The Republican‘s Mike Plaisance published an article today highlighting how Springfield City Council member Kateri Walsh is going to cause heads to roll when (and if) she becomes president of the council, as she anticipates. The council president—currently Jose Tosdao—by default serves as a member of the Finance Control Board. (The mayor is the other default member; three others are state-level appointees.)
The piece details ways in which Walsh and Mayor Charles Ryan may have clashed in the past, "criticisms" Walsh has made, and "faults" she has found, in the city council’s loss of decision-making accompanying state control due to the city’s financial crisis. But all three individuals quoted—FCB executive director Philip Puccia, Ryan, and Walsh—echo the same sentiment, which is essentially, we’ll have no problem working together.
Ryan: "I don’t anticipate any problems at all. This is an occupation where people have a responsibility to state how they feel. That doesn’t mean that everyone’s going to agree all the time."
Walsh: "My relationship with the mayor seems fine, very cordial. I think we have the same goal for the city."
Puccia, less poetic, but as always, pragmatic: "You’re stuck with each other and you have to make it work."
By digging into the past without current quotes to bolster the concept of inevitable disagreement, the article adds to the very problem of polarization between "insiders" and "outsiders." There is nothing new here, except old problems that have to be worked on, and possibly let go. In this case, it’s the leaders who sound like they’re working on it, and the newsroom that sounds hung up on conflict.
These machinations are subtle, and people really do change their minds. Of course leaders are going to disagree. If they didn’t, what kind of democracy would that leave us? Is their "clashing" and "criticism" the best news we can come up with?
Their task ahead is what I find interesting: how are they going to make that likely friction work for them?
Will a rabid thirst for exploiting friction in the media tone down enough for political leaders to feel safe talking honestly, and in context, about disagreements—allowing a clash to become a constructive force instead of a means to drive a wedge into every significant issue?
