7/18/2007

Wolfpack's Point...

...or, "Thoughts on Participatory Democracy."

Wolfpack makes a point in a comment below: "You write thoughtfully about city incompetence but the echo back is corruption. In my mind these are two very different charges and substituting one for the other does little to further the debate." I think his is a valid point of view and a good hook upon which to hang some further discussion of the issue.

First, in watching some of the people who have spoken at recent City Commission meetings, I was amazed at what a great job they did of changing my mind and convincing me. The problem, though, is that when they started talking I agreed with them. By the end of their comments, I was actually on the City's side.

These people have no apparent goal other than to confront the City. They are not trying to persuade the City Commission because you obviously persuade no one by insulting them and berating them. Are these speakers grandstanding for the tv audience? If they are, most people aren't getting it. (I do not include Ms. Overfield in this because she was actually trying to shed light on an issue; she was not ranting or raving.)

So what Wolfpack says is correct: The fact that you may disagree with a City Commission decision does not render the decision or the Commissioners corrupt. Adopting that perspective just makes you sound, well, goofy.

Second, though, is I can understand where some of these people are coming from in their comments. In discussing City action with people who follow it, I hear about a tremendous sense of frustration in our fellow citizens. People feel they are being ignored and shut out of the process. I think it is only natural that they grow suspicious.

Last night's meeting offered several examples of this. First, a local citizen asked who was the last customer signed up by Electric City Power (it's Barret Minerals, a talc mine in Dillon. Why we are building a coal plant in Great Falls in order to sell power to a talc mine in Dillon is a question for another day.)

In response, our City Manager launched into a long lecture, delivered in a mocking monologue, about how open the whole Electric City Power process has been from the start. On this, I call B*llshit. (Did I put the asterisk in the wrong place?) I have well documented my efforts, not completely successful, to obtain public records. I still do not have copies of Mr. Open Government, John Lawton's public record correspondence relating to the coal plant.

Yet here is the City Manager, politely scolding a citizen, "Oh you little ninny. We've shouted from the rooftops the names of ECP's customers. How could you be such a silly little boy as to not know who they are?" And the Commission nods along and smiles. Is it any surprise, Wolfpack, that people grow cynical and distrustful?

Likewise, Mary Jolley raised several very cogent points about the giving of 1.4 million dollars in security to SME. So did some other speakers. Yet the Commission quickly and quietly adopted the new agreement. When is the last time you saw the City Commission seriously listen to comments and change their action due to input from the public?

Public input ignored is not input at all.

So, yes, Wolfpack, you raise some legitimate points. I do not think, though, that the people's frustration is beyond understanding, either.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Since the Overfield episode I have read your blogs with interest. But, this is the first time I've felt a need to comment. I'd like to review what I "seen".
YouTube/Channel 7: Overfield was just reading a statement that was damning to those involved. She was shut down, violently.
Ecity: Copy of Overfield's speech, on-point, clear, non-"combative" and if read out loud ran about 4 minutes (mine, too, is an unofficial stop-watch).
3-minute Rule: According to your various bloggers and their info (which I have to say I couldn't find anything on, either), this rule came out of nowhere, and nowhere can it be found that the Commission posted information for a Public Hearing about it. They also didn't allow public comment. If they did allow that comment, their history shows they don't listen or change once they've decided what THEY want to do.
Participatory Democracy: By the Commissioners et al, "talking in the hall", telling people to "shut up", by "falsehoods", intimidating and removing citizens from meetings, by hiding police in the crowd, by circumventing discussion and "unanimous" votes for several months, I don't see participatory democracy in action.
Lynch-mob mentality: Wolfpack claims this is the mood of the moment, but he was public-blog screaming for Overfield's blood not two weeks ago.
Illegal: Well, you've covered SME and think there's something fishy. You've covered the coal plant and think there's something fishy. You've covered $500k Animal Control bid, and think there's something fishy.
Would people think there was something illegal going on if all this had been handled openly and correctly. Or, would people think there is an illegal action taking place, in one or more areas, because of all the sneaky actions and "done-deal presentations" by those in "power"?

Anonymous said...

Hmmm....working off of Wolfpack's point The fact that you may disagree with a City Commission decision does not render the decision or the Commissioners corrupt.

... one must definitely note: The City Commission agenda format allows citizens to speak on each issue prior to Commission discussion.

So what does "prior to Commission discussion mean"?

If things are discussed and decided prior to public meetings then how can they honestly state they encourage your participation?

What meetings does one attend to have ones opinion stated clearly for the record?

WolfPack said...

Anon2- I generally agree with what you have said. I also feel that some of the problems are institutional and good people are being vilified without proper justification. Good people can disagree without calling each other names.

Anonymous said...

RE: Likewise, Mary Jolley raised several very cogent points

Mary Jolley has been raising financial and legal discrepancies on this plant for a couple of years.

PL

Anonymous said...

on the other hand-some of the nutty comment in this blog get ignored too--isn't that the same thing--some comments just don't matter.....

Anonymous said...

Oh Anonymous 4.... your comment is sophistry at it finest!

Comments on E-City Blog whether retorted, reported or recorded are not ignored. Even when they run more than 3 minutes or are repetitive in nature they are at least read.

By the way, did you mention where we can link to and read City Commissioners documented discussions?

Just where do we locate files and recorded information where ignored citizens speak on issues prior to nutty Commission discussions?

Anonymous said...

Yeah Anon 4....

Just were do we find links to completely documented Commission discussions?

And can you tell us how GeeGuy can get the rest of the information Commissioners have ignored putting in the files?

Anonymous said...

ROFLOL...Lynch-mob mentality: Wolfpack claims this is the mood of the moment, but he was public-blog screaming for Overfield's blood not two weeks ago.

It is true! Comments on E-City Blog whether retorted, reported or recorded are not ignored. Even when they run more than 3 minutes or are repetitive in nature they are at least read.