My memory is hazy as to when the city council agenda was altered to include “miscellaneous communications” at meeting’s end. An admittedly cursory glance at archived minutes suggests this “non-agenda item” speaking time first appeared at the beginning of 2007, although I persist in thinking that the topic came up earlier than that.
It is a recurring feature of council meetings – in fact, of most if not all political discourse, here or elsewhere – for elected officials to pay lip service to the principle of honoring and serving the taxpayer. Naturally, this brings up the side issue of why only taxpayers are eligible for service, but the point remains that of all the conceivable ways that a councilman might observe this dictum, sitting quietly and listening for five minutes while a taxpayer speaks to the assembled body strikes me as the barest of minimums.
As was made clear last Thursday, Dan Coffey cannot even achieve the bare minimum when it comes to the notion of free and open speech for the taxpayer, although the current council president has never hesitated to reference his obligation to the taxpayer during the act of filibustering, grandstanding or scratching the anti-intellectual itch that feeds his all too frequent, apparently uncontrollable frenzies.
As I’ve pointed out on numerous occasions, it isn’t as if Coffey’s totalitarian impulses have never before been witnessed. Back in 2005, when for the very first time I decided to make comments during the public communications portion of the meeting, Coffey interrupted me, disagreed with me, and hectored me from his seat near then-president Gahan … who sat passively upon his gavel.
Almost four years later, this time as the council’s president, Coffey treated Mark Cassidy in precisely the same way. Not only did Gahan – Geppetto to Coffey’s Pinocchio – again sit silently, but so did the remainder of the council, many of whom subsequently have suggested that Coffey’s behavior disturbed them.
My question to the council: If so, and when confronted by damaging loutishness, why sit passively and do nothing?
Those members of the city council who are not animated by vendettas, and who are capable of comporting themselves with the professionalism and dignity demanded of those who have been elected to public office, are sorely in need of a reality check. Each time that Dan Coffey embarrasses the council without correction or rebuke, he is, in effect, branding the council’s “product” – and the image he is giving the product, whether the council’s image or the city’s itself, is tantamount to the consumer’s reaction upon encountering a jar of peanut butter with the words “now with salmonella” printed boldly on the label.
Geppetto apparently likes his creation just fine, although why is a mystery for the ages, but for the remainder of the council, it’s time now to lead and to do something, not merely be content to wave blank sheets of Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement stationary at the ogre and say, “don’t let it happen again, or we’re going to do something!”
Do it now, and send a message to the people in this city who genuinely are working toward a better future that you actually get it.
Beginning on February 2nd, I intend to avail myself of miscellaneous communications time at every opportunity. As a taxpayer, and in consideration of the council’s own speaking policy, I will be approaching the podium with the expectation of five uninterrupted minutes in which to enlighten our elected representatives on a wide variety of topics. I may read from the phone book, or quote passages of HL Mencken’s on the subject of political cupidity. Perhaps a verbatim run-through of my latest column will strike me as appropriate, or a recital of a previous meeting’s minutes.
I may even have my five-minute appearances filmed, and post them on YouTube.
The question: Is this my right as a taxpayer, or isn’t it?
We know how Dan "Copperhead" Coffey would answer this question … but what about the other council members, whose stock plunges further with each passing day of inaction?
"Peace" in our time ... or finally doing the right thing?
While I have no problem with honest criticism of local officials, I'm usually quick to point out what I consider to be the sometimes unfair lumping together of all public representatives into one indistinguishable group called government. Saying that "government" is bad doesn't usually sit well with me.
ReplyDeleteHowever, a quick read through yesterday's sloganeering exercise is educational in terms of public perception. While I don't know everyone who participated, I know enough of them to realize that the impressions expressed are not the products of some anonymous crank population but the true feelings of literate citizens who make a sincere effort to keep themselves informed, basing decisions as best they can on an available body of facts.
When, in reference to our city, they say "You'll leave feeling better about your town!" or "Turn right to get to the boat" it's neither a joke nor short-sighted anti-government ranting. It's the firsthand knowledge that, far too often in the face of destructive boorishness, no one in a position to represent them and their more rational leanings will. Faith is generally spurred by some initial evidence and there is little of either here.
Having recently been physically confronted by Coffey's clinched fists and his hands on me, and having chosen to literally stand my ground, I find it difficult to accept that expecting someone who volunteered for leadership to speak out against such intimidation is too much to ask.
While I agree with Bluegill in priciple that not all government is bad, in the day to day deliverance of that which was indicated during the campaign season I often find myself struggling to seperate the forward thinkers from the obstructionists.
ReplyDeleteHowever the more disturbing issue for me is the seemingly prevailing concept that those elected to serve have no legal or ethical obligation to listen to the veiws of the very people who put them in office and pay their salaries.
True though it may be that the polling booth is the venue for ultimately deciding their fate, I feel it unwise for the public to give them four years of free reign during which time they can make decisions that can inpact our lives for decades.
They may or may not agree with what an individual has to say but as long as the discourse remains civil, we need to demand they have the common decency to hear it said!
So I ask this, as a newer resident...what can we do? How can we help?
ReplyDeleteI don't mean to sound too simplistic here, but sometimes finding a starting place to work from is the hardest part...
Bluegill, have you looked into a possible civil rights violation?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/32500prs20071023.html
"exercising your constitutional right to freedom of speech and to petition the government for redress of grievances." is a pretty basic democratic right.
Should we all have march on city hall and demand Coffey's resignation? Would he bring out his fire hoses? or sprinklers...
Bayerfan,
ReplyDeleteNaive as it may sound I still think one of the most effective things one can do is join in as one of the slowly growing number of ever present faces and voices these "leaders" in both the administration and common council see and hear everytime they look around the room.
It requires a committment of one or two evenings a month but it does give many of them pause whether they'll admit it or not.
Should we all have march on city hall and demand Coffey's resignation? Would he bring out his fire hoses? or sprinklers...
ReplyDeleteProbably not, but he'd hike his leg and piss in our general direction ... assuming Jeff Gahan didn't beat him to it.
Given the council's inaction on redistricting, and Coffey's admission that the committee was a sham, is there a reason that the original plaintiffs haven't refiled the lawsuit?
ReplyDeleteWhy do other council members not call out Coffey on his most ridiculous statements. The scariest explanation is that all council members believe Coffey makes only well reasoned and thoughtful comments. I refuse to believe they’re all so clueless. In Coffey’s mind, acquiescence by silence is verification that he speaks only divine truths. The more likely reason for the silence is that our most thoughtful council members believe it futile to ask reasonable questions of our council President.
ReplyDeleteAs we know, Obama began in Chicago as a community organizer. At a local commission meeting, a citizen was speaking against asbestos in her public housing unit (or some similar inconvenience to the commission), when the commission president slammed down the gavel and called for adjournment. The young Mr. Obama called out, “Let her speak.” Other citizens in attendance, those organized by Obama, began to repeat the phrase until the commission had no choice but to hear the complaints.
Moral: Informed citizens in the audience matters. They won’t suddenly make Coffey educated and reasonable. At the very least, it will give the most reasonable council members support when question him. The council suffers from many afflictions, including group think. We need another thinking group.
If you wanted to be a little more confrontational, I suggest a filibuster of sorts. If a group of maybe 20 citizens agree before the meeting to each speak for five minutes, the council will either have to sit through an hour of organized critique, or they’ll have to cut off the concerns of 20 reasonable citizens. Either way, you have a great Tribune article.
EB, maybe the legal minds here can answer the question. I was a plaintiff, and I'm not sure myself, which may tell you something about the caliber of our effort. There's no excusing the council's reaction. At the same time, we didn;t run a good case.
ReplyDeleteI received a "flip" camera for Xmas - 60 minutes of video and can upload straight to youtube. Cost $100. Anyone attending council meetings should have one, or are welcome to borrow mine.
ReplyDelete