On the agenda for Thursday night’s (tonight’s) city council meeting at 7:15 under new business is a request from at large city councilor Michael Bardsley to remove tabling of the resolution regarding city council responsibility for holding public meetings on the proposed landfill expansion. Previously there was a 5-3 vote not to do so, despite numerous requests by residents in favor of such activity. No one has spoken during public comment periods in opposition to the un-tabling of the resolution and to my knowledge the council has not made public any communications from residents urging them not to un-table the resolution. Because the matter has not been put back on the table, no public discussion has taken place on the matter between members of the council and no vote has transpired on the resolution proper.
I argue that the community deserves more from our elected officials, that they have not one but two roles here, as a quasi-judicial body and individually as representatives of the people. While admittedly difficult, I believe that members of the council can do a better job of achieving a balance between the two roles. At the very least they should vote on the original resolution and explain their rationales to the constituents of the city. That is the only way that we can hold our elected leaders accountable.
Though the city solicitor Janet Sheppard and special municipal counsel Michael Pill have advised the council against participating in outside forums because of a perceived complexity in documenting the proceedings, they have not indicated that councilors cannot legally participate in outside forums or sponsor their own. If anyone can present evidence to the contrary please offer it. I argue that the only complexity to councilors acting in such a fashion is in making sure that the details of any such events are recorded and submitted to the clerk of the council for the public record. This is done regularly and can be accomplished with audio and/or video equipment, with pictures and transcribed notes, or via cable access television. With a variety of traditional and citizen journalists and media types active in the community, the complexity is overstated in my view and has been granted undue weight by some members of the council.
While it is true that deliberative democracy can be cumbersome, this is a complex issue that in my view would benefit from more community dialogue, not less. In effect, two members of the legal profession whose services are secured paternally by the city’s executive branch are guiding the level of public discourse on the proposed landfill expansion. In this case the executive branch, through its legal intermediaries,is stifling the legislative branch of our local government. In my view a better avenue would have been for the mayor to have granted the council its own legal services budget thereby allowing it to secure its own chosen representation rather than hiring for it an outside attorney. The perception here is unfortunate.
Moreover, the above mentioned attorneys have argued that a limited discourse is the best way to ensure that the city will prevail should potential lawsuits emerge, but they have not argued on behalf of the best way to inform and serve Northampton’s residents. To use a sports analogy, this is managing not-to-lose rather than to win and often this tactic fails to produce the best results.
In my mind there is no small irony in the mayor gearing the community up for an override vote next spring while at the same time stifling discussion between members of the public and their councilors on a critical issue before us. In other words, we will be asked to give public officials discretion over more of our money while at the same time we are told that we cannot engage in discussions with our leaders on this issue of critical impact. In the light of adversity Franklin D. Roosevelt said during his first presidential inauguration in 1933 that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. With that in mind, the council should show some fortitude and not be afraid to share the deliberative burden with citizens. Showing some mettle by engaging the community in robust public discussions on the landfill proposal would go a long way towards bringing the community together in seeking a consensus on this issue in a way that public hearings do not permit. All it would take to achieve this goal is a video camera.
Please reconsider.
