Silence of the lambs
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Council members will soon be asked to vote to approve a “City Council Policy and Procedures Manual”. In fact, the group nearly voted to give the “go ahead” to the new bundle of rules last month ... had it not been for a council member asking to table the matter, and being backed up by a vote of the group.
While I’m a firm believer the city’s governing body needs some parameters to abide within — as I said, I’ve had the duty of spending at least two evenings a month with this group for the past decade and then some. Every seat on the council has changed representation at least once, and there have been three mayors and a handful of “interims” in that time. So I’m not singling out any current members of the council, just including them in the “governing body” as a group — I can tell you that after reading the entire 15-page procedure manual I assure you it is over the top on the amount of control it takes away from council members and the citizenry, and the amount of power it gives the mayor.
I called city hall Tuesday to inquire just “who in the world proposed this” document? I spoke with Mayor Jeannie Roberts, who assured me she played a minor role in putting the suggested manual together. She said the new rules are the product of City Administrator Greg Beavers and Councilman Darrel Holdman. I’ve yet to talk to Beavers about the proposed rules, because he’s been out of the office this week. I spoke with Holdman Wednesday morning and he said it was his idea to pursue some form of order into the meetings. It became clear that we do not see eye to eye on the amount of information a voting member should be able to glean before making a decision which will affect his or her constituents.
Personally I find it hard to believe any council member would vote for and approve the document as written in the draft I was given. While council members should not be on a power trip, this set of rules takes away common courtesies which have been commonplace in Farmington government since its inception, or at least I would guess. I know it takes away rights that have always been in place the past 10 years.
As an example, a councilman can no longer speak directly with another council member. All questions or statements must be directed through the mayor. Not only that, but a council member cannot make a general statement to fellow council members and the public under the proposed rules. Councilman Larry Forsythe jumped the gun and imposed the new rules on himself during the June council meeting, and refused to make any statements or ask any questions unless he first asked the permission of “Madam Mayor”. In that same meeting, “Madam Mayor” shut down Councilwoman Vonne Phillips by siding with Councilman Holdman after he stopped Phillips short during questioning of an out-of-town developer. Holdman pulled no punches about saying he believed Phillips had asked enough questions and the group had a council meeting to hold. From the outside looking in, it seemed as if Holdman had somewhere he would rather be ... that is, somewhere more important than getting some serious answers from a stranger looking to come into town to build government-subsidized housing. Now, yes, we need affordable housing for certain segments of our population. Councilman Forsythe stated that very well during the last council meeting. But we also need to know exactly who we’re dealing with when we agree to allow a stranger to come into town and build a housing development which will be a part of our community for several decades to come. The steps should be something like this: 1) Hear the developer out; 2) Research the proposed plan; 3) Get all questions answered to the decision-makers’ satisfaction; 4) Then make an informed, educated vote on the topic.
As Holdman would have it from the June meeting, he’d rather :1) Hear a little bit about the proposed development, then, 2) Vote yes or no and get home before supper gets cold, or before the ballgame is over. Not only did he not ask any relevant questions of the developer, but he also stifled the only council member who tried to do so. And Mayor Roberts backed him up, using a council rule which had not yet been introduced — much less discussed and voted on — as a club to enforce Holdman’s squelching of a fellow council member.
Consider for a moment that the council approves the new procedure manual as proposed in the draft. From that point on council members could no longer:
• discuss topics or talk back and forth. All discussion would have to be relayed through the mayor;
• address a citizen without first asking the mayor’s permission;
• hear a concern of a citizen without the resident first filing their concern in writing to the mayor prior to the meeting, an then wait to be called on by the mayor;
• abstain from a vote without first submitting their reason for abstention to the city clerk and mayor in writing prior to the council meeting;
• miss a meeting without first notifying the city clerk.
Likewise, if the council approves the new procedures rules, the public can no longer:
• address their elected council members directly in an open, public meeting of the council. All comments or questions must be directed to the mayor only, who could then relay the concern on to a council member and eventually decide if the elected official could respond back to the citizen, but not directly. Council members could not talk to each other or the public, but must direct all comments or questions to the mayor, who would then apparently relay the council member’s thoughts to the citizen;
• take an orderly turn at the microphone to discuss an agenda, or non-agenda, item without first making a written request to do so. That request would then be given to the mayor, who would call on the citizen at some point, at which time they would have three minutes to state their case or concern. Their case would generally have to be made in three minutes or less, because the new laws do not allow for second statement. “Second opportunities for the public to speak on the same issue will not generally be permitted unless mandated by state or local law,” the new rules reads.
Additionally, actions such as clapping for something you approve of would not be allowed — and could result in being thrown out of the meeting. In essence, speaking out against anything would be highly discouraged, or so it would seem.
To wrap this up, I’ll share a conversation with you which has never been discussed in writing to date. It happened a few years ago on the morning following the public meeting at the civic center concerning electric rate increases. It had been a rough few weeks for city leadership leading up to that point. In response to a couple back-to-back electric rate hikes, a number of citizens had turned out for a council session and voiced their dissatisfaction. During that meeting the mayor, Dr. Charles Rorex, threatened to have a citizen removed for what he apparently viewed as the person getting out of hand. In reality, the woman was simply standing at her seat and arguing her case and was not becoming otherwise unruly. Faced with compounding electric rate increases and an unsure future, many people were feeling a financial crunch and stress and wanted to convey their unhappiness with the council’s recent decisions. Instead of sitting patiently and allowing each of the 20 or so citizens to state their case in its entirity (which might have taken two hours at the most), the mayor decided to shut down the complaining. A St. Louis television station was on hand for the meeting and captured the exchange between the mayor and citizen. Within hours it was clear that the next council meeting would have to be held in a larger venue. The basement of city hall would not contain the swelling of outrage which was rapidly building against the city leadership. Within a couple weeks a tension-charged council meeting was held at the city’s civic center. Television cameras, radio microphones and newspaper cameras buzzed as a few hundred people turned out to state their case one by one, to cheer on their fellow citizens, and to generally just “be heard”, the very same right that one of their own had been denied only days earlier in the basement of city hall.
Mayor Rorex was at my office the morning after the story ran about the meeting. He was upset over a statement in the news story. I was upset over a statement he made during the meeting about the media. We exchanged words, and to my recollection I won that argument. It was one of several times we disagreed behind closed doors. (Still, it amazes me that the man was recalled from office based on a platform of high electric rates — when he never cast a vote for or against electric rates during his time as mayor. But that’s a different story.) During our “meeting” that morning I told the mayor just where I thought he went wrong, and ended up sitting in front of hundreds of people taking his verbal lumps for hours in a televised public outcry. “You should have sat patiently and listened to them, Charlie, during the council meeting” I said. “You should have listened to each and every one of them that night, regardless of how long it took, and then went back to the table and looked at what, if anything, you could do to give them some relief.” Then I said, “Instead, you didn’t want to hear what they had to say so they went back home and got their (proverbial) pitchforks and torches, and gathered up their friends, and came back after your hide at the civic center.” I believe, and relayed my beliefs to the mayor that morning, that people simply wanted to be heard about how the back-to-back rate increases were causing some foreseeable hardships, and they wanted to know that the city council would look at doing whatever it could to provide some relief.
When I discussed the proposed council procedure manual with the mayor earlier this week I made it clear that I felt many of the restrictions in the new rules were uncalled for. Of the 300 or so city meetings I’ve sat in on since 1998 I’ve never seen anyone have to be removed for getting out of hand. Likewise, I would venture to say I’ve only seen people get loud at maybe a half dozen meetings or so, including the “very memorable” meeting at the civic center. I’ve never witnessed a citizen of this community raise their voice at a public meeting unless they were adressing the council about a topic they were very passionate about. I witnessed numerous incidents where a portion of the crowd would clap and cheer for a point made which lined up with how they felt about a topic — whether that point was made by a fellow citizen, a council member or the mayor. I’ve witnessed thousands of conversations directly between council members ... or between council members and citizens, the mayor, or any combination thereof. In nearly all those cases a good exchange of information resulted, and some amount of progress was made for this community. During my time I’ve witnessed some astounding growth in Farmington — growth that came from the free exchange of ideas and concepts between leadership and the citizenry (residents, developers, forward-thinking individuals).
This new council policy is too restraining. It takes away too much power from the elected eight and places it in the hands of the elected one. As I see it, either the council will read and study the proposed new rules and set straight some necessary changes required to keep the power in the hands of the council and citizenry, or the majority of the group will blindly follow along without asking questions and and approve a set of guidelines which will truly result in a “silence” of the lambs.
Ads by Yahoo!
Reader Comments (10)The comments below are from readers and do not represent the views of the Daily Journal
homer posted on Saturday, July 12th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
The council members are there to represent the citizens who elected them, correct? I've been to several meetings and they appear to run smoothly, even when a controversial issue is being brought up. The mayor of our town is not God and why would the council members want to put sole power in her (or his) hands. Keep things as they are! How many years has it worked satisfactorily? Why change now?
Report Abuse
23013045 posted on Wednesday, July 9th, 2008 at 7:55 am
To 3034392 -- Mr Beavers salary is more like $90,0000 plus benefits - which makes about $43/hr. I stated in my earlier post (which hasn't made it yet)that it was $80K. I believe you can verify this with Mr Smith.
CouncilmanSmith posted on Tuesday, July 8th, 2008 at 11:55 am
For some reason some of my comments were dropped from my first post.
I still believe this will be tabled because there are many who do not understand the wording (outside the council) and that it does not resemble policies that most people are used to dealing with. There are still some issues in the policy that need to be sorted out before I would support voting for it.
I still believe this will be tabled because there are many who do not understand the wording (outside the council) and that it does not resemble policies that most people are used to dealing with. There are still some issues in the policy that need to be sorted out before I would support voting for it.
denver posted on Monday, July 7th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
To add to what Scott1 has already posted, I'm the other Scott. Living in Denver, Colorado now and have for seven years. So as to avoid any confusion with the current Scott employed at J98/KREI, I did work at the station for several years until the summer of 2001 when I moved to Colorado.
I've had my sign-in changed by the site administrator here to avoid any further confusion.
I've had my sign-in changed by the site administrator here to avoid any further confusion.
Scott1 posted on Monday, July 7th, 2008 at 10:25 am
To avoid any confusion, I would like to clarify an issue regarding the previous post by Scott, who says he served years as a reporter at J-98. I am the only Scott employed at J-98, and I did not post that comment. As the head of a media outlet, it would not be ethical for me to publicly endorse another media's Op-Ed piece, in this case, regarding functions and processes of the City of Farmington. I realize imitation is apparently the sincerest form of flattery, but so readers understand, that was not me.
CouncilmanSmith posted on Sunday, July 6th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
I see this being table indefinitely...after some research, I don't see how it resembles Robert's Rules of Order much at all!!
Denver posted on Saturday, July 5th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Doug,
I agree with you on this. How would this affect the media calling council members? In my years as a reporter at J-98, I called council members many times for comments on issues. It appears this manual would take away that right. That would be a shame.
I understand the political hit you risk for taking a stand here. Good luck on getting the word out.
I agree with you on this. How would this affect the media calling council members? In my years as a reporter at J-98, I called council members many times for comments on issues. It appears this manual would take away that right. That would be a shame.
I understand the political hit you risk for taking a stand here. Good luck on getting the word out.
truthiness posted on Saturday, July 5th, 2008 at 8:28 am
Par for the course, Mr. Smith offers his valid opinion and it is a valid one. Why is it not possible for the council to follow "Robert's Rules of Order?" I can understand general disruption guidelines; in this day and age of public massacres, some rules should be established to prevent violence. But do we need to establish rules that if you are mayor, you/your business can't benefit? What does making this rule tell us about the current mayor? Ridiculous. Does the council really think it's going to be repeated? Can they guess what faux pas they'll have to write a rule for next?!
Concerned posted on Friday, July 4th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
How very appropriate that I read Doug Smith's article on the Fourth of July.
How did the City of Farmington get into such unfortunate shape with the current elected officials and the City Administrator? At the end of the American Revolution, which we are celebrating today, a French observer said that the problem with a Democracy is that the people get the government they deserve. The current mayor ran unapposed and 6 of the last 8 councilmen in the last two elections also ran unopposed. So look where we are. It time to quit with the apathy and if the citizens want fair, responsible government, its time to get involved. Dr. Rorex's recall was orchestrated by some special interest groups here in Farmington who used electric rates as the straw horse, but they proved it could be done. We now have a Mayor and City Administrator that the only reason anyone would follow them, by choice, would be from idle couriosity. The job of real leadership is the hear and serve the public, not try to muzzle them from fear of what they might hear.
How did the City of Farmington get into such unfortunate shape with the current elected officials and the City Administrator? At the end of the American Revolution, which we are celebrating today, a French observer said that the problem with a Democracy is that the people get the government they deserve. The current mayor ran unapposed and 6 of the last 8 councilmen in the last two elections also ran unopposed. So look where we are. It time to quit with the apathy and if the citizens want fair, responsible government, its time to get involved. Dr. Rorex's recall was orchestrated by some special interest groups here in Farmington who used electric rates as the straw horse, but they proved it could be done. We now have a Mayor and City Administrator that the only reason anyone would follow them, by choice, would be from idle couriosity. The job of real leadership is the hear and serve the public, not try to muzzle them from fear of what they might hear.
3034392 posted on Friday, July 4th, 2008 at 9:58 am
If you review Holdman's voting record on controversial issues, it will come as no surprise that he is the co-father of this idiotic proposal.
As far as Mr. Beavers, his salary amounts to approximately $35.00 per hour plus benefits. As a Farmington taxpayer, I resent my money being wasted on such a mickey mouse proposal.
As far as Mr. Beavers, his salary amounts to approximately $35.00 per hour plus benefits. As a Farmington taxpayer, I resent my money being wasted on such a mickey mouse proposal.
Search the archives
Last 30 Days
Advanced Search
Advanced Search
This Week's Most Viewed Stories
» All Most Viewed
This Week's Most Commented Stories
» Latest Comments
- Stem Cell Research (20)
- Council kills request to build duplexes in subdivision (17)
- Police seek man who attempted robbery (13)
- No lions, tigers or bears in city limits (10)
- Police make traffic stop, find meth (9)
» Latest Comments
This Week's Most Emailed Stories