about increased enforcement of city ordinances.
A Neighborhoods Summit last week developed a consensus that the current configuration of the city Law Department is not sufficient to meet the needs of a city with the scope and scale of this riverfront municipality.
So, a private group will proceed, presumably, toward drafting legislation to present to council making the city attorney a full-time position. It is believed by participants to be the one thing most in need of adjustment.
This will be a fascinating exercise to watch. Apparently, the group will meet several times to develop their plan. So far as can be determined, this will be done without the support of even one council member. We’ve been unable to find any member of the administration or the council who is willing to say that the employment status of the city attorney is the key to unlocking the enforcement treasure-box.
It is compelling evidence that residents are frustrated with the pace of government in New Albany. Rank suspicion toward the good faith of the Garner administration seems to be the motivating force. Displeased (to say the least) with the responses they have received, this “task force” is shouldering the burden of forcing systemic change.
Followed close on the heels of a dramatic demonstration by members of the East Spring Street Neighborhood association at the last March meeting of the Board of Public Works and Safety, this initiative shows that ESSNA is willing to risk its credibility on an issue members believe is a critical element in creating a livable city.
NA Confidential extends best wishes to the group as they embark on this dicey venture.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
It is not for me to congratulate the group, but rather, for them to congratulate themselves on the course they've chosen. I didn't say anything about hostility, but thanks for the first-person report. Hope we can count on you for another after tonight's session.
Sorry to leave out the other groups. I think it's admirable that each group is willing to risk its credibility. It shows you are serious.
It will indeed be a fascinating excercise to experience. What may be most compelling, though, is the neighborhood groups' willingness to model the good government practice they expect, namely, meeting publicly in a cordial, moderated environment to rationally debate and reach general consensus concerning best practices to ensure continued progress towards a successful city renaissance. It certainly is a sad reflection that this process is occurring largely out of frustration with local government's overall lack of ability to do the same. If the above mentioned positive qualities were at all descriptive of city council meetings, for instance, such an exercise might not be necessary.
While certain individuals are waging an appreciated private battle, no current officeholders are seemingly willing to publicly assert that any particular condition(s) is the key to unlocking the enforcement treasure-box, let alone to open the table for rational debate concerning how to obtain that key. And that is far riskier to credibility than anything the neighborhood groups are doing.
If I had to vote right now based on a defintion of leadership that included the ability to not only discern best practice but to also advocate for it in such a way as to effectively appeal to my rationality, I'd have no one to vote for.
OK, let's continue the (somewhat) forced analogy.
If I want to get across to the other shore, I can swim. I can take a rowboat. Or I can look for a bridge and walk to the other shore.
If I take a rowboat, but leave behind my oars, I may reach the other shore, but not likely with my boat intact.
The credibility of these groups is the rowboat. Here's hoping it isn't dashed on the rocks.
Credibility is created by honesty, openness, competence, and consensus. It is not the effort that will get us to the other shore. It is the credibility that gives hope.
The group will be measured by its honesty, openness, competence, and consensus. In whose eyes? Anyone who is watching.
Post a Comment