Editor’s note:

This came to me yesterday. I’m sorry for the delay in publishing.

By Jim Sack

I am suffering an early withdrawal: no city council tonight, the first Tuesday I have away from council chambers since early June and only the third “evening away” since January when I began shadowing council. So, tonight, no camaraderie time with the reporter regulars who blog from council, or with the “citizens’ who come to keep an eye on their tax dollars, or with the occasional nut who rambles on from the microphone, with the support staff, with the affable Madame Clerk Kennedy, with the parade of administration “testifiers” and with the “niners.” Equally frustrating is missing my good glass or two of shiraz after council at Club Soda, an excellent place to calm one’s nerves after two hours of fiscal drama, and, occasionally comedy.

Here are a few thoughts on what I have learned.

Members have to be careful, very careful, with their words. Among members of council there are rules of decorum that are rarely breeched. It is a job, so week after week alliances are formed and reformed, the five votes that pass an ordinance at 6:01 p.m. are probably not the five that will pass a different ordinance at 8:05 p.m., so they must remain friendly, courteous and refrain from personal attacks, otherwise a council member may spite an offender by withholding a key vote.

The two “civility” offenders at the table this year were Councilwoman Liz Brown, who has a sharp and acerbic tongue, and Councilwoman Karen Goldner, who all but called Councilman Mitch Harper a liar. He was taken aback, but offered his disappointment in quite civil tones, as the rules require. Council Woman Brown, you may note, has more than once lost a vote 1 to 8. Councilman Pape also seems to test the boundaries of decorum with his attacks, often of the policies of Mrs. Brown or John Shoaff or his next-seat-neighbor, Councilman Harper. Mr. Shoaff and Mr. Harper would be the hands down winners of the politeness awards. Councilman Tom Didier would come in third and certainly challenge Mr. Shoaff for Miss Congeniality.

Councilman Bender gets the award for saying the least during the course of a year’s meetings. It remains a question of whether he has anything to say, or just wants to get home early and fears prolonging a meeting with a comment. Regardless, he seems to be the choice to replace Mr. Smith as council president, so meetings may be much shorter, or they could also be more chaotic. Smith kept the meetings notably on track and Mr. Bender hasn’t shown the same parliamentary skills; on the other hand, Mr. Bender has expressed his disdain for that pesky First Amendment, so perhaps he will foreshorten meetings by stifling citizen comment.

The party labels, we could add, don’t always matter, in fact, frequently don’t matter at the table. True, Mr. Pape and Ms. Goldner are staunch Democrats and usually back the mayor, even, in the case of Mr. Pape, when he disagrees with the mayor. He is a party man, so if he can’t talk his mayor out of a bad idea he will vote to support his party leader. There is something admirable in that, and something a bit sad. One would hope in the future that Mr. Pape will be able to steer Mr. Mayor Henry on more fortuitous courses of action. On the other side of aisle, Mr. Didier, Smith and Harper consider themselves Republicans and are also party-savvy, but frequently they will vote with Democrats when they believe it is in the best interests of the city. Or, perhaps they would see it that they have won the votes of Democrats to their superior positions. Mr.s Shoaff often votes with Mr. Smith and Mr. Harper, especially on fiscal matters.

Years ago, when Sam Talarico Sr. was on council the joke was that on controversial votes Sam, alphabetically the last one to vote, could be swayed by last minute whispers from the council members on either side of him. So it is with Tom Didier. Tom is one of the most genuine and kindest men you will ever meet. He is deeply spiritual, self-effacing, giving and respectfully, but he has also been manipulated into a vote by the administration, later only to find out they have not been fully open with him. He had a moment of anger at table, understated and reserved, when he learned the $14 million to buy and renovate Renaissance would grow by $4 million in legal fees, title work, etc. “Why didn’t you tell me that?” he said with disappointment to a city official. “My customers just wanna know the bottom line, and so do I.”

Glynn Hines is an “independent.” It is said that he cares only for his district, so if a bill effects his neighborhoods he will be a tough vote to move. Hines recently was one of the organizers of the “grassroots” uprising against the recycling center on Pontiac Street for his own political gain. He brought 60 misinformed citizens, some quite rude, into the chamber to pressure his fellow council members. He did not lead said uprising last year, when the matter in question was subject to public comment and approval, but now he is the leader to save a neighborhood that died when Harvester moved to Springfield and that will benefit from the jobs.

So, tonight I will drink a glass in my living room before the fire and wonder if meetings, under the Bender gavel, will move smoothly, if Brown will learn that winning in politics requires civility, and if Mr. Didier will get it sooner. I trust Shoaff, Harper and Smith will continue to be the most effective members of council.

If you find this article informative? Consider donating any amount you choose.

No related posts.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, December 23rd, 2009 at 8:51 pm and is filed under City & County Government. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.