In April, there was the feel and flavor of an old time town meeting. Individuals came to listen and make comment because they cared about the community as a whole. There was a level of mutual respect that may have dipped or peaked on occasion, but it was mostly healthy. The audience was comprised of a dozen or so people, roughly matching Council plus its "support" (the secretary, solicitor, engineer, police chief, etc).
I found these meetings to be good for they demonstrated both concern as well as an understanding of the community and its government. I didn't see "politics" in the sense of party line votes. There were disagreements, but all-in-all the Council found consensus and voted accordingly.
I greatly appreciated, and still do, Council President Dan Chiavaroli's approach to managing the meetings. It is not dictated to the people - it is open to them. The Council is not put on a pedestal, untouchable and out of reach - but on a level plane - it is equal to them. He also steps up to the role of teacher when it is clear people are in attendance who are not familiar with the Council procedures. He has extended the period of public comment to allow all voices to be heard. In short he has shown tremendous respect for the people of the community.
As we entered August, Chiavaroli's approach has not changed, however, the temperament within the Council Chambers had. The driving force behind the change has been the new government center proposal.
Each month since April, the meeting attendance has swelled during public comment periods. Residents have come to state their displeasure with the proposal. Many of these individuals are not familiar with the standard procedure and have at times made comments and demands that they ought not have and were not entitled to. On the other hand, the Borough's solicitor and members of Council themself have done the same, showing an equal lack of respect for the people, as some of the people have to them.
Not surprisingly, each side focuses on the negative actions of the other and the jibes and insults build as every spoken word is taken to be derisive and every piece of body language offensive. Defenses are up. Each comment, question, and suggestion either becomes a challenge or is disregarded as not being credible due to its source.
And so our Council Chamber has become an arena filled with combatants.
Is it overly simplistic to say its time to:
- Take a deep breath and count to 10 (okay in this case 100), then
- Take a step back and look once again at the big picture, and
- Sit back down at the table, Council and Public together, and start identifying common ground from which we can work toward a solution?
What do you think? Are the two options proposed reconcilable? Have opinions become so strong that this has become all or nothing? What do you think will happen next? We all have a bit less than a month to think about it, and I'd love to share comments with the Council at the next workshop. Please post a comment or email me at editor@newsovercoffee.com
9 comments:
Although I am confused by the tone, I agree with some of Ross's comments.
I do believe that certain members of council view the public as ignorant bumpkins who should be taken lightly or not really considered at all. Some of councils' comments, particularly Councilman Davis' lead me to believe that they are nothing more than annoyed and inconvenienced but the increased public presence at 'their' meetings lately; like pests that will dwindle down to nothing when the weather turns colder.
I have been to three meeting's with my wife thus far and have not made any public comments ourselves. Mainly we let others do the talking and take it all in. We feel that some of the public comments, a few, really are not well thought-out. Some people "shoot themselves in the foot" by making sub-par comments, being long-winded, and asking questions during comment-only periods. But many, probably most, have been outstanding comments that seem like they would carry a great deal of weight if only council would listen to them.
The July meeting was hostile, yes. But the August meeting was remarkably more civil...disorganized and unnecessarily long...but civil.
I think the tone itself is confused because while I myself tried to step back and not be emotional, let's face it - it's a pretty emotional issue, not to mention important.
There are personal differences of opinion and clear differences in the ability of various individuals to make a real impact, which results in frustration by those who are limited and feel as you point out ignored or brushed off.
Then too, there is dissapointment. Based on who asked questions and from some side conversations after the meeting, it seems the first response to each plan was to find fault in one to support the other.
I agree it was more civil and long, but there was more than a line in the sand drawn. I'm hoping those who have been entrusted with the power to make these critical decisions can withdraw themselves from the petty, personal, and emotional, and make a choice that benefits us all and as one person noted helps to launch our Main Street revitalization efforts.
This is an opportunity that does not happen very often.
Thanks and sorry for the confusion, sometimes juggling the role of resident with that of "reporter" is tough;-)
Ross
Ross, I've only attended two recent council meetings, but have attended hundreds of public meetings throughout the county. The attitude among the citizenry that I see displayed in Nazareth is actually better than that displayed to other governments.
And the attitude I see displayed by council members towards the public is generally respectfuul as well. I share your respect for the prez. He genuinely cares about the people and their right to speak. But there are some things that bother me. I mentioned Councilmen Stoudt and Davis yesterday, and will say again that I am perturbed by Stoudt's arrrogance and Davis' condescending manner. And the solicitor's nonverbal attitude during public comment is very insulting.
And I must tell you that I don't trust government in any form. In fact, our country was founded by a bunch of people who didn't trust their government. Once you start getting into a cozy relationship with the guys who think they run everything, you're dead.
The friction you've noted is a sign of democracy in action. It's loud, unwieldy, circus-like, inefficient. It's also better than any other form of government.
I've been working on a post about "Community Pride" because it was tossed around in quite a few different ways at the last meeting, but to me this speaks to it.
I think the meetings here are better because of Community Pride. There is respect for hard work in Nazareth, and serving on Council is hard work, particularly in light of the compensation. So people respect that in general, however, as I noted it has deteriorated of late for reasons noted earlier (on all sides).
I simply want to see our officials and Council step up and have someone lead us out of the current turmoil and toward the opportunity that is sitting before us. There are good candidates, but we're not there yet.
I agree with your take on our government to an extent, it can be those things you mention, but it can also be even more.
In Harrisburg a resolution would be to water down a bill with add-ons to appease enough people to get the necessary votes. Or threaten to reduce their office expenses until they vote your way.
What draws me to the most local level of government is the lack of party politics and the ability to make and see a difference based on your efforts on a daily basis.
We've got to be chummy with our leaders because they are our neighbors, friends, and families.
For this reason, when its important, you have to do what you have to do, but then you also need to acknowledge when the point's been made and find a way to work together toward a positive resolution.
And to me, this is where we are at. I want to encourage this process to move forward - and that doesn't mean I want to let everything go (there is a serious issue regarding the way meetings were conducted that can't be forgotten), but as this single issue stands - it is time.
Thanks again for your continued insight and commentary - you've gone from a sip to a carafe of NewsOverCoffee and it's much appreciated!
Ross,
From what the citizen's action committee has discovered about 95% or more of the taxpayers of this town want:
Not in the Park
In the downtown
In budget
If they elect council members to represent them then I think that is what they should do.
If the people think they are not being listened to then they have an obligation to do what they must to be heard.
I hope council can see what is happening. That the people only want to make sure that their wants, wishes, concerns, etc. are respected. They are the majority. I don't see this as political at all. I think it's becoming personal to some of the council members.
The meetings are good for both sides. I hope they can come to a decision that satisfys most everyone.
I say keep up the fight for:
Not in the Park
In the downtown
In budget
I think we're at a turning point now. The ball is in Council's court or maybe Councilman Davis' court. If Davis' special committee holds public meetings to review the two plans and brings a list of pros and cons for each plan to Council, then the atmosphere will improve dramatically. If the committee meets in secret or doesn't meet and makes a motion to approve the plan in the park, then the atmosphere will go down the tubes. And things will be bad for a long time.
By the way I gree with you about Council President Chiavaroli; he's done a great job under very difficult circumstances.
First off, thanks for everyone who has commented and I hope more do as this is such an important community-wide issue.
Livie gets to a point I was actually a bit curious about - what is the role of the committee now?
One could argue that the committee's work is done. The committee was charged with presenting a plan to council, which they did on Monday.
It may be a more productive use of time for this process to continue not in committee, but instead by the whole council at workshop sessions for all to hear (or special sessions say one hour before the workshop). This would also allow the mayor, police, and others with an invested interest to contribute.
I can't see what a committee needs to do now that the plan has been presented. Council has both plans, they have both costs. They need to ask some questions and make some considerations. I think the process would be best served if it was done with everyone together.
And to the latest anonymous, I agree with you nearly point for point.
Thanks again for taking your time to visit newsovercoffee!
Actually, I think the commitee does have some more work. The citizen's proposal was not as fleshed out or finalized as the council's proposal. I think the commitee needs to look at the citizen's proposal more closely and even get further input from Cornerstone.
I liked the citizen's proposal very much. ALthough I admit I am skeptical of the low cost. But my wife made a good point to me: even if the cost is off by 100% it would still be much less expensive than the council's proposal!
newsovercoffee's got the paper boy...welcome aboard.
My point is that I think the committee presented a proposal as they were charged, and now Council should consider the proposals and how they want to move forward.
I agree with you in regard to the proposal and I am sure if you took aspects of each with the goal of finding innovative ways of achieving them (as Cornerstone did with the sloped floor) both plans can come together as one.
I also think it should be the entire Council, though and not 44.4% of it.
Have a great weekend and thanks again for taking a sip of NewsOverCoffee!
Post a Comment