Roger:
You've asked why not deal with New Albany's problems and issues rather than focusing on the health care reform effort. I'll answer that question, but I fully understand it is merely subtext for the real questions which are suggested by last night's Council meeting and some of which were asked directly by Jeff in a comment in a previous post (...Day 20).
First, the health care issue. I believe there is not a more important issue today. It has effects at the local level and the failure to pass meaningful reform, I believe, dooms Obama's presidency. I am putting these articles on my blog as a small, perhaps insignificant, contribution to what I hope becomes a current of support for reform. Aside from your knock, Jeff, I hope someone reads them as something beyond "making fun of town howls". Meaningful health reform has the potential to transform this nation in a positive way to a greater extent than anything else currently on the horizon.
My recollection of the chronology leading to your expulsion last night...
As I sat through Ms. Denhart's comments I actually thought someone had brought a baby to the meeting and it had just awoken to cry. That was my first reaction to the unusual noise. I still don't know who made the noises but I know now it wasn't a baby. If my memory is correct, the next thing I heard was Steve Price saying something about respect for the speaker. You called something out to Steve and you were gavelled down. You said something else and the cop walked over to escort you out. On the way past Ms. Denhart, you leaned in and called her a "lying bitch". Others inferred a modifier in the phrase but that's all I heard.
You are entitled to your opinions. Ms. Denhart is, likewise, entitled to hers. I recognize that your opinion of me and the other Council members as constituting possibly "The Worst Council in the History of the World" leaves little chance that you will heed any of my words here.
I believe you hold an important place in this community. I believe you know that. I believe that your new business is a valuable addition to the city and it is one major piece of an encouraging future for New Albany. If you recall, I wrote comments on your blog attempting to deflect some brickbats thrown your way, perhaps even by Ms. Denhart. In that comment, if I can recall it, I think I said that New Albany will gain much more from the money spent on the sidewalk improvements in front of your business than what was spent on it. Regardless of your current opinion of me, I stand by that comment. Ms. Denhart was wrong to throw an insult your way regarding the sidewalk and, mistakenly, the patio. But that in no way can excuse your behavior.
Early this year Jeff Gillenwater, bluegill, was verbally accosted by Dan Coffey. I spoke in the Council chamber to denounce the Council president's behavior. It was wrong then and it is wrong now. I would speak up again in that circumstance. I don't mention that to get a pat on the back, but to help you recall that the Council has addressed such an issue when warranted.
I fully understand that you and your friends do not think New Albany is on the right path to a better future. You've stated often that you believe the Council is an impediment to that better day. I also understand that your greatest ire is probably not directed at me but at Dan Coffey and Steve Price. Both of these Council Members are veterans and have built up a sufficient degree of loyalty to be returned to the Council. I would guess your first reaction to that comment is to think that the results are illegitimate because of the current district apportionment. I continue to believe that issue will be addressed.
As I said, you are in my opinion, a valuable contributor to this city's current revitalization and its future prospects. Anyone who steps up to address the problems of this city is valuable to the effort of correcting those problems and opening up opportunities. It takes a certain amount of courage and concern to stand before a group of strangers and speak your mind. Citizens who come to the Council chamber, or any other venue, addressing issues of concern to them, or the public at large are owed nothing less than respect.
Last night's meeting was a disgrace. Regardless of whether Steve Price was out of line addressing the gallery, or if Dan Coffey exercised the prerogatives of the chair in a manner you saw as unfair, your response directed at Ms. Denhart was indefensible. A racial epithet directed at a black man or a derogatory term directed at a homosexual would have been equally indefensible.
You have built up a store of the un-elected version of political capital, and a sizable amount in my view. You have the intellectual tools to further your aims, and as I said earlier, I believe your aims, as demonstrated by your actions, are beneficial to New Albany's future. Continued actions such as you displayed last night jeopardize your ability to contribute to that future because those actions squander the so-called "political capital". As one who believes in your realized and unrealized contributions to our city, I think it would be a shame to lose that opportunity.
I am not writing this with some prescription of atonement. I believe that you voted for me and that if I run again, you probably won't. I can't help that. I'll not make any excuses for my success or failure as a councilman. I will continue to try in my imperfect way to make this a better place to live and if my efforts don't please the citizens, I am plainly aware of the outcome.
Finally, bluegill characterized the Council's action as sitting on our hands as a melee erupted. Part of the reason I laid out the chronology above was to show that events happened in a rapid and confusing sequence. By the time I, or perhaps anyone, would have had a chance to react, Ms. Denhart had been insulted. At that point, your feet had left the diving board. Whatever contribution you could have made to that meeting was lost. It was your choice. And, it was wrong.
Believe it or not, this is offered in a spirit of peace, with hope that similar incidents will not happen.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
John,
My criticism was not solely directed toward last night nor toward Roger's ejection from the meeting.
Whether or not the ejection was justifiable is debatable. My frustration, however, came when Mr. Coffey immediately followed the ejection and his calls for the enforcement of rules and behavioral standards with a blatant violation of the rules, namely, his declaration that the council would be discussing non-agenda items and that he unilaterally was changing the order of business to accommodate a speaker that he'd personally invited to speak. That is prohibited by Robert's Rules. New Albany law specifies that council meetings are to be conducted by those rules unless otherwise specifically addressed by ordinance.
I realize the council may have had no knowledge of Coffey's invitation to Mr. Berryman to speak. However, they were keenly aware of the rules regarding order of business as they demonstrated that knowledge earlier in the same meeting via a motion and vote to advance the approval of CF-1 forms. The situation was exacerbated by the fact that only those non-agenda speakers personally selected by Mr. Coffey were allowed to advance in line.
Those types of rules violations occur regularly. Mr. Coffey has consistently engaged in debate from the president's chair. That, too, is prohibited. To my knowledge, that's only been addressed once, by Jack Messer, even though it is a common occurrence.
Likewise, there have been several other instances in which Mr. Coffey has gavelled down speakers, forcing them to adjust their speech to his whim and/or not allowing them to speak at all. In none of those cases did any of the remaining council members speak out.
Mr. Coffey also appointed himself to various commissions. The law says that is not allowed.
Quite frankly, I'm tired of hearing about your hopes for eventual fair redistricting in our city. If you truly thought it was an important issue, you would use the opportunity you have to address the time allotted for communication from city officials during council meetings to call for redistricting. Neither you nor any other member has used that time for such to my knowledge.
As I communicated at the time, I appreciate your speaking about Mr. Coffey's assault on me. I did and still do find it odd that your doing so was seen as such a substantial undertaking. I was also somewhat offended that other council members expressed to me privately that they were appalled by Coffey's actions but were completely unwilling to speak to the topic publicly. To say that the Council addressed Coffey's behavior is inaccurate. Out of eight, only one council member (you) engaged in the topic even though you and the Council's attorney were able to provide eye/ear witness accounts.
When members of the council begin to regularly address the above mentioned and similar topics at appropriate times during council meetings, my criticism along those lines will cease.
Otherwise, it's been generally disappointing to see this council adopt the same decay management attitude that's been so prevalent in previous councils. Thus far, there have almost no ideas for advancement brought forward.
I don't have time today to give your open letter the attention it deserves. I promise to do so when time permits. I'll be spending something on the order of 12 hours today working (at the Celtic Fest) toward making NA an attractive place for visitors and future residents. That's 12 hours more than some of your council colleagues have managed during the past year and a half, but so it goes.
It doesn't please me to lose my temper, primarily because insofar as I was taught anything at all by my father about anger management, the lesson was that it's okay to erupt. I try not to do so. Most of the time, I succeed. Some of the time, I fail. Thursday was a failure kind of night. So it goes.
Just do me one favor, John. Think back to the past few months, your first term on the council, and tell me: Who among you is LEADING in a positive mannner?
The answer will inform you of the level of frustration out here on the ground, where quite a few people are LEADING and receiving no support whatsoever from the elected body. That sort of situation leads to anger, whether managed well or not.
Shall I reprint our exchange here in NAC, once we've concluded?
I'm out most of the day and will return to this later. If you want to take to NAC that's okay. Or if you want to let it be, that's okay too.
Mr. Coffey was quick with the hook. So that's the new rule
Traditionally, the council chair has the responsibility to restore order. In the past, he (and it's always a he) demonstrated his seriousness by calling on the assistance of the police officer in attendance, who serves as a damper on passions, and most often as a final warning.
That Mr. Coffey chose not to issue a warning will come back to bite him.
In fact, John, Mr. Price escalated things beyond the norm. If Mr. Price perceives something to be out of line, it is his responsibility to call it to the attention of the council president and ask him to restore order.
Instead, Mr. Price began yelling at a member of the public during public comment period. That is completely out of control, though not out of character.
Whatever audible words or grunts emanated from Mr. Baylor's quarter, they pale in comparison to the REGULAR disruptions caused by Denhart at every council meeting she has ever attended. Rogers protestations were mild denials of slander - slanders being allowed, if not encouraged, by the council.
(cont'd)
continued...
One should never expect to come to a public council meeting and be slandered from the podium. At a minimum, the council president should have invited Mr. Baylor to respond.
Instead, and because Mr. Price was complicit in the ongoing slander, Mr. Price loudly and forcefully singled out Mr. Baylor, breaking all rules of procedure.
Only at that point, after being engaged by a council member, did Mr. Baylor do anything to draw attention to his plaint. He was practically invited to respond when Mr. Price broke protocol. For that, he was ejected.
Make no mistake about what you report as "Ms. Denhart was wrong to throw an insult your way regarding the sidewalk and, mistakenly, the patio." That was far more than an insult. It was an accusation of corrupt conduct, hardly a mere insult.
Denhart should have been off the stage by that time, in any case. Her five minutes had passed. I believe the injustice of being first slandered, then accosted improperly and threateningly, and finally being summarily removed from a public meeting certainly motivated Mr. Baylor's parting shot.
But Mr. Baylor did not start it, and he was not allowed to finish it. NO ONE can rightfully say that they believed that Mr. Baylor's continued presence at the meeting, as a working journalist, no less, would have in any way prevented the council and the public from proceeding with the meeting. NO ONE. Not you. Not Coffey. Not Price.
The ejection was nothing more than a punitive swipe, under color of police power, at a political enemy.
Calling a liar a lying bitch? Who put Roger in the position where he could or would be so angry?
You, John, could have put a stop to it right there if you had insisted on proper procedure. You, John, could have moved to overrule the chair. You cannot say that you believe the council could not have proceeded with Roger remaining in the room.
Now, next meeting, when I stand up to berate Denhart for actually disrupting throughout the course of an entire meeting, I'll at least demand that the chair impose discipline, and it will be far more appropriate than Mr. Price's attack. I honestly thought he was going to physically attack Roger.
Blame ranking?
1. Coffey for not shutting down Denhart when her slanders began.
2. All council members for same.
3. Price for attacking Roger.
4. Coffey for not rebuking Price.
5. All council members for not rebuking Price.
6. Coffey for ejecting Roger.
7. All council members for not stopping it.
8. Roger for crudely hurling an insult, however truthful it might have been.
You say Roger squandered political capital? What, for saying "bitch?" So now, no one will ever listen to Roger again? Come on, you've got to be kidding.
If by "political capital" you mean that Roger might not be given an appointment or a party position by insiders, you may be right. I'm sure he'll lose a lot of sleep over that.
If you mean Roger's previously bright star as a potential elected office holder has dimmed, well, I've never seen Roger express much interest in doing that within the corrupt party structure.
This was mainly a fight between a council member and his constituent, with the ganging on help of the council, the council president, and the police. And the council member started it.
If I didn't know your good will, I'd be even more incredulous.
We all know who lost political capital Thursday night. It wasn't Roger.
This council lost whatever capital it may have had long ago-- illegally elected; quick to use rumor, innuendo, and procedural "oversights" as a tool to question the motives of and control others to the point of disenfranchisement and lawsuits; doing nothing to police themselves all the while.
I'd welcome a discussion with council members about political capital, credibility, and the rule of law. When do you think the council members would like to put discussion of all that on the public record, John? Should we invite party leaders also?
I'm curious. Does anybody put out any kind of training for newly elected officials so they know what to expect and have information as to what governs their actions and/or behavior? Although I realize that most of the council has been around more than one term, maybe they don't really know how to act. To paraphrase Mark Twain, it's easier to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt. Given that our council president does such a marvelous job at running roughshod over people, it may just be that it's easier to say nothing than to admit that you don't know enough to make meaningful comments and/or protests to what is occurring. I am hardly defending the actions or inactions of our councilmembers, but just raising the question. It would seem appropriate that some governmental or quasi-governmental body (is there an Indiana League of Cities?) might offer an orientation, training, indoctrination to newly elected officials to better help them carry out the duties of their offices. Does anybody know?
The Indiana Association of Cities and Towns does an orientation, SB. John reported that he and one other new council member attended.
Regardless of whether they've been been formally educated or not, I don't think it's too much to ask that each member familiarize themselves with Robert's Rules of Order since our law makes clear that they should be followed.
I and others have had numerous conversations with several current council members who, in private, admit that they are very aware of the president's procedural and behavioral shortcomings. They just choose not to address them in the appropriate venue.
That creates a situation in which the only way to bring attention to them is for citizens to call them out as part of a meeting. Doing so, of course, is grounds for punitive action and/or ejection.
Either sit there and observe the sometimes illegal chaos quietly or be thrown out for objecting to it - not much of a choice.
Our City Council is a farce. Roger is a better man than I am because he can stand to attend the meetings.
I respect John for his efforts and opinions, but Roger's outburst is irrelevant in the grand scheme of dysfunction that is our City Council.
BG, you're right, of course, that those elected have the responsibility to learn their roles and what it is that directs their actions. My general sense here in NA is that, once elected, there is a feeling of power far beyond that which is actually conveyed with the office. I will acknowledge that my awareness is based on what I read on blogs and in the newspapers, rather than first-hand experience (I've only been to one council meeting since moving here four years ago), but I am also comfortable that what I am reading is a very reasonable representation of what occurs.
While I do not have the numbers handy to support this comment, it seems to me that we are electing our representatives with a majority of a minority. There are probably others who are smarter about this than me, but it seems that we need to educate, register, and motivate NA residents to action come the next election. And, we need to start now. When the 3rd district re-elects Steve Price, there is definitely work to be done. I'd like to say that I'm proud to live in the 4th district, but that would be a major stretch at best.
Rather than a group of neighborhood organizations, maybe we need a city-wide civic group to lead the way for progress. Not a CFA that's against everything, but one that says YES to a set of principles to guide our future. It might be too much to ask, but it's a thought.
So it is that the unwillingness of those councilpersons not named Coffey or Price to assert something approximating authority over a continually deteriorating situation makes them complicit in permitting tiny numbers of voters in the 1st and 3rd districts (kept tiny by the same councilpersons' refusal to redistrict) to call the shots of inaction that cripple a majority.
CM Gonder's recent writing about the health care debate shows me that he woon't tolerate such an inequality when it comes to counting votes at the national level. Why tolerate it at the local level, John?
A couple of thoughts...
"You have built up a store of the un-elected version of political capital."
That was a phrase I used when I could not come up with a more exact description of what I wanted to say. I still don't have it. Goodwill, credibility both come close. I didn't mean it to have a whit to do with politics.
I laid out a chronology of what happened, as I recalled it. What was surprising to me was how quickly we went from start to finish. That is not a dodge that says I would have jumped in, but as I said by the time the full, what 18 seconds? had elapsed, as I said originally, Roger's "feet had left the diving board." The fact that an on-going, long-standing, feud is brought in to a meeting, don't assume that everyone is up on who's at odds with whom and what is the weight of each nuanced phrase.
Again, as I said in the original post I'm not making any excuses for my success or failure on the Council. This Council still has over two years and I believe it will deliver positive results. Anything else I can say at this point would be counterproductive or self-serving.
My last comment should have been addressed to the Bookseller.
I voted for the redistricting.
"This Council still has over two years and I believe it will deliver positive results. Anything else I can say at this point would be counterproductive or self-serving."
This sounds rather like an "end of thread" indicator.
I asked on Saturday morning:
"Just do me one favor, John. Think back to the past few months, your first term on the council, and tell me: Who among you is LEADING in a positive mannner?"
The silence is deafening. In this gaping leadership chasm, Dan Coffey is only too happy to offer an alternative. Unfortunately, his prescription is calculated to kill the patient deader than the King of Pop.
"I will acknowledge that my awareness is based on what I read on blogs and in the newspapers, rather than first-hand experience (I've only been to one council meeting since moving here four years ago), but I am also comfortable that what I am reading is a very reasonable representation of what occurs."
I would have to respectfully disagree with you on a "reasonable representation". If you’re only getting your information from the local news paper and blogs you are being very deprived of truthful information.
The paper is not at fault. There is only so much room for the news let alone gossip. Quite frankly the local paper needs to stay as natural as possible concerning politics.
Getting your information off of local blogs and formulating an opinion is no different than picking up propaganda literature. In the context of this blog’s topic you have a council person giving great advice and instead of heeding that good advice the intended person and friends play blame games when they should be looking at themselves.
I have and do go to council meetings and the way that the council is being portrayed by comments under this topic and postings on "other" blogs are far from a true representation of reality.
If someone from another city would randomly appear and read "other" blogs they would think that the city is being ran by council persons Coffey and Price, that everyone in New Albany are idiots, and that the alternative is a hate group lead by a bar owner.
There have been times that I have been surprised by how the city council has voted as a majority and I say as a majority because it takes 5 votes to win approval of an ordinance and not just 2; they way others would have you think. My surprise has not been that the council voted stupidly but that they have voted adamantly to what they are asking for. If you do attend you will find out that the city council is tired of seeing money being wasted and spent unwisely. They only ask for comprehensive plans or information on how money will be spent and an assuredness that money will be used accordingly. The problem that they are having is an administration that has been quoted in the local paper saying “I will not be micro-managed” I get the impression that if the council had more respect from the Mayor’s office there would less gridlock. The sad thing is that the Mayor’s office is a capable staff and could be a great administration, for New Albany standards, but as you put it “My general sense here in NA is that, once elected, there is a feeling of power far beyond that which is actually conveyed with the office.” That goes both ways. This is my opinion.
"I will acknowledge that my awareness is based on what I read on blogs and in the newspapers, rather than first-hand experience (I've only been to one council meeting since moving here four years ago), but I am also comfortable that what I am reading is a very reasonable representation of what occurs."
I would have to respectfully disagree with you on a "reasonable representation". If you’re only getting your information from the local news paper and blogs you are being very deprived of truthful information.
The paper is not at fault. There is only so much room for the news let alone gossip. Quite frankly the local paper needs to stay as natural as possible concerning politics.
Getting your information off of local blogs and formulating an opinion is no different than picking up propaganda literature. In the context of this blog’s topic you have a council person giving great advice and instead of heeding that good advice the intended person and friends play blame games when they should be looking at themselves.
I have and do go to council meetings and the way that the council is being portrayed by comments under this topic's postings and on "other" blogs are far from a true representation of reality.
If someone from another city would randomly appear and read "other" blogs they would think that the city is being ran by council persons Coffey and Price, that everyone in New Albany are idiots, and that the alternative is a hate group lead by a bar owner.
There have been times that I have been surprised by how the city council has voted as a majority and I say as a majority because it takes 5 votes to win approval of an ordinance and not just 2; the way others would have you think. My surprise has not been that the council voted stupidly but that they have voted adamantly to what they are asking for. If you do attend you will find out that the city council is tired of seeing money being wasted and spent unwisely. They only ask for comprehensive plans or information on how money will be spent and an assuredness that money will be used accordingly. The problem that is occruring is an administration that has been quoted in the local paper saying “I will not be micro-managed” I get the impression that if the council had more respect from the Mayor’s office there would be less gridlock. The sad thing is that the Mayor’s office is a capable staff and could be a great administration, for New Albany standards, but as you put it “My general sense here in NA is that, once elected, there is a feeling of power far beyond that which is actually conveyed with the office.” That goes both ways. This is my opinion.
If I'm not mistaken, RemCha only recently began attending the meetings.
If he accepts the council's protestations at face value and dismisses the doltishness and self-interest on display twice a month, then I have some property for him to buy located down around Castlewood.
It isn't in a flood plain -- isn't that reassurance enough?
What is RemCha's stance on redistricting and the council's history with that particular concept?
Tell me is he finds any heroes there.
The first time that I attended council meetings was in 1997 I can still remember what was on the agenda.
As the districting is concerned on the premise that if we are in violation of the law we need to be in compliance.
Thank you.
Could you estmate how many meetings have you attended since 1997, and before this year? I began going regularly in 2004.
Thanks.
John ... with the utmost personal respect:
"Just do me one favor, John. Think back to the past few months, your first term on the council, and tell me: Who among you is LEADING in a positive mannner?"
Why did you undertake this thread and then terminate it so abruptly?
With sincerity: I asked you a question. If you'd like to answer it privately, I understand and await. Otherwise, this is very disappointing, although I do appreciate that you're the only council member willing or able to use the word dialogue.
I'm fairly frustrated. Sorry if that's a bothersome emotion.
There was a five year hiatus I didn't live in Floyd County
If I had to put a number on it under a fifty before now
If I recall correctly the first meeting I attended had to do with a development and it's drainage but it could have been county council I attend them also
New Albanian:
The question you ask is a version of ones I ask myself often.
What are the dynamics of the body?
What is the proper role?
How to put forth ideas that are of wide and genuine benefit rather than a representation of a narrow view that perhaps, I alone, might hold?
What is our relationship to the administration?
To what extent does our fiscal oversight actually serve that purpose rather than furthering a personal agenda?
How can the Council cooperate with the administration without assuming a supine position?
Is that concern itself simply a reflection of ego?
Is the information I get from any outside source, factual or a type of spin?
So, yes I think about it, perhaps not constantly, but often.
As I said, I don't think there's much for me to add without my veering down the path of counterproductive and self-serving
blather.
But can you cooperate with the vandals and second raters who drive the agenda, also without "assuming a supine position?"
Right; I know -- You "don't think there's much for me to add without my veering down the path of counterproductive and self-serving
blather."
And so, there we stop. To avoid Coffey-like behavior, you permit him to render you and the others, well, supine.
What a spectacle this has turned out to be. Given the current reality, how on earth can there be predictions of glowing success in the remaining two years, especially when the electoral posturing has already begun?
Escorts in Chandigarh Our Escorts Services Charges are very reasonable and comfortable in Chandigarh, there is no negotiation is possible. we deals on high profile escorts service in Chandigarh.
Post a Comment